63000 acres is about 98 square miles, so about a 10 mile by 10 mile area. Pretty sure this isn't 'destroying wildlife' levels of destruction, but yes, definitely ecosystem influencing. Compared to current alternatives (gas/coal/hydro), this may have less impact overall. Nuclear power should be invested in, but may take more time.
Come on now, Nevada is only 110,000 square miles. This solar planet would have taken up 0.089% of the state. All for a power plant that would have to be torn up in as little as 25 years.
The pro-nuclear environmentalists seem so rare but always come out in force in discussions like this. Given the odd combination and reliable timing, if I were more cynical I would think it is not a good faith position.
The dominate battery technology has changed several times in my lifetime. We just have to wait for someone else to invent a new battery chemistry since the USA has tapped out on renewables.
[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45553487
Comments moved thither. Thanks!
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
63000 acres is about 98 square miles, so about a 10 mile by 10 mile area. Pretty sure this isn't 'destroying wildlife' levels of destruction, but yes, definitely ecosystem influencing. Compared to current alternatives (gas/coal/hydro), this may have less impact overall. Nuclear power should be invested in, but may take more time.
Come on now, Nevada is only 110,000 square miles. This solar planet would have taken up 0.089% of the state. All for a power plant that would have to be torn up in as little as 25 years.
Ecological disaster averted.
The pro-nuclear environmentalists seem so rare but always come out in force in discussions like this. Given the odd combination and reliable timing, if I were more cynical I would think it is not a good faith position.
Loving the cynicism. Just proves we are early in the nuclear energy transition.
The ~20 year delay it would take to replace that 6.2 GW with nuclear would cause the emission of
20 years * 6.2 GW * 3000 GWh / GW / year * 367 tons / GWh = 136.5 million tons of CO2.
That’s why we have SMRs
With zero SMRs having ever been commercially deployed in the US, that is as much a pipe-dream as a traditional nuclear plant.
Why ever try building new things with that mindset?
Perhaps we should try building solar panels and energy storage instead.
New is good, known is better when you need to act with urgency to <fuel next generation AI/avert the climate crisis >.
And no, solving that with solar panels with lithium batteries isn’t the answer.
The dominate battery technology has changed several times in my lifetime. We just have to wait for someone else to invent a new battery chemistry since the USA has tapped out on renewables.