this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
257 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
59990 readers
2327 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nuclear might have helped a bit more but yeah, glad renewable did something I suppose. The hotter solar panels get the less effective they are so not super excited for that one.
Nuclear would help it be really expensive. It doesn't ramp up and down with demand.
Solar does plenty when the sun is out, even if the temperature means efficiency isn't at its peak. In other words, you gain several fold for a sunny day, while losing a few percent due to heat. That pattern tends to correspond with AC usage, so it's actually ideal.
I'll keep it a buck with you, solar panels are more expensive relative to their energy output. I get solar and renewable energy is the dream for most but as someone unafraid of nuclear fission, the only dream for me is fusion. Widespread adoption and better batteries would make renewables better but from the information I've seen, nothing compares to nuclear power per kw/h. Not even all renewables combined on their best day.
And yet no one with money to invest in the energy sector is caring to put a dime into new nuclear. They looked at their options and picked the one that doesn't have a long history of cost and schedule overruns.
And the overuse of materials for solar is going to drive up their price and repair costs but hey we'll see
Which material do you think will be the limiting factor on photovoltaic production?
Perovskite.
Lol, no. Besides the fact that we've barely started scaled production of perovskite cells, and that we're still working out their longevity issues, their main advantage is that the materials used are cheap and abundant.
Lol it's a mineral that requires Titanium to form and last I checked that wasn't cheap. Not only that, but every first person country all at once making Perovskite cells, it'll end up like Lithium in time. But again, even now as they exist, they pale in comparison to what nuclear can produce.
It's not even the most prominent means of production yet. It's about at the same level as SMRs, which are years away if they work at all.
Edit: also, you're thinking of perovskite minerals. What the yet-to-be solar panels use is perovskite crystal structures, which are abundant as hell.
"Prone to degradation due to salt" is the part that I'm trying to illustrate. Yes, we have the materials for the moment but as demand increases and solar cells fail, will maintaining them and making new ones still be as cost effective as a nuclear plant down the road? That's the basis of my concern and why renewables, while a great step in the right direction, seem to need so much more space and maintaining for less power.