Submitted by paulfdietz t3_10i5km1 in technology
paulfdietz OP t1_j5jmdpk wrote
Reply to comment by TheRealEvanG in Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor by paulfdietz
Reliability is encompassed by cheapness, though. You deal with intermittency by adding storage and CO2-free backup, and this appears to be cheaper than doing things with nuclear.
For example: you can back up the entire grid with combustion turbines burning hydrogen or other non-fossil fuel. A combined cycle power plant has a capital cost of about $1/W, a simple cycle one, $0.50/W. Compare this to the nuclear plant at $10-20/W.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5jxozz wrote
Sure, but burning fossil fuels isn't the only environmental concern.
The Rolls-Royce 470MW SMR takes up 10 acres (40,500 m^2.) A 1 MWp solar farm takes about 10 acres.
Now assume that the 470MW outputs 400MW/hr 24 hours per day. That's 9,600 MW/day. A solar farm can only generate about the peak equivalent of 5hrs per day, so that 10 acres is only going to give you about 5MW per day (in perfect weather conditions.) To reach the same 9,600 MW/day that the SMR puts out, you'd need 3 square miles of land (7.77 km^2).
And that's not taking into account all the extra land you'd need for the storage and backup systems.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5k0wwf wrote
Land use is a complete canard.
We can estimate the value that society gives to putting land into a wild state by looking at other uses of land. In particular, we can look at agriculture. The value of crops produced per acre is not much. It's an order of magnitude less than the value of electrical energy produced by putting a PV field over that same land.
If the "wilderness value" of land were an obstacle to use of PV, it would absolutely be a showstopper for agriculture. And yet society doesn't treat agriculture that way at all (for example, by banning raising of crops for animal feed). So I conclude society doesn't value wilderness to an extent that would present any real obstacle to mass rollout of PV.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5k2zcc wrote
I'm not arguing on behalf of society. Obviously society agrees with you, which is why we see the massive construction of solar farms compared to very little construction of new nuclear power plants.
I'm disagreeing with society. In the next town over from where I live a private company was given a variance by the state to construct a 2 mi^2 solar farm on protected wooded wetlands. A SMR could easily provide the same output without compromising protected wooded wetlands, and it would've created more specialized jobs in the area.
Those kinds of projects shouldn't be happening. If you want to build a 10 mi^2 solar farm out in the middle of the Mojave, then I'm all for that, but if we're switching to green energy to protect the environment, then we shouldn't be compromising the environment to do it.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5k3cpu wrote
So, to be consistent, you should also be campaigning for the abolition of agriculture, and its replacement with food artificially synthesized with energy derived from nuclear reactors.
Are you doing this? If so, I'd maliciously love to hear how that suggestion plays out in the public sphere.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5kjs2v wrote
Food is not electricity. That's one of the worse false equivalencies I've seen in a while.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5kqz4v wrote
Most food is entertainment. Food just for human existence requires far less land than food that satisfies aesthetic concerns. For example, beef is enjoyed by many people, and it wastes something like 90% of the calories in the feed that goes to fattening the cattle.
So, most of the land used to grow food in the US is for making life more enjoyable, just like ultimately all the things are that energy is used for.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5ldk5d wrote
You're just making the false equivalency worse. Borderline strawman territory.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5lee3x wrote
I'm disagreeing that the equivalency is false.
I want you to explain how one can consider eating beef to be in any way different from using the land to instead make energy for industrial society. Why the inequivalence? Why is beef production somehow morally privileged? Justify, don't just assert.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5lohnl wrote
What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?
Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?
You're the one claiming they're the same thing. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how your equivalency is not false.
EDIT: Your equivalency is false because it's founded on the basis that I'm claiming electricity is a superfluous luxury, which I've never claimed.
paulfdietz OP t1_j5mbw57 wrote
> What is the more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce and equivalent amount of beef at the equovalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land?
Animal feed can be made from microorganisms grown on synthetic chemicals. This was done half a century ago:
The methanol there was made from natural gas, but it could be equally made from CO2 reacted with hydrogen produced by electrolysis.
> Additionally, how many new agricultural projects are slated to begin on protected land?
That's not the point. How much land could go back to wilderness if we weren't growing food on it? You are arbitrarily ruling out the value of land converted back to wilderness in this fashion, privileging food production on existing land for no reason other than inertia.
But suppose we go along with that, and just stick with existing farmland and consider it usable for any purpose just because we're already using it. Converting some of that farmland to PV collectors, and then allowing beef to become a bit more expensive (perhaps making some synthetic feed to compensate), would be a profitable thing to do -- the value of energy from PV on former agricultural land would be at least an order of magnitude higher than the value of the animal feed produced on that land. Would you object to this? If so, why?
> You're the one claiming they're the same thing.
In economic analysis, we can trade X off against Y. The tradeoff is based on the economic value of the activities. If land in a wild state has value, it has value regardless of whether we were considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection (or for any other use.)
The central point here is that farming doesn't deliver all that much value per acre. Why are you so hung up on preserving this, but objecting to the far more lucrative use of that land for PV? Your position is hypocritical.
TheRealEvanG t1_j5mjv2e wrote
> That's not the point.
That is the point. That's my point. It's irrelevant whether it's your point or not because we're not arguing about your point. We're arguing about my point.
I didn't say anything about land converted back to wild land. I said protected wild land shouldn't be being converted in the first place.
> It has value whether we are considering to use that land for farming or for solar energy collection.
So...you're saying that what you just claimed isn't the point actually is the point. I'm not saying it's okay to put agricultural land on protected woodlands, but not solar farms, and I'm not saying that no land anywhere should be used for energy generation. I'm saying that protected lands shouldn't be being released from their protected status so they can be razed for solar farms when there are perfectly viable alternatives. Feel free to re-read what I said if you think that wasn't my point (although I stated it explicitly by saying I don't care if you want to build a 10 mi^2 solar farm in the mojave.)
You're trying to discredit my position by equating lands already in agricultural use with protected wetlands and woodlands. It is both a false equivalency and a strawman.
You keep trying to use economics to manipulate my opinion, but my point was never an economic point to begin with. My point is an environmental point. The environment should be preserved when it can reasonably be preserved, even if it's not the most economically viable option.
If there is a more reliable, albeit slightly more expensive way to produce the equivalent amount of beef at the equivalent rate to that which is already being produced on agricultural land that also requires the conversion of less wild land than conventional agricultural techniques, then I'll advocate fully for its use, provided that it's not being carried out on otherwise protected land.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments