A big drama in the UK as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace discover that solar farms occupy plenty of space and cannot decide what is more evil: 7 hectares of nuclear power plant or 298 km2 of solar power plant.
@kravietz that reads more like propaganda than coherent argument, as if land use were the only topic here. Very one-sided.
But not surprising as he is part of this "generation atomic" thing, that is basically a lobby group posing as a "grassroots" organisation, no? ... whilst also working in the nuclear industry.
This kind of communication gives me the feel of PR greenwashing like when oil companies try to rebrand themselves as environmental. Not the whole story.
And yes, land use *is* a huge concern here, especially if you have to cover ~300 ha of land with glass.
@kravietz @nicksellen Hi there! Since I read your debate, I would like to add some thoughts.
1. Rewilding by nuclear power can really be effective. Demonstration sites can be visited in the Ukraine and in Japan.
2. Solar power can be integrated very well into the built environment. There is still a huge potential of space, even if it is more costly than solar farms. And it has the potential of democraticing the energy production and use (please don't start with mini nuclear plants, it is a difference if I get my energy from the sun, or from fission, including handling the waste).
3. If people decide to live with and from nuclear power, I respect that. As long as people who do not trust in this technology get a chance to live in nuclear free zones. And I personally would rather reduce my energy consumption than to live near a nuclear power plant. Besides, the question should not be nuclear vs. regenerative, but how do we want to live on this planet.
> Solar power can be integrated
Yes, with even lower efficiency than the usual 15%. So you need even more panels.
> And it has the potential
Nuclear fusion also has many potentials but it's not yet there. We can speak of it when potential becomes an actually engineered product.
@kravietz @nicksellen No, integrated solar panels do not automatically have less efficiency. And you speak about an efficiency that is based on free environmental energy.
> free environmental energy
It's never free if you first need to invest energy to make it, then maintain it and then recycle.
For example, most people speaking of PV rarely remember to mention that single industrial 500 MW solar farm uses 3'000'000 m3 of water per year just to clean the panels.
This is precisely why we look at indicators such as EROI or compare material inputs for manufacturing and operations.
> can be a worthwhile scientific and societal discussion
Excuse me, but this discussion has been happening for the last few decades already.
The data is absolutely clear: wind and solar have their place, but are resource-intensive and require storage and base load. As of today nuclear is the only zero-emission base load.
If you *choose* to ignore the whole scientific discussion only because "you don't like atom", please don't be surprised I'm not respecting your position.
@kravietz @nicksellen Oh great, solar panels and wind turbines have to be build. Nuclear power plants and their infrastructure on the other hand are totally CO2-free :)
Again, we've been there - compare EROEI (energy return on energy invested) - a modern PWR reactor returns the energy invested in 2 months, solar panels - in a couple of years.
@kravietz @nicksellen Again, there is not only one study that calculates the EROEI. It depends on the modelling and the data you put into the calculation. I mean, you certainly do not accept specific studies, like the ones paid by Greenpeace. That may be justified. However, I am allowed not to take everything at face value what is printed in any table, where I do not even know the source.
Here you go, here's probably like 20 estimates here, I took the one from UK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source
@kravietz @nicksellen I wrote that in respect to the used energy, in that case sun light, as compared to a nugget of uranium or thorium.
You are right that it is important to compare the whole life cycle costs of the provided energy. There we can apply different methods and regard different aspects. This can be a worthwhile scientific and societal discussion. Just do not expect to prove with any study that this technology or the other is THE solution.