undefined | Better HN

0 pointssemi-extrinsic5y ago0 comments

There was a comment here about cleanup costs of nuclear vs. solar, that was deleted while I was typing my response to that. I'm just gonna copy in my response here, because I think it's an interesting topic:

Are we really sure solar panels are much easier to dismantle on a euro-per-kWh basis though? That is, if you divide the total cost of dismantling and recycling a solar power plant, divided by the total amount of energy produced over the lifetime, does solar power do much better than nuclear?

Nuclear power in Germany (17 powerplants) has produced well over 5 million gigawatthours over the lifetime so far. It's hard to put good numbers on the cleanup costs, but somewhere in the ballpark of 50 billion euros is probably correct. (Keep in mind that some cost is the government paying the powerplant owners compensation because they are forcing them to shut down long before end-of-life).

So that gives you around 0.01 euros per kWh. A solar panel with 20% efficiency placed close to the equator produces 500 kWh/m2/yr. Over 30 years of lifetime that would produce 15 000 kWh/m2.

Are you sure you would spend significantly less than 150 euros per square meter of panel to dismantle, transport and recycle the solar panels?

0 comments

8 comments · 3 top-level

Tade05y ago· 3 in thread

EDIT: my numbers regarding annual kWh/m2 were wrong.

Are you sure you would spend significantly less than 150 euros per square meter of panel to dismantle, transport and recycle the solar panels?

Yes, because it's being done by leading companies and doesn't seem to diminish their competitive advantage:

http://www.solarscorecard.com/2018-19/scorecard-2018-19.php

semi-extrinsicOP5y ago

How are you getting to 1000 kWh/m2/yr?

From what I can find, Saudi Arabia is one of the best locations for solar power globally, and they have a total solar influx of 2300 kWh/m2/yr. Commercially available solar panels have efficiencies of 22% at best.

For the second point: I'm not saying people aren't recycling solar panels in a good way. I'm saying it doesn't look like the cost of that is significantly lower than for cleaning up after nuclear power.

Tade05y ago

Yeah, you're right - I confused m2 with kW. It's 1000kWh/kW/yr or in other words 1000h/yr.

I'm saying it doesn't look like the cost of that is significantly lower than for cleaning up after nuclear power.

Raw solar panels currently cost less than 45 Euros per m2 and since these companies recycle them and still get ahead, it can't be expensive.

jvanderbot5y ago

And, by pairing your comment with parent, a nuclear power company would have a competitive advantage over solar, but for the head start that solar go due to gov incentives, massive investment, and lack of a scare movie like Chernobyl.

jbob20005y ago· 2 in thread

Solar panels aren't the only way to generate energy using the sun. You can build a concentrated solar farm (see: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/06/motorsport/morocco-solar-...) which uses mirrors and salt to produce up to 580mw of power, with a cost of just under $1bil.

My neighbor heats their pool using solar, it's just a bunch of tubes that cycle water over their roof. They got rid of their gas heater. Given that most backyard pools are used in the summer, why can't we swap these to using solar?

pfdietz5y ago

Concentrated solar has lost to PV. It's simply not competitive now.

For domestic hot water, it's now cheaper to use PV and a heat pump (or even resistive!) water heater.

tgsovlerkhgsel5y ago

If the pool needs heating while the house needs air conditioning, using the pool as a heat sink for the A/C would probably be even better.

nimish5y ago

Not now, but if the problem arises technology will be invented to make it cheaper. If only to drive profits, not the cleanliness of the Earth.

Of course we should mandate that we keep the Earth clean, we don't have another.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse