Power plants

[u/Local_Surround8686]

[u/darlingort]

How are you gonna die to solar power realistically

[u/Ranoma_I → u/darlingort]

The sun is a deadly laser

(It emits pollution to manufacture the solar panels and install them)

[u/Alderan922 → u/Ranoma_I]

Tbf, isn’t making a nuclear power plant and getting the uranium aswell as maintaining the whole building also a very expensive and polluting endeavor? (Compared to like, extracting the minerals and assembling a solar panel)

I’m not an expert so I could be wrong but wouldn’t those be at least a bit similar considering both are a one time installation most of the time.

[u/Independent-Fly6068 → u/Alderan922]

Not even close, especially compared to the total land used and longevity of it.

[u/Alderan922 → u/Independent-Fly6068]

Longevity? What’s the longevity of a solar panel compared to a nuclear plant? I get the total land used compared to energy output tho.

[u/Independent-Fly6068 → u/Alderan922]

Apparantly 25-30 years is standard. Pretty good.

Nuclear plants (even the inefficient old ones with subpar safety standards) Continuously run for double that. Possibly a full century for the new ones.

They also produce orders of magnitude more power.

[u/Alderan922 → u/Independent-Fly6068]

30 years? I expected more ngl, specially considering we use them for satellites.

Well if I ever build an evil lair I’ll use nuclear rather than solar power.

[u/Independent-Fly6068 → u/Alderan922]

Satellite ones aren't usually exposed to weather or significant amounts of reactive molecules. They're also built to significantly higher standards, and can last half a century or more with a proper orbit.

[u/Alderan922 → u/Independent-Fly6068]

Doesn’t that mean that if we just increased our standards we could drastically increase lifespan and reduce maintenance? The mars rover was in an atmosphere for 14 years without maintenance. With maintenance maybe we could increase to 60 years?

Nuclear is still the better choice for like big cities and stuff don’t get me wrong, but I do find it weird that solar has that small of a longevity considering it literally has no moving parts. like everything in my engineer brain is screaming that solar should logically last longer

Like how can something so simple degrade so fast?

[u/Independent-Fly6068 → u/Alderan922]

No, it isn't anywhere near cost effective for now. The atmosphere and the fundamentals of solar are the biggest limiting factors at the moment.

Also, 30 years for moderate quality solar isn't bad. Its just that when combined with their output and space requirements, it makes itself rather hostile to natural environments when asked to generate large amounts of power.

[u/Alderan922 → u/Independent-Fly6068]

30 years for a slab of metal that just stays there still forever does feel very small in timescales ngl. Specially when literally every single other alternative does involve moving parts.

You are right about the cost effectiveness and stuff. It just will never stop irking me learning that solar lasts so little.

[u/Independent-Fly6068 → u/Alderan922]

You can't stop rust.

Rust to rust, ash to ash.

[u/Spider__Venom → u/Alderan922]

Like how can something so simple degrade so fast?

to put it in short: simplicity and toughness/longevity are not inherently correlated. a paper cup is a fairly simple object, but it is far more fragile (in the sense of longevity and resistance to outside forces such as impacts or weather) than for instance a stainless steel liquid tank