Solar panel waste may not be as bad as we thought

We know about tokamaks, have they generated net power? Which breeder ran on a full load of fuel made from fertile material inside it?

By your logic we don't need to worry about storage because an AlS battery worked on a test bench and has a theoretical energy density of 1000kWh from $5 worth of materials.

> A solar panel produces >100GJ per kg of sand with roughly 10x the silver investment of a NPP or ~50g/kW and traces of B and P.

So are we talking about Power or are we talking about Energy?

> This kind of velocity is the pace the renewable industry is operating at, with a clear roadmap to meet the target, and the pace it is necessary to move at to avoid the worst outcomes.

I disagree. The "worst outcomes" are 200 years into the future, and a ramp up speed of 10 years doesn't matter much for that.

> So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years?

There are different ways to calculate "primary energy". Adjusted for inefficiencies, nuclear is 4.3%. In other words, tripling that means we can shut down at least ~9% of PE worth of fossil fuels plants.

Renewables get a similar boost from this approach, of course, at least long as we don't have to store it.

https://ourworldindata.org/energy-substitution-method

> So you're saying if we invest heavily in nuclear it may be able to contribute 5% of primary energy in 15 years?

No, I'm saying we reduce the unneccesary costs, and let it pay for itself. By comparison, Germany has to impose a 25% "green energy" tax on electricity (including nuclear) to stimulate renewables.

> Oil and gas platforms are resorting to using nuclear, solar, and wind to keep extracting because oil is not a sufficient energy source to extract oil.

Oil is more valueable as a transportation fuel than as fuel for electricity production. And extraction uses electricity. This is about market price, not EROI. (Also, for instance in Norway, it's about CO2 quotas. Norwegian oil platforms are moving the land based electricity instead of the natural gas they extract alongside the oil for their electricity needs.)

EROI for nuclear is still around the highest there is, around 100x. There is massive headroom before EROI for nuclear goes down to unviable levels. (3x)

> .... weasel words ... because only nuclear can scale is a blatant lie ...

I didn't say only nuclear can scale. I do claim that nuclear is a better source of energy when it's dark and there's no wind.

Also, ad hominem attacks doesn't help your case.

> Revealing further that you can't comprehend how renewables scale.

More ad hominem. Do you want to start a flame war?

> 2kW per person. this takes under 50m^2 per person.

Maybe you should re-read your sources. Pretty sure you will find that 2kW is around the average output of 50m^2 during the peak of the day. This illustrates a risk of measuring energy in watts. Most such calculations use 4-6 as estimates for number of "hours" worth at such an output, meaning the area needed goes up by a factor of 4-6. So let's say 250m^2.

Now, on top of this, the energy tends to be needed either in a different location or at a different time. Batteres with a 70% efficiency increase this to 350m^2 while storing it as H2 at 25% full-cycle-efficiency increases it to 1000m^2. Multiply by the number of people on Earth, and you get a square of 2800 km on each side (8 million km^2). Which is close to the size of the Sahara.

That's all if you're planning to use the energy in the same location, and not transporting it anywhere.

To be fair, this would be electrical energy, which has higher value than the average primary energy. So only half the size of the Sahara (maybe 1/4 if it's located in the ACTUAL Sahara, since that place is rather sunny.)

On the other hand, world energy consumption is going up every year.

Btw, unless you put away those ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to reply further.

> I disagree. The "worst outcomes" are 200 years into the future, and a ramp up speed of 10 years doesn't matter much for that.

So the renewable targets (which are being met) need to slow down and wait for nuclear energy which is somehow necessary to meet those decarbonization targets which ... would then result in not meeting those targets but that's fine because they're too aggressive? Sounds almost like the goal is to delay partial decarbonization by claiming there is a better solution later.

> There are different ways to calculate "primary energy". Adjusted for inefficiencies, nuclear is 4.3%. In other words, tripling that means we can shut down at least ~9% of PE worth of fossil fuels plants.

> Renewables get a similar boost from this approach, of course, at least long as we don't have to store it.

So if you ignore all the non-low-grade heat and inefficiencies entailed in turning electricity and low grade heat into chemical feed stock and the countries in energy poverty you can manipulate a number? Well done. Nice frozen world fallacy. 10% is still a tiny part of the problem.

Now after moving the goal posts 2/3rds of the way across the field, show some evidence that they can be met by demonstrating a potential contribution to a meaningful chunk of the problem. How do you get to 2TW of nuclear production in the same timelines as the renewable energy targets where does the Uranium come from?

> More ad hominem. Do you want to start a flame war?

Demonstrating ignorance or willful misrepresentation consistently on every single point that can be checked is more than sufficient grounds for requiring positive evidence for the claims for which your strongest argument is: 'you can't prove categorically that it's impossible for a solution to very obvious issues to appear later'.

> Maybe you should re-read your sources. Pretty sure you will find that 2kW is around the average output of 50m^2 during the peak of the day. This illustrates a risk of measuring energy in watts. Most such calculations use 4-6 as estimates for number of "hours" worth at such an output, meaning the area needed goes up by a factor of 4-6. So let's say 250m^2.

Nameplate watts aren't net watts. Everyone knows this. You know this, you just stated so. So double counting capacity factor can only be an intentional lie. 2kW peak would be a sixth of that with state of the art mass production panels -- on the order of 8.5-10m^2 or as little as 7.5 for bifacial panels with If you were covering an equivalent in urban land of a certain area in the form of walls, roofs, footpath shades etc. then by definition the area you are shading is the area you are collecting light from, so by shading a third of tokyo you can still make net exports from tokyo for a substantial portion of the residents' industrial production. The land use is both a non issue and smaller than the land use from Uranium mining.

> Now, on top of this, the energy tends to be needed either in a different location or at a different time. Batteres with a 70% efficiency increase this to 350m^2 while storing it as H2 at 25% full-cycle-efficiency increases it to 1000m^2.

Very few people live anywhere with less than 3.5kWh/day and the overwhelming majority of those who don't have existing nuclear and already developed hydro and wind resource. So around 40W/m^2 is accurate when sourcing mostly electricity and some low grade heat (this is very shocking, I know, but things get hot when left in the sun and you don't need to use an element and a PV panel to heat water or sand).

Even using exclusively winter sunlight from regions within AC transmission distance of >93% of the population would only double this.

30% battery losses are fairly old technogy or a system like PHES, direct thermal storage exists, you don't need all energy to go through seasonal storage as hydrogen and for every joule to be created in seattle during winter. You especially don't need hydrogen to be burnt or put into a fuel cell to create hydrogen for chemical feed stock or high grade heat. PEM electrolysers are much more efficient than alkaline and improving monthly. Hydrogen doesn't need to go through a rankine cycle steam engine to be used for electricity. Finally solar resource in a good area is closer to 80W/m^2 average than the 40 I used above.

If we needed every single joule to be from sunlight rather than as a salient example of how ridiculous the land use argument is then high energy intensity goods can just be created in sunny areas using PV and CSP (which is dispatchable) and shipped.

Care to try again but without the bit where every single number in your calculation is an intentional misrepresentation of current established technology (let alone emerging mass production technology)?

> Btw, unless you put away those ad hominem attacks, I'm not going to reply further.

Need an out to claim you're leaving because everyone is mean rather than because all of your bs has been called and you're out of new angles, huh?

You are one of a small minority of people who plug their plug in hybrid in. Car leasing companies here in Norway lease a lot of plug in hybrids because the count as electric and so are cheaper to buy. They have statistics about the charging and say that hardly anyone does it, the use chose it simply because it was a cheaper vehicle.