https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1873752918353936578
Do you like math? Do you like making climate activists cry? If so, this post is for you. 
They advertise utility-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) and wind as being “eco-friendly” energy technologies because they emit less CO₂ over their total lifecycle. Emissions is all the “greens” like to jack their sausage holsters about. But, when you point out to them just how land intensive their “green” energy technologies are, they squirm trying to justify being vehemently opposed to nuclear fission — a near-infinite, carbon-free, energy-dense electricity source — and working to destroying the landscape with massive amounts of solar cells and wind farms to save the planet.
Let’s run the numbers, shall we?
𝐍𝐔𝐂𝐋𝐄𝐀𝐑 𝐅𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐎𝐍 
The standard nuclear reactor has a 1,000-megawatt (MW) rating. This means that each plant is, on average, installed with 1,000 MW of power capacity. A 1,000-MW nuclear facility occupies, on average, just over 1 square mile (640 acres) of land.
To figure out just how many homes a single 1,000 MW plant could power, we can start by using the following equation,
𝑬 = 𝑷 × 𝒕, where,
• 𝑬 = energy (megawatt hours, MWh)
• 𝑷 = power (MW)
• 𝒕 = time (hours, hr)
If we assume a 1,000 MW nuclear reactor operates at FULL power during an entire calendar year, it will produce ~8.76 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electricity per year.
𝑬 = 1,000 MW × 24 hr (1-day) × 365 [days] (1 yr) = 8.76 million MWh / yr (8.76 TWh / yr)
However, reactors do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 operate at full power 100% of the time because they come offline for refueling or to undergo maintenance. Therefore, we must take the capacity factor into consideration in our calculation.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), nuclear power has the highest capacity factor of any electricity generation source in the U.S. at 0.93 in 2023.
https://eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_08_b.html
What this value means is that nuclear reactors in the U.S. operated at full installed power for about 93% of the calendar year in 2023.
So, to figure out how much electricity that each plant produces in a year, we must multiply the previously calculated value of 8.76 TWh by the capacity factor of 0.93. If we do that, we get,
𝑬 = (8.76 TWh / year) × 0.93 ≈ 8.15 TWh / yr
Now, to determine just how many homes this powers, we must divide 𝑬 by the average amount of electricity U.S. homeowners purchase in a year. According to the EIA, that number is ~10,500 kilowatt-hours (KWh) or 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh.
https://eia.gov/energyexplained/use-of-energy/electricity-use-in-homes.php
Thus, dividing 8.15 TWh / yr by 1.05 × 10⁻⁵ TWh / yr gives us about 776,190 homes.
Therefore, a 1,000 MW nuclear electricity generation station occupying one square mile of land, operating with a capacity factor of 0.93, can power more than 775,000 homes throughout the course of a year based on U.S. data.
Now that is pretty energy-dense, eh? Why would any climate activist be opposed to that?
Let’s now compare nuclear to the greens’ preferred solar and wind technologies.
𝐒𝐎𝐋𝐀𝐑 𝐏𝐕
A utility-scale solar PV array requires at least 1 MW of installed power.
https://cleanpower.org/facts/solar-power/
A1 MW solar PV array requires about 5-7 acres of land according to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA).
https://seia.org/initiatives/land-use-solar-development
And, according to the EIA, solar had a capacity factor of 0.232 last year in the U.S., by far the 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒔𝒕 of any energy source. What this means is that solar PV arrays only operated at full power 23.2% of the year in 2023 due to variable weather conditions and sky cover.
By using the same calculations as above, a 1,000 MW solar PV array would occupy some 5,000-7,000 acres of land (mean of ~6,000 acres), all the while powering 193,523 homes, some 582,667 fewer homes than if it were nuclear power.
Yikes, that doesn’t sound very efficient. 
𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐄 𝐖𝐈𝐍𝐃 A single utility-scale wind turbine occupies ~80 acres of land, which each turbine given a 2.5 MW rating.
A 1,000 MW onshore wind farm would require about 400 2.5-MW turbines occupying some 32,000 acres of land area.
And, according to the EIA, wind had a capacity factor of 0.332 in 2023, meaning that U.S. utility-scale wind farms operated at full power capacity for 33.2% of the year last year.
If we employ the same methods as before, we’ll find that a 1,000 MW wind farm could power about 277,143 homes for one year. Therefore, a 1,000 MW wind farm would power 499,047 fewer homes than a 1,000 MW nuclear facility while occupying over 50 times as much land area.
That’s not exactly efficient either, now, is it?
𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐌𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐈𝐓 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐔𝐏
In order to power the same number of homes that a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant can, it would require either:
• For 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐏𝐕: Approximately 4,000 MW of installed power (equivalent to four nuclear facilities) and 24,000 acres of land (some 37.5 × as much land area than a nuclear plant).
• For 𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐝: Approximately 2,800 MW of installed power (equivalent to 2.8 nuclear facilities) and 89,600 acres of land (some 140 × as much land area than a nuclear power generation station).
But, I should caution you that these estimates are in fact conservative. Why? Because they do 𝒏𝒐𝒕 take into consideration land area required for battery storage due to their intermittency in overcast sky conditions, low wind speed and/or overnight.
Based on land requirements alone, if climate activists were serious environmentalists, they would support deployment of more nuclear power. Some of them do, but most I have interacted with don’t and find terrible excuses to support massive amounts of solar PV and onshore wind farm construction.
Nuclear power represents both continued economic growth and a clean energy future.
But, many climate activists don’t want continued economic growth. They want to abolish capitalism and overturn western culture.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1873752918353936578
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree this was a good post. It was well-posed and argued to highlight the environmental insanity of onshore wind and of grid-scale solar.
I agree it is a good post, but it leaves out several large negatives of wind and solar, if we look at the A-to-Z picture.
First nuclear plants last 60 to 80 years, solar about 25 y and wind about 20 y
Nuclear plants can be designed to be load following, as in France.
Wind and solar are highly subsidized, grid disturbing, weather-dependent very expensive electricity sources, as shown below.
High Costs/kWh of Offshore Wind Foisted onto a Brainwashed/Gullible Public
Forcing utilities to pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixed offshore wind systems, and
Forcing utilities to pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind systems
is suicidal economic insanity.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% wind/solar penetration on the grid, the current UK level:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
– Traditional plants counteracting wind/solar variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
– Traditional plants providing electricity during 1) low-wind, and 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar conditions, about 2 c/kWh
– Wind and solar electricity that could have been produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ban-the-dysfunctional-offshore-wind-turbine-fiasco
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/international-trade-is-a-dog-eat-dog-business
.
The insanity and environmental damage it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in such big do-do.
.
Europe wants to foist high electricity prices onto the US, using the ruse of global-warming/climate-change, so the US will also be in big do-do, to preserve Europe’s extremely advantageous trade balance with the US.
“First nuclear plants last 60 to 80 years, solar about 25 y and wind about 20 y”
A very good point. Think of having to replace all those windmills and solar panels every 20 or 25 years.
Off-shore wind has a higher capacity factor than land-based wind, somewhere in the neighborhood of >30%. However, it’s capital costs of deployment are much greater and the operation and maintenance costs are greater. And we do not yet know their lifetime, seawater is corrosive. I will also be interested to see how a wind turbine survives U.S. Atlantic hurricane.
If anyone wants to dig deeper, then check out the UNECE Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options – the figure below is an interesting one:
Many “environmentalists” are more anarchists or Marxists, reflexively opposing Western Capitalist society.
The arithmetic in this essay is so simplistic you would think any moron could understand it. Our politicians and policy makers must be special kinds of morons.
The “woke” rely on a “Wonderful World” worldview—Don’t know much about history, don’t know much about geography,..
‘Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself.’
Mark Twain
I don’t think many US Senators are idiots.
I heard candidate Harris attempt to talk. I think that if she allowed herself to say things she doesn’t allow herself to say then she’d probably sound like a lawyer from a good school instead of…
It makes no sense for her/them to “not know” all the “stuff” she/they “don’t know”.
No need to insult morons with the moniker of “politician”. How Dare You!
They lie. As Kamala put it: what can be, unburdened by what has been (or in non Orwellian newspeak, the ends justify the means).
Weight.
Suddenly that has become a big thing in environmental circles in the UK. The weight of food packaging will be taxed (the grocery net zero tax). Look out recyclable glass, plastics are far lighter and cheaper. But now they want to extend the “weight principle” to car taxation. I thought weight… cars… they can’t be serious; but they are. What of EVs?
“Why electric cars are so much heavier than regular cars” – CNN
And the truth of it?
“Fees would see the heaviest models on the roads, such as petrol and diesel SUVs, hit with the highest charges while smaller cars paid less, reports The Telegraph. “
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/1994680/car-tax-changes-vehicle-excise-duty-weight
Phew. EVs don’t get a mention. Funny that.
I’ve seen a few people eat food in markets, in which case, the weight of packaging is unimportant.
That would be worse. Then they become the packaging!
I think Kamala’s “what can be, unburdened by what has been” means “don’t learn from experience.”
