• Atom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    Français
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The article, and their sources for cost analysis, don’t appear to say, but how long is the lifespan of the production infrastructure? This detail is often left off these kinds of graphics and I have found that many articles pick 20 years as the lifespan, since that is the typical lifespan of common solar panels (not saying that can’t last longer, but 20 years is a nice easy number). This becomes problematic when leveling cost against nuclear, where the plants a built to run 50 years and often run longer. Fossil fuels to a similar extent with many running long past 50 years. Nuclear takes a long time to become profitable, around 15 years typically. Not a problem in a 50-65 year cost analysis, but certainly a problem in a 20 year scenario. Unfortunately, 20 year cost analysis are common and if the article doesn’t say what their timeline is, that is usually the case.

    • zoeOP
      link
      fedilink
      Français
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      good point but with solar u dont get, ‘solar’ waste and an obligation to build a facility to store this waste. Also nuclear is finite: u always have to displace indigens and lead wars to get the material. With solar, u only need silicium, among other common materials