Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's wildly inefficient at scale (and that's if it can be done reliably). Check my numbers here—should be correct but I'd appreciate pushback—estimating 50% of annual U.S. usage in panels vs nuclear plants: https://imgur.com/a/zeHo21R . Even if we want 50% of our power nationwide to come from solar power, based on your 60 acre model that's still 6,429 of these installations or 385,753 acres (and that's with a gener…
First 385,753 acres is trivial in the US. The federal government for example manages 640,000,000 acres in the US, it’s a big freaking country. We where doing above ground nuclear testing because we just had that much unused space. As to output per day real world capacity factors for grid solar vary by location but tend to ~30% here’s a 29.7%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar So if a 400W panel average…
How is being less efficient by ~10,000,000 kWh per day preferred? That's a significant difference in output. You seem fixated on price and are ignoring the reality that solar panels inconsistently generate that amount of energy whereas nuclear is more stable. If climate change is literally going to destroy the world, then cost should be of less concern than "can it give us the power we need while reducing emissions?"
> Try and hit 100% with nuclear and your stuck with sub 50% capacity factors or your need a lot of grid storage both of which dramatically increases the price.
Can you share what led you to this 50% capacity number?