Yes, pretty much. It means move to renewables and don’t worry that civilization is based on fossil fuels, move to a much more socialistic government and don’t worry that civilization has flourished under free markets, start combating “misinformation” and don’t worry about the first amendment ……
Not to detract from your point, which is government stupidity, but EV’s are not really heavier than equivalent fuel powered cars. Why do smart people trust gibberish from questionable sources instead of checking the data themselves? Following are curb weights:
Tesla Model S = 4560 lbs
Two equivalent gasoline powered cars (same capacities, attributes, etc)
Audi A7 = 4451 lbs
BMW 7 series = 4720 lbs
Yes the batteries of an EV are heavy, but their power trains are considerably lighter than gas or diesel engines/transmissions/drive trains so they end up with very similar curb weights as equivalent fuel powered vehicles.
(oh and to clarify, I believe EV’s are stupid virtue signaling toys, but I also detest inaccurate statements)
______________________________________________________________________________
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Maurice Strong, United Nations Big Wig
This is so amazingly obvious, at least to me for the last 39 years that it means all attempts to discredit the science is pointless. Only via the political sytem(s) will the onward march be overturned. Brexit almost managed it, and Trump may be a step away from achieving another step. Ultimately it is down to us, the voters to ignore the Packhams and Attenboroughs and restore rational sanity.
Sky-high utility bills are the back-breaker for Net Zero.
The farther along the path the Climate Alarmists proceed with installing more windmills and solar, the higher the electricity prices will be.
I think they are getting pretty close to the breaking point in the UK and Germany.
What’s not mentioned is that a neclear power station will last for 50 years whereas wind and solar last for 20 if you’re lucky. Opting for wind and solar is just idiotic. Otherwise an excellent article.
One must make allowances for hail, tornadoes, hurricanes, high wind storms, snow, etc., and adjust the life expectancy to about 4 years before serious repairs are needed, on average.
Good point.
Another drawback is the ugly factor. About 20 years ago I drove through a 10 or 15 mile stretch of I-10 west of Palm Springs where there were hundreds, maybe thousands of windmills. Most were older, dead and abandoned. It looked like a giant junk yard. It’s probably even worse now.
“Another drawback is the ugly factor.”
Oh! So ugly! I cringe every time I see a windmill. They are a blight on the landscape.
In my deep dive into this subject in the context of EV’s I came up with the following which does not include land for storage, or more importantly for transmission lines:
— Solar PV in So. Cal. produced 70 GWh/km2
— Onshore wind farms produce 3-6GWh/ km2. however, this is does not preclude other land uses, eg. farming.
— An average EV driven the same number of miles as an average ICE vehicle today would consume about one half of the average home, or about 5000 kWh/year.
There are currently around 290 million light vehicles registered in the U.S. with fairly steady growth over the last 20 years. Let’s assume that by 2035 there are 320 million vehicles and that the federal government follows California’s lead and implements the same EV rules. In that event, using the California Model, 21% of all registered vehicles will be EV’s in 2030, and in 45% in 2035. Is this likely? Probably not, but it’s also a possibility with strong-arm policy support including ZEV mandates, and other policy changes that significantly increase gas and diesel prices, such as restricted leasing of federal land for oil production, and restrictive pipeline policies.
Having established that our average EV will consume 4,935 kWh/year, it’s easy to compute that in 2035 the nation’s 144 million EV’s will consume 711,000 GWh.
Using 70 GWh/year/km2 we can estimate that to power half of the nation’s cars (160 million) with solar-generated electricity would then require facilities occupying 10,800 square kilometers, 2.7 million acres, or 4,200 square miles, an area about 21% larger than Yellowstone National Park.
From the Bureau of Land Management’s website we learn “Across the 245 million acres (3521 km2) of public land it manages, the BLM has prioritized a combined total of roughly 870,000 acres for solar energy development within its land use plans”. That’s enough land to power about 56 million cars (20% of the nation’s 280 million cars). Recall that McKinsey predicts 48 million cars in 2030. The BLM’s 2012 plans included 17 site distributed across 6 states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah. OK, so land has been prioritized. What’s the reality? From 2010 to December, 2021 BLM has permitted 37 projects, 23 of which are operating and 11 of which are pending construction, and only 3 of those include storage. The total capacity for both operational and planned projects is 6.9 GW. Total acreage: 57,300. So, while 870,000 acres have been prioritized, 29,000 acres (117 km2) are currently producing electricity, and only 21,000 acres (85 km2) are pending construction. The projects that are pending construction will add capacity for only 1.2 million cars.
