@mattferrell
I am a layman in this debate, but I have thought for a long time now, that #nuclear is (and will continue to be) the most important renewable source of energy for a clean future. It is not truly renewable, but with the right fuel it is probably renewable enough.

The power density (W/m²) of nuclear is just so much higher than wind and solar. You can combine it with hydro/dam power to create 'batteries' of potential energy. It is always on, no dependence on sunshine or wind.

1/2

@Primetime @mattferrell please do the math on how much wind or solar could be built for one nuke plant. Or the math on how much storage could be built, given the way storage prices are falling.

And the math you're doing won't even properly be accounting for security for the facility or the transportation and storage of the fuel and waste.

Nukes are a boondoggle.

@qkslvrwolf @mattferrell
I'm not disputing that wind and solar are cheaper, not at all.
I was pointing out, that nuclear has a higher power density.

Solar has the higest power density of any renewable.
A good estimate for the mean power generation of solar is 5 W/m². A country like Germany expends a little over 1 W/m². To cover Germanys consumption with solar alone, you would need to cover 20% of the country in solar panels.

I'm saying there is not enough land for only the cheap options.

@Primetime @mattferrell that's not even a little true.

You could power my whole town by covering 1/3 of our parking lots with solar, and we're not even a sprawling town.

We could power everyone in the world easily with solar over buildings and pavement. And that's not even including the new building wind + solar options coming soon.

This is FUD

@qkslvrwolf
As I said, I am a layman. Therefore I am ready to rectify my own opinions if presented with good convincing arguments, based in hard facts (numbers). Anecdotal evidence is not convincing.

All figures I use for my back of the napkin calculations are from these publications:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2011.0431
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364032117304720?via%3Dihub

I am not out to create fear, uncertainty or doubt. I am here to have a discussion based in facts.
You could further the discussion by providing some.

@Primetime And the royal society one is 10 years old, and when trying to figure out origins of some of MacKay's numbers, I found people noting that he was using numbers that were both outdated and worst case scenario, while also buying "clean coal" claims without much skepticism.

That old MacKay report doesn't even dream of modern wind, modern wind capacity factors, or the explosion of storage potential. So not sure it's worth much time.