The Breakthrough Journal

On nuclear construction cost increases, from Crowley and Griffith 1982, “US construction cost rise threatens nuclear option” (via @whatisnuclear):

""" Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """

via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15

The whole quote is worth reading/skimming.

More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

(and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-eight-months-after-receiving-proposed-advanced-reactor-licensing-rule-commission-has-not-acted )

Because the land cost and amount needed is immaterial. Solar and wind actually contribute to the tax base where it is colocated, tax revenue that would otherwise not be provided (depending on jurisdiction). People overvalue land for some reason, most of the world is not Manhattan or Hong Kong. The US farms 60 million acres for corn and soybean for biofuels alone, for example, and of course that land is much more efficiently used if solar PV is installed for energy.

https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-much-land-power-us-solar/

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2021/10/solar-panels-half-the-world-roofs-electricity-research/

https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/is-utility-scale-solar-stealing-our-food-think-again

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/solar/california-first-canal-array-project-nexus

Livestock emits between 10% to 20% of global greenhouse gases (in carbon equivalent/100y-GWP) [1]

In contrast, all data centers (not just AI) currently use less than 1.5% of all electricity, making up less than 0.3% of global emissions [2]. Although recent increases in data center electricity usage is lamentable, even in the short term future, much of this can and more importantly _will_ be low-carbon energy, and the ratio should continue to improve with time.

A 1% reduction in livestock emissions is therefore about the same as a 50% reduction in data center emissions.

[1]: https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/food-agriculture-environment/livestock-dont-contribute-14-5-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[2]: https://www.carbon-direct.com/insights/understanding-the-carbon-footprint-of-ai-and-how-to-reduce-it

The numbers are increasing, but leveling off. High fertility rates only exist in a few regions of the world (Africa, South Asia) and even there they are falling rapidly.

The "solution" broadly speaking is higher intensity - of energy, land, everything. If you have compact energy sources (nuclear) powering compact food production (high-yield agriculture, some vertical farming) feeding people living in compact cities (higher density, more ridesharing), then it's doable. You can already see lots of signs of this in the developed countries.

This will still require lots of adjustment from people, but asking them to live in duplexes, share rides and eat less meat is much more doable than asking them no you know, not exist.

The Breakthrough does lots of great research on this topic: https://thebreakthrough.org/

I am a small-time investor in renewable energy businesses, but I am also a believer in nuclear energy.

Consider a city like Mumbai that needs about 3.8 GW per day. One would need lots of windmills and large solar farms that would need to be positioned in a different state having more sunlight throughout the year. Mumbai often experiences cloudy weather and intermittent wind. I cannot imagine only wind and solar supporting the needs of Mumbai.

There are countries other than the US who do not take 20 years to build a reactor. Out-dated regulations, punitive paperwork, and perhaps poor project management are the reasons for the oft-cited delays in the US. Other countries complete their builds in 6 to 7 years. https://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/chinas-impressive-rate-of-nuclear-construction

Manure and synthetic fertilizer both have similarly severe, but somewhat different, environmental impacts. Synthetic fertilizer requires large amounts of energy to produce, but manure generally needs to be applied much more inefficiently to achieve the same effect because of its relatively low nitrogen content and the inability to control its release. It also has transportation issues [1].

However, these types of impacts are trivial in comparison to the 1.9% energy efficiency for beef. Regardless of the fertilizer used, we would use just under 1/50th of it if we consumed the plants directly, along with the same savings in land and water.

[1] https://thebreakthrough.org/articles/to-cut-nitrogen-pollution-move-past-the-synthetic-organic-debate