(edited to repair bullet list which disappeared)
The materials needed to actually build the solar farms tend to be ignored as well. We simply don’t have enough of the base materials to be able to build the amount that would be needed. Even if we tripled mining output somehow, it just wouldn’t be enough. On top of that, I saw an article some years ago (that I’ve never been able to find again to link, sadly, so I don’t know where the source numbers came from) that pointed out that PV solar cells require an amount of silver in their manufacture and there isn’t enough silver estimated to be contained in the entire crust of the earth, much less economically feasible to recover, to build enough PV cells to keep up with the projected increase of demand for electricity by 2050, much less replace any existing sources.
“We simply don’t have enough of the base materials” Danger – that line of thinking usually turns out to be wrong. Limits of Growth. Population Bomb. Malthus.
In this case, there is a lot of truth to it since they are trying to push an unrealistic, unaffordable option and do it in the next 5 to 15 years.
Well done. I think most math-profession people have done some version of what you and Martz have written and seen the results. That might be why we’re not invited to the planning meeting.
You are looking at the issue objectively and quantitatively. liberal/progressive/socialist/democrats aren’t into that. The biggest problem comes 25 years after the solar panels are installed and they need to be dismantled and replaced but the cost for doing so is greater than the scrap value. They’ll be left to rot in the environment. What is the probability of millions of acres of solar arrays being dismantled and replaced every 30 years for the next 90 years? There’s a “net zero”.
Where will the eastern states put their intermittent energy sources? The BLM does not have much land east of the Mississippi. As we can see from recent news, the rich people of Martha’s Vineyard don’t want wind generators anywhere in sight. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
The whole of the affectionately named “Climate Crisis” according to multiple UN officials has nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with transforming the world politically, economically, socially, etc. An in the name of One world Order with the UN being emperor.
This requires the destruction of western industrialization, the end of capitalism, and, to use the words of the WEF, “you will have nothing and you will be happy.”
The roots go back to the 1960 “The Population Bomb” and the late 50s meeting of the Club of Rome. Population bomb advocated for a much reduced human presence on the planet. Club of Rome advocated for an issue to wrest control and the issue was the environment.
Basically all of this is so a few rich oligarchs will have every luxury and the rest of us, what few of us deplorables left, will be their serfs.
Thanks. Nice to have it laid out so baldly in such simple form.
Despite Chris Martz billing himself as a “meteorology student and an offensive pot stirring comedian”, the numbers he presents should be understandable to the college “participation” diploma crowd that seems to enable “woke” causes by simply being too lazy to do any arithmetic.
Government agencies are never interested in efficiency. If they were, then we would see them shut down once their mission was accomplished. This never happens. Instead, Government agencies are interested in increasing their funding in order to “serve you better”. So they say.
Of course, ultimately, the end result of this nonsense is that everyone eventually works for the government and efficiency becomes non-existent. That can’t really happen in a working economy so instead, government directs industry.
Of course, that’s the definition of fascism which is where we are today. And you let it happen because you wanted to save the world.
A few years ago NASA’s “Earth Observatory Pic of the Day” featured a new solar development in Spain as seen from space. The accompanying blurb boasted of 500MW of installed capacity on “only” 4 square miles of land, which is 2760 acres.
I looked up the typical footprint of a 500MW NatGas plant and found that for an 800MW plant, the footprint tended to vary from 30-50 acres, though outliers could be as small as 7 acres or as large as 120.
Just from a land-use standpoint, solar doesn’t seem to be very “green.” And as Chris points out, wind is even worse.
https://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146374/the-largest-solar-power-plant-in-europe-for-now
Advocates of wind and solar energy sometimes say that it is “free.” It’s actually more expensive than a free puppy, or a free boat.
The main problem with solar and wind power is intermittency. They generate energy capriciously, when they feel like it, rather than when it is needed. That’s a much worse problem than the high cost and the huge land footprint. It means the energy they generate is of low value.
Capacity factor calculations do not take into account the variability of the electricity generated. Simply put, electricity is only valuable if it is generated when it is needed. It is of approximately zero value when it is generated when it is not needed.
The energy which nuclear power plants generate is much more valuable than energy from wind and solar, because it is available when it is needed.
Nuclear reactors are usually run at full tilt, or nearly so, because the incremental cost of the energy they generate is very low. So they have high capacity factors. They are technically “dispatchable,” meaning that they can be “throttled down” when demand drops, but when nuclear plants are part of a grid with other power sources that isn’t usually necessary.
Coal and especially gas power plants are even more dispatchable than nuclear. I.e., they can be more quickly and easily throttled up and down in response to demand. So the electricity that they generate is even more valuable than the energy from nuclear plants, and much more valuable than the energy from wind and solar.
