Anyway, nobody is going to run a major grid on 100% solar power because hydro and wind are cheaper than batteries. But let’s think pessimistic worst case. You want 50% over supply of solar so you never have to worry about long term storage (as in 1/3 of all solar is wasted).
That’s 3c/kWh. Batteries aren’t 100% efficient and degrade with use so let’s say 55% of power is provided directly via solar (much higher demand in day) and 45% of power is provided from solar fed batteries. If 1 kWh from a battery adds 10c the equation it’s roughly 3c + 10c * 45% = 7.5c/kWh.
Which is very close to what base load coal costs except because we’re using batteries which also covers peaking power plants. Frankly coal is only surviving in China because of how long it’s talking to build cheaper alternatives.
Even if we want 50% of our power nationwide to come from solar power, based on your 60 acre model that's still 6,429 of these installations or 385,753 acres (and that's with a generous output estimate of 2.5kWh per panel, per day).
A single 582 megawatt nuclear plant can generate 13,968,000 kWh per day and each one takes up a mile (640 acres).
Not to mention, 60 acres of panels takes a ton of manpower to maintain and keep functional. People, trucks, maintenance equipment, etc.
Keep in mind, too, these numbers are before we introduce everyone driving electric cars (assuming that's an ideal).
As to output per day real world capacity factors for grid solar vary by location but tend to ~30% here’s a 29.7%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Signal_Solar So if a 400W panel averages ~2.9kWh per day 2.5kWh is perfectly reasonable ballpark estimate. Panel density varies but over 2000 per acre isn’t unreasonable as they are tilted. Still let’s use 2,000 or account for access roads etc.
As to nuclear it’s capacity factor in the us ~90% because it doesn’t need to follow the grid. Unfortunately that drops if you want to increase the number of nuclear power plants. France leaned into nuclear, but even exporting a lot of subsidized nuclear still they had capacity factors of ~70%.
By comparison at 2.9kWh per day panel * 2000 * 640 = 3,712,000 kWh per day from solar. Sure it’s less dense but not enough to be particularly meaningful especially as you don’t need access to water. The real difference people care about is it’s vastly cheaper and can actually scale. Try and hit 100% with nuclear and your stuck with sub 50% capacity factors or your need a lot of grid storage both of which dramatically increases the price. To actually be competitive long term, nuclear needs about an 60-80% cost reduction which is frankly never going to happen.
As to EV’s you need more space to park them than to install solar panels to power them. You also need more batteries for EV themselves than you need to backup a solar powered electric grid.
How is being less efficient by ~10,000,000 kWh per day preferred? That's a significant difference in output. You seem fixated on price and are ignoring the reality that solar panels inconsistently generate that amount of energy whereas nuclear is more stable. If climate change is literally going to destroy the world, then cost should be of less concern than "can it give us the power we need while reducing emissions?"
> Try and hit 100% with nuclear and your stuck with sub 50% capacity factors or your need a lot of grid storage both of which dramatically increases the price.
Can you share what led you to this 50% capacity number?
Also, 13,968,000 kWh per day * 70% capacity factor = 9,777,600 kWh so solar only needs 3x to 4x the land. Except, nuclear reactors need land near large bodies of water making that land far more valuable. So because you can’t put a nuclear reactor on the ultra cheap land viable for solar panels Nuclear actually ends up with higher land costs.
The more efficient option—even if more expensive—should be preferred. You may end up getting similar results, but the overall impact of trying to make solar panels play catch-up is more destructive in the long run. And they don't even catch up. By your own math, even at 70% capacity a reactor is 3x as powerful.
And re: the water requirements, those would also be a factor in hydroelectric so it's a moot point (assuming you see hydroelectric as a supplemental form of power to solar).
I've yet to do research into inputs of manufacturing a plant vs solar/wind/etc. so can't give specifics but just in the abstract what you've described sounds more wasteful (and that's if it can be done—there is far less ambiguity with the nuclear option).
As part of being massively more expensive, Nuclear actually involves significantly more indirect fossil fuel usage due to those costs. For example all a nuclear power plants requires onsite fossil fuel generators which need to be run regularly: http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Bro... Yet those generators are left off of assessments of CO2 releases associated with nuclear power plants. Similarly the centrifuges reacquired to manufacture nuclear fuel require vast amounts of electricity to manufacture and run. The nameplate generation from Nuclear further ignores those ongoing energy costs.
And you're misdirecting. The U.S. doesn't get a pass. We're arguably one of the biggest targets that everyone points their fingers at (and domestically, shames its own population for relying on those energy sources).
My entire point is that the very things being obsessed over (solar and wind) are simply not feasible at the scale and capacities required to sustain our current civilization. The alternative is either nuclear, or significant population reduction (read: death, or, the logical conclusion of large swaths of humans either being denied access to energy or being priced out).
Like I've said elsewhere in this thread, the problem is less of a moral one and more of a mathematical one. E.g., the best solar panels only have a 20-23% effectiveness rate (https://archive.ph/wip/Vh1Qj). That means they cannot pull in ~80% of the solar power available. Batteries to supplement this mean more not less fossil fuels for production and mining of rare earth metals (and let's not even get into the human rights issues at those mines). Wind mills can't be built with windmill energy (and only work when the wind blows which is too varied to call reliable). Plain and simple: these alternative energy sources are not capable of replacing our existing energy needs wholesale without introducing significant chaos and likely, death.