Emil Jacobs - Collectifission

RE: https://troet.cafe/@herrwilliges/116131621924535332

For nuclear this number is: 78.885.000 kWh per hectare.

Energy density is amazing.

Source: https://greensfornuclear.energy/physical-footprint-comparison/

Mar 2 at 12:25pmWeb
Show threadGuillaume RossoliniMar 2
@collectifission and consistently (except 1 month or so per year for maintenance), contrary to wind
Show threadhicksy2Mar 2
@collectifission TLDR but do the figures include land use to mine raw materials and uranium for fuel, plus enrichment, reprocessing and waste storage facilities. I also loved the assertion that solar panels would 'probably' need replacing three times during the lifetime of Hinckley Point C.
Show threadEmil Jacobs - CollectifissionMar 2

@hicksy2 From a quick glance, it doesn't look like the source Greens for Nuclear uses includes a lifecycle approach, but below page by OWID does. The point being made isn't changed.

https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

And yeah, as things stand right now, it's 'probably' correct that solar parks need replacement about three times during the life of a nuclear power plant.

How does the land use of different electricity sources compare?

All energy production takes up land, but which sources use the most land, and which use it most efficiently?

Our World in Data
Show threadFornaxMar 3
@collectifission Only 4 times higher than wind? I expected it to be higher. I guess wind turbines are pretty good too
Show threadEmil Jacobs - CollectifissionMar 3
@fornax They're fine. You just need to think about their backup.