Salesmen for “renewable” wind and solar oven claim that they produce energy more cheaply than fossil fuel & nuclear plants. That claim is a lie. It’s an attempt to confuse people by conflating the low PRICES which renewable energy fetches with its actual COST. The low PRICES that wind and solar energy fetches reflect its low VALUE, not a low true COST.
There’s value in reliability—and, conversely, there’s loss of value in unreliability. The low value of renewable (wind & solar) energy is because it is unreliable.
The high total cost of renewable energy, and the low prices it fetches, are both because it is unreliable. Its intermittency causes shortages, which cause price spikes, which are an unavoidable cost of increased reliance on wind & solar.
Reliable baseload and dispatchable electricity from nuclear and fossil fuels is of high value because it’s available when it’s needed, including when market prices for energy are high. Often the reason those prices are high is because wind and solar are unavailable. So replacing reliable fossil fuels and nuclear plants with wind & solar causes power bills to skyrocket, even though the electricity generated by wind & solar fetches low prices.
Re: “According to the EIA, solar had a capacity factor of 0.232 last year in the U.S., by far the 𝒍𝒐𝒘𝒆𝒔𝒕 of any energy source. What this means is that solar PV arrays only operated at full power 23.2% of the year in 2023 due to variable weather conditions and sky cover.”
Oh, it’s much worse than that. They operate at a full power much less than 23.2% of the time, and they produce zero power about half of the time.
Most users of energy need it now. You might be able to wait 10-15 hours for the sun to come up to charge your EV, but to provide heat & light to your home, and power and cooling to your data center, requires energy when the sun is down and the wind is still.
You can’t get that from solar. In theory, you could get it from solar + storage, but there’s no energy storage technology in existence or in prospect which could feasibly solve the intermittency problem.
Re: “A 1,000 MW solar PV array would occupy some 5,000-7,000 acres of land (mean of ~6,000 acres), all the while powering 193,523 homes, some 582,667 fewer homes than if it were nuclear power.”
No, relying on a 1,000 MW solar PV array to power even one (1) home means that its occupants will freeze in the dark on winter nights.
Re: “a 1,000 MW wind farm could power about 277,143 homes for one year.”
No, relying on a 1,000 MW wind farm to power even one (1) home means that its occupants will freeze in the dark only on WINDLESS winter nights. I guess that’s an improvement, but not much.
(Also, a nit: the “for one year” phrase is superfluous. Wind farms produce [fluctuating, unreliable] electrical power as long as they are operational.)
Exactly. Engineers (at least the ones I have worked with) design for the worst case, not averages. So, there are 2 metrics that have to be satisfied, power and energy. And if you don’t know the difference between those 2 things (hint: one is the integral of the other) you shouldn’t even be in the game of making decisions about electricity supply to millions of people. And if you don’t know the difference between an integral and a derivative then you should stay out of the decision process as well.
It would be very interesting if Nick Stokes would show up here and defend wind turbines and solar panels (as he usually does) against this posting for nuclear power from Chris M.
I would love to be proven wrong here, but I somehow think that he won’t show.
And BTW, it’s a great day for renewables here in Wisconsin today. No sun and no wind. LOL.
They just want to save Socialism/Marxism by destroynig Capitalism and Democracy. The basis for the Western World is avialable and cheap energy. So Critical Marxism attacks just that by making energy expensive and less available..
You are blaming political and economic philosophies….the real problem with any of those is the desire of some individuals to have power over others.
The failure or success of any of those philosophies is a result of how easy (or not) it is for those power motivated individuals to take control…and how easy (or not) it is for the population to overthrow them.
Excellent post?
Amateur post
Important points missed:
(1) Cost of Land
The cost of land for a solar farm can vary significantly depending on location and size, but generally represents a substantial portion of the overall project cost, often making up between 20% and 50% of the total cost of building a solar farm; in some cases, where land is particularly expensive, it could even be higher.
(2) Average Capacity Delusion
At night the entire US covered with solar panels would produce no electricity. At noon on many days there would be too much electricity
(3) Nuclear Power is Too Expensive
Private investors are nearly absent. Only one new nuclear plant or reactor is being built after April 2024: Founder and Chairman Bill Gates’ TerraPower broke ground on the Natrium reactor on June 10, 2024, near a retired coal plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming.
“Nuclear power represents both continued economic growth and a clean energy future.”
Martz conclusion
The statement is false.
Economic growth would be optimized with the lowest priced reliable electricity. That would be electricity from natural gas and coal.
According to recent data, the major sources of US primary energy are natural gas (36%), petroleum (38%), nuclear power (9%), coal (9%), and renewable energy sources (8%). Can’t power cars, trucks, railroads and airplanes with nuclear power. Or make plastic products.
