We cite costs in money because it’s useful. But you can’t eat money and you can’t build from it. You need actual stuff and land to do so. That is limited in a way that the money supply isn’t.

Case in point, the currently ongoing global supply shortage.

I would think the point is that if nuclear costs more money, it's suggestive that it doesn't really use less resources than other options that cost less. Of course, that's not entirely true, as some of the costs for nuclear are insurance, which isn't priced particularly rationally, and of course, for human expertise, but that's arguably a far more scarce resource as are land and raw building materials - i.e. if you're using highly-skilled human brain power to design/build/run nuclear power plants, it prevents us from using that brain power to do other potentially more productive things (which might include coming up with better solutions for our environmental challenges). To be clear - I'm quite supportive of more nuclear power, but certainly not because it uses less land or resources.

I realise that, but this argument is based on the assumption that things in the world are rationally priced.

When an NFT sells for more than a small power plant and a celebrity dog walker can be paid more than a nuclear engineer I don’t have a lot of faith in that premise.

Fair call. But while obviously imperfect, cost in $ is about the best estimate we have of the underlying value of all resources involved for a given economic output. Unfortunately it typically doesn't include externalities - if it had done so historically nuclear might already be cheaper now than fossil fuels.

Uh? Try reading my comment again. That the federal reserve in principle could print unlimited money is irrelevant here.

Land use is a substantial concern for renewables and energy storage. We pay for electricity in marginal dollars. Currently we are building solar in low cost/utilization land. At some point prior to full rollout of renewables, this “cheap” land will run out.

Land use is of absolutely no concern for renewables or storage.

Solar and wind coexist synergetically with existing uses, so renewables do not need any dedicated land at all. There is enough existing reservoir area to float solar on, alone, for many times the world's conceivable power needs.

Solar farms are built in deserts only because idiot investors want them there. They are fantastically less efficient there, and degrade in the heat.

Concern trolling about land demand is the low road.

Why do you believe that land use is absolutely no concern? What data do you have for this?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-82042-5

Notes that at 80% penetration, solar will occupy roughly 5% of total land. The paper goes on to study methods of ensuring that this land use change does not drive net carbon increases from vegetation loss etc.

You didn't read or understand the posting you replied to. Why should anybody expect you to read or understand anything else?

I’d suggest reviewing the site guidelines on comments.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I posted a response on some of the challenges with marginal economics in renewables and responded to your comment with a peer reviewed and cited journal article on these issues and the relevant data point from this study.

Your response contains an ad-hominem personal attack, and does not contribute to the discussion.

Which part of a reservoir surface do you consider "land"?

Presuming a total adoption of solar across all reservoirs on the planet. We would have roughly 220k sq km of available “land”, roughly enough to support the EUs energy demand (assuming the energy could be magically transported from reservoirs on other continents)

Placing panels everywhere we can is a great idea, however pretending that there is a silver bullet is putting our heads in the sand.

Solar is not the only clean, cheap energy source. Wind coexists nicely with agriculture.

And, constructed reservoirs are not the only still water. California has estimated it can gather 12 GW just from its canals.

Solar may also usefully be sited on active pastureland, which is not in short supply. There, it reduces water demand and offers shelter for livestock. Livestock keeps down weeds.

There is a fair amount of industrial roofing in use, where solar extends its life. Some people have already installed there.

> Solar is not the only clean, cheap energy source. Wind coexists nicely with agriculture.

Then why not nuclear too? The world sorely needs options where we can spend some CapEx and solve global warming. I see nothing wrong with a mix of hydro, solar, geothermal, wind, and nuclear. There is no reason not to expect capital efficiencies in larger nuclear build-outs compared to the sporadic reactors we've built for the last ~50 years.

Right now we are seeing coal and natural gas plants getting built because there aren't enough renewable options. As has been the case for the last 50 years while renewables catch up.

Simply, capex $1 spent on renewables gets you several times what you would get buying nukes, and now, not in 2035.

Globally, there is no shortage of cheap land for a renewable-powered economy. If locally land is expensive, don't put energy-hungry industry there.

This may mean Europe ends up deindustrializing vs. sun-soaked places closer to the equator. I suppose King Leopold wouldn't have liked that.

This is a fair statement, major industrial metros such as Chicago emerged due to proximity to resources (iron, grain), transportation (lakes, rivers, rail), and energy (coal).

There surely will be a new equilibrium including newer power generation means, however many sunny places are far from water and other industrial inputs - moving steel mills to New Mexico is not quite a slam dunk in terms of transportation.