[audunw]

The conclusions of the article is very good. I mostly agree with them. But there are two major flaws in the article:

1. “we need more like 25 TW”. That seems too high to me. Is that based on a direct conversion of the primary energy consumption today? The alternatives solutions needed for decarbonisation is generally much more energy efficient than the fossil fuel based solutions we use today. In addition, the energy used per capita to live a European lifestyle is decreasing year over year. And finally, the energy use will drop dramatically as we shift from primarily making stuff out of mined virgin materials to using recycled materials. For instance, commercial EV battery recycling is ramping up rapidly already today. Making virgin concrete is energy and CO2 intensive but that might not be a viable option for the long term anyway, as it requires sand that we’re also running out of. There’s already huge pressure to reduce the use of concrete.

It should also be said that 25TW or more of nuclear thermal power will contribute to thermal forcing of the planet that we probably can’t afford when the planet is already on the precipice of dangerous climate tipping points. The global warming effect of the thermal power plants we have today is already on the same order of magnitude as greenhouse gas emissions from airplanes.

2. I miss a discussion about the labour costs when it comes to nuclear. I think one of the reasons it was cheap to build in the past was access to cheap labour in the countries building the nuclear power plants. Changing demographics is an irreversible trend that will keep these labour costs high. Solar lets you outsource much of the labour costs of the production of the panels, and that production will probably end up being fully automated and then on-shored in the end anyway.

[Earw0rm]

Have you got some sources for that? Thermal forcing from existing plants (and thermal sink from their energy output) seems like it'd be tiny compared to solar thermal forcing.

I realise GHG from their waste gases is a huge problem, but direct thermal forcing?

[XorNot]

I don't know how this constantly comes up on HN but I have seen it mentioned across every type of energy thread.

And people could trivially disprove the notion in mere seconds by Googling the solar irradiance of the sun over the Earth, but for some reason they never do before posting.

[Earw0rm]

Not all irradiance translates into heat, but even if it's only a few W/m2, that's megawatts per sq km, and terawatts for a France sized area.

[actionfromafar]

If the 25 TW can offset the current worldwide production which is 20 TW IIRC, is it such a big deal? Any greenhouse gas emission displaced is going to leverage thermal increase multiple times over.

Solar insolation is about 120 000 TW or something like that I think.