Nuclear plants too expensive?
Not those plants built by Russia, China and South Korea
Expensive nuclear plant building is strictly a flexible “rules-based” Western thing.
.
Nuclear Plants by Russia
.
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear production was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
.
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
.
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Russia is the only country with nuclear powered ice breakers.
The biggest ones steadily go through 7 METERS of ice.
Iirc, those Russian nuke icebreakers can actually heat the hull, and melt their way though the ice.
“Nuclear plants too expensive?
Not those plants built by Russia, China and South Korea
Expensive nuclear plant building is strictly a flexible “rules-based” Western thing.”
Excellent point. So true.
Building a new, homegrown nuclear power plant industry sounds like a good thing for the United States to start doing.
While I agree with much of what RG has written, I think he is being a bit harsh on Chris, who is only looking at the land use aspect.
“Economic growth would be optimized with the lowest priced reliable electricity. That would be electricity from natural gas and coal.”
Agree totally…. In countries that have access to coal and gas, that would by far the best option.
Fast and easy to build once you get red and green tape out the way.
Coal for that nice solid, reliable, cheap constant supply.
Yes coal can ramp, but still operates most efficiently when running at a nice constant speed.
Gas for the next level with flexibility to ramp faster… peaker units for those fast changes in demand.
Wind and solar should never be part of a grid, because they are inherently erratic, and are just an added parasitic and destabilising load on the grid.
Eventually, Nuclear will be used and grow its percentage of the grid, but there is no need to rush, certainly not where you have ample coal and gas available
ps.. Neglected Hydro, great where you have the terrain and the rainfall…
… but the land area needed for dams is huge, and the cost of a new dam isn’t chicken feed.
and speaking of coal..
China’s coal imports from Australia rise to highest level since April 2020
Australia’s loony government won’t burn coal for cheap reliable energy but will export coal (and its emissions if one actually cares about those emissions, I do not) to China for income to assist pay for the import of renewable infrastructure manufactured in China, those Chinese factories producing said solar and wind machines using energy enabled by China burning Australian coal.
Only a government can come up with such idiocy.
Another thing solar advocates don’t acknowledge is that producing PV panels is one of the filthiest insults to the environment ever invented.
If you love solar, you have to love hydrofluoric acid (I chose not to). I report, you decide.
Summary
The mining, acid leaching, high tonnage coal use for heat treatment and smelting with associated fumes and silicosis disease from dusts and much more makes solar manufacturing one of the filthiest processes ever. It costs 3x more to recycle than landfill, so recycling is nearly non-existent. The toxic heavy metals leach out over time.
Details
Waste
Due to the rapid growth in manufacturing in China and the lack of regulatory controls, there have been reports of the dumping of waste silicon tetrachloride.[49] Normally the waste silicon tetrachloride is recycled but this adds to the cost of manufacture as it needs to be heated to 1,800 °F (980 °C)
The first step in cleaning silica to produce metallurgical grade silicon is to rinse it with a mixture of one part acid to one part water 1. This process is called acid leaching and is used to remove impurities such as iron, aluminum, and calcium from the silica 23. The purified silica is then heated with carbon in the form of coal or charcoal in an electrode arc furnace at a temperature of 1500-2000°C to produce metallurgical grade silicon that is 98% pure 45
The hydrometallurgical purification method with different types of acids as solvents was chosen to refine MG-Si. Effects of hydrochloric acid, hydrofluoric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid in combination with each other as a solvent for purification of MG-Si were investigated.
Note: Yes, hydrofluoric acid!
The majority of impurities contributing to this absorption band are entirely eliminated after the third leaching.
Note: Yes, three (3) separate leaching steps!
1. link.springer.com2. link.springer.com3. academia.edu4. pveducation.org5. bing.com6. link.springer.com7. Home | SpringerLink] (http://researchgate.net)
• Wikipedia
• Hydrofluoric acid – Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
• Hydrofluoric acid – Simple English Wikipedia,
• Web Hydrofluoric acid (HF) is a solution of hydrogen fluoride in water. [2] Its chemical formula is HF. It is a very dangerous acid, being very corrosive.
You don’t want an HF burn that is for sure. HF can be handled/contained in a number of plastics.
Do you have a good source for ” A single utility-scale wind turbine occupies ~80 acres of land”. I’ve done same calculations to make same graphic for same argument and not arrived at solar farms being more than 3x as land efficient (24000 acres vs 89600 acres). My outdated calculations had an area of solar panels about the size of Paris to power Paris.
Kevin, this is one of the 2009 NREL documents I found. Land-Use Requirements of Modern Wind Power Plants in the United States
” A single utility-scale wind turbine occupies ~80 acres of land”. LOL – does anybody here have any idea how big 80 acres is? (Hint: It’s 20 chains by 4 furlongs)
Or 1/2 mile by 1/4 mile in other also nearly unused units, or 570 meters square… or for environmentalists about 260 Olympic swimming pools,
Quite a large area isn’t it.
And the area of the environment affected by that wind turbine… many times more.
1,600 sq. ch., with roads, is enough for about 1,250 crap subdivision lots (@50 x 90); inclusive of roads on perfect topography. (1600×0.78 multiplier).
So, given the inefficiency of wind, you need to plop your 80 acre community in the middle of a full section (640 acres; one mile by one mile), and fill in the rest of the 640 acre section with windmills.
The rational argument for suppressing nuclear energy, it is easier to make explosions than electricity if you want to do that, might have expired. Los Alamos produced the technology more than 80 years ago and Nuclear physicist Robert Oppenheimer died at age 62 in 1967. The cat forgets what it was like to ever be in the bag.
The rational argument, isn’t.
How many nuclear plants have blown up? 2, Chernobyl and Fukushima and neither were nuclear explosions. Nobody died at Fukushima and only a dozen or so died at Chernobyl. That number would have been dramatically less, as would the radiation leak been dramatically less, had the Soviets did what the rest of the world did, and build a containment vessel.
There is simply no rational reason for the fear so many have of nuclear power.
Argument isn’t that plants accidentally blow up… argument is that it’s impossible to train a good reactor designer who is not qualified to design entry level weapons.
The counter argument is that if they can afford it and they haven’t done after 80 years then they don’t want it as bad as they say.
There’s a limit to how long it should take Kerplakistan to make a bomb if Kerplakistan wants to make a bomb.
How much that was secret technology knowledge in 1940 is still secret technology knowledge in 2024?
Like Ronald Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile shield was in idea of 1980. That’s 45 years ago now, and the technology was incremental, not revolutionary.
Thanks Chris, very simple and easy to understand. Happy New Year!
Chris, A few key points worth adding. All of this was scrutinised by engineers back in the early days of the UK climate change act, in particular by David MacKay, the UK DECCs Chief Scientist who helped my work out some of these numbers as regards nuclear energy to synthesise hydrocarbon fuel. He wrote an excellent reference work with all this information detailed, its called “Alternative Energy – Without the Hot Air’ It quantifies everything you mention, except David tended to avoid the costs to focus on the basic realities of enrgy intensity and intermittency and additional costs that brings, that are a cost of intermittent generation sneakily allocated across the whole grid to make them look less. It is available here:
https://www.withouthotair.com/
His last interview, 10 days before his early death, spelled out the reality he had distilled so well. “If you can get through the Winter on nuclear, you don’t need renewables”.
(37) David MacKay – final interview and tribute – YouTube
There are some other very useful papers and books by Vaclav Smil, Caesere Marchetti and Jesse Ausubel from this period around 2010 to 2015. All arising from the same absolute physics of energy generation that subsidies can’t ever change, because “nature cannot be fooled”. The energy density and intermittency of the primary energy sources cannot be changed, that determines the amount of land and natural resources required to capture a unit of enrgy, and the amount of wind and solar is limited by whatever nature delivers, further limited by how much can be collected.
My specific points are as follows.
UK Solar: As David makes clear above, Solar in the UK at 50 deg North is pointless. Subsidising it is a political choice for generating expensive rooftop energy when it isn’t needed at a massive premium over gas or nuclear wholesale cost – the “feed in Tariff” was 8 times the wholesale cost – 40p/KWh vs. 5p/KWh – to enrich the rich who had the sace for paels and could afford them at the expense of the poor who have neither, may live in flats with no opportunity at all. Solar PV has an 11% annual duty cycle and its largest output occurs when it is not needed, in the summer. When needed, in the winter, the Sun is at 17 degrees above the Horizon at midday in Southerly London, and only rises for about 8 hours – when the little energy in the Sunlight isn’t needed.
We need max energy when its dark and cold, solar only works when it’s light and warm. (Only wealthy elites can afford A/C in homes, too cold is the enduring temperature problem in the UK).
NUCLEAR VERSUS WIND CAPEX COMPARISON: The true comparison of building cost is the lifetime cost of energy per unit CAPEX. A simple capacity (maximum power capacity) based comparison is wildly fraudulent. As mentioned above, nuclear plant lifetime is probably 3 times that of offshore wind, while nuclear duty cycle is at least double wind, so comparing capacities rather than lifetime energy created is misleading by a factor of c.6.
Put another way, at the same cost of energy per unit capacity you will get 6 times more energy per $ CAPEX over its lifetime from a nuclear power station than you will from an offshore wind farm of the same capacity.
If the cost per GW is the same, which it currently seems to be at $5M/GW, the lifetime cost of nuclear plant construction within the overall costs of generation will be 1/6 that for the same total energy generated. The fuel costs and other OPEX of nuclear and wind are similar, because the fuel cost is tiny, the nuclear binding enrgy of atomic fission is over 1 Million times as energetic per unit mass of fuel than the molecular binding energy of chemical combustion. And nuclear is indefinitely sustainable because there is so much Uranium in the oceans, and that has already been extracted in Pilot at <$200/pound, by the US and China I know of..
I make that 1p/KWh, or £10/MWh lifetime CAPEX cost for nuclear at 90% duty cycle. 6p/KWh or £60/MWh for offshore wind. And that’s without the cost of storage or gas backup to manage the intermittency of the wind.
Your witness…… story tip in some form?
Instead of doing complicated calculations using assumptions which are likely massively inaccurate, why not use the actual figures? “The cost of the electricity generated from the new British nuclear power plant Hinkley Point C will be well above 15 cent/kWh at the planned start and thus far above the market electricity price,” The reason why the current generation of nuclear reactors are not an option is because a) it’s not possible to build enough of them (for various reasons) b) the electricity is expensive. Land use is way down the list of factors.
“a) it’s not possible to build enough of them (for various reasons)”
Please elaborate.
Two feat…you need to get up to speed on economies of nuclear
https://youtu.be/cbeJIwF1pVY?si=gI0yWD2oWhcq4J8X
And the vast majority of the cost is from green and red tape, not the actual construction itself.
You neglect the cost of unnecessary regulations and all the cost that the legal delays have caused.
Chris,
I like your posts on X and this essay is very good.
The only thing I couldn’t find was the land requirements for wind and solar needed for charging batteries. Wind and solar needed for demand can not recharge batteries too. At worst, double wind and solar is needed to keep batteries charged.
Most batteries currently in use around the world are charged mostly from coal and gas.
They are not used all that often for supply storage, but more for trying to counter the fluctuations and inconsistencies caused by erratic wind and solar.
Talk of how many houses wind and solar machines can power is nonsense. The 1,000 MW wind or solar farms will not power XX homes per year because their electricity is intermittent and because it is all DC power. Batteries will not solve the intermittency problem because 1) they need to be charged reducing the amount of electricity for the XX homes 2) will only provide power for about 4 hours and 3) provide only DC power. Much more storage than that is needed to make up for the missing electricity. Also, a grid simply cannot be operated with only DC inverted power such as wind, sun, batteries and electronic systems provide. There must be a baseline steady voltage and frequency power source(s) from rotating generators sufficient to stabilize the voltage and frequency of the grid which inverted DC cannot do. Without such stabilization,voltage changes and frequency drops will quickly cause the local grid to fail. This was clearly demonstrated recently in Australia where a small city with more than enough megawatts of wind and solar power available lost their connection to the regional grid (due to a storm) and lost all power. They tried repeatedly to restart their grid from wind and solar sources and could not for lack of voltage/frequency stabilization. The problem was solved when the grid connection was re-established in a week or so.
A few comments:
The California demand curve has a minimum very late night/very early morning and a peak demand in early evening. Without some sort of energy storage to shift solar production a few hours later in the day, the expense of maintaining the peaker plants greatly reduces any cost benefits from using solar. This also creates problems with nuclear as the half-life of 135Xe really messes with load following, so energy storage would also be needed with a pure nuclear option. A compromise is to use solar to handle the daytime peaks and nuclear for baseload, leaving just a few hours of the day where energy storage is used to handle the difference between the eveing demand and nuclear generation.
In my bombastic opinion, utility scale PV is a really bad idea, much better to use rooftops and parking lots.
The average roof area is about 200 square meters so 775,000 homes has a bit less than 40,000 acres of roof area.
The numbers are conservative in several other ways.
It’s a safe assumption that as the number of windmills and solar arrays increase, the best locations will be used first. So as the total number of such systems increases, the amount of power they can generate also goes down.
Over time, the efficiency of PV and wind goes down. Weathering will scratch and degrade the glass cover of your PV system, and will degrade the efficiency of the windmills blades.
As the total number of windmills goes up, the efficiency of the downstream windmills goes down.
Being more disperse as well as having the best places not located near population centers, means that the transmission losses are going to be higher, so you will need extra windmills and PV arrays to compensate.
Your PV and windmills will have to be replaced 2 or 3 times before the nuke plant wears out.