Robots just installed 100 MW of solar panels in the desert

[Jim Shoes]

What a waste, a nuclear power plant would be much better and cleaner too

How is nuclear cleaner than solar?

 

[Endymio]

Using the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) metric, solar is much, much cheaper than nuclear power, even when you factor in the cost of adding battery storage to the solar grid.

Again: that's only true for simplistic studies that consider all kw-Hrs equal. Nuclear, gas, and (to a slightly lesser extent) hydro are dispatchable sources. They output what you need, when you need it. Wind and solar are not -- when they're underproducing, they must be supplanted, and when they're overproducing, their output is worse than useless.

Nor have I ever seen **any** LCOE cost analysis that included enough battery storage to replace baseline sources like nuclear and fossil fuels.

I'll also note again that Germany's green push not only took it from the cheapest electricity in Europe to among the most expensive, it's brought back the spectre of potential blackouts for the first time since WW2. If wind and solar are so much cheaper, why isn't Germany still the cheapest?

 

[Shear]

If we call those machines "robots," then "robots" have been planting and harvesting crops for decades now.

 

[mbrowne5061]

How much electricity do you think is needed in the middle of the Mojave desert? The only reason the solar plant is there is because it's impractical to put it where it's actually needed.

And that of course means the true cost of the solar includes additional grid expansion and significantly higher line losses.

HVDC transmission can make it pretty efficient to send power pretty far distances. LA is about 150 miles away, following the highways. HVDC can send power - and has - easily 6x that length. Hell, at 150miles, just use high voltage AC.

No power plant is right next to where its power gets used.

 

[BobHome]

So, despite the nonsensical clickbait title, what actually happened was that people installed solar panels. Those people used robots.

Anyone using the right tools can do a job "at previously impossible rates".
E.g. a person with a truck will do many jobs at rates impossible for a person without a truck. But it's idi0tic to claim the truck is doing the job.

Agree. My first thought was: The robot is a 'bit' larger than a human, can lift more than a human and more work got done faster. Makes sense to me! (and yeah, bad title)

 

[LordVile95]

Using the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) metric, solar is much, much cheaper than nuclear power, even when you factor in the cost of adding battery storage to the solar grid. The comparison includes the cost of plant construction (much more expensive than deploying solar arrays), fuel costs, plus managing fuel waste and plant decommissioning. The only real advantage that nuclear has is the fact that it requires much less land use than massive solar arrays.

And assuming they produce their plate capacity and assuming they don’t degrade

 

[LordVile95]

How much water do you think is available for a nuclear plant in the Mojave desert?

Like, I agree - build the nukes - but lets think about the location, too, yeah?

You are aware that you can use land for other things and transmit power great distances?

 

[Endymio]

HVDC transmission can make it pretty efficient to send power pretty far distances. ...

No power plant is right next to where its power gets used.

The majority of electricity in the US is generated within 150 miles of where it is consumed, and we still lose nearly 7% of the total from line losses. And you're absolutely correct that HVDC reduces line losses over long distances -- except these systems are large, complex ... and very expensive.

In any case, you've just decimated your original argument. Even if we needed electric power in the middle of the Mojave, we could pipe it there from a nuclear plant sited near the ocean.

 

[Puiu]

In my opinion, minimum wage sounds great on paper. In reality, you know the increase in wages is going to result in increased in the cost for the business, which they will conveniently passed it on to consumers. So you may feel like you have more money, but the buying power is actually no better than before the minimum wage being implemented.

Is that a problem? Right now the lack of minimum wage means 20-30% "TIPS". Do you not want to see real prices instead of BS like 10$ and then end up paying 15?

 

[Puiu]

Oops! You forgot the same upheaval struck Europe at the same time:

"...The 2008 housing crisis in Europe caused a severe recession, plunging many European nations into a deep financial crisis. Countries like Spain, Ireland, and the UK faced bursting property bubbles, resulting in sharp price drops, banking sector impairments of over €940 billion, and long-term economic instability...."

You're making excuses. If you don't like 2008, let's start our comparison post-Covid:

"...Since 2020, the United States has experienced significantly faster GDP growth than the European Union, widening a long-term economic gap. US real GDP grew over 11% by early 2025 from pre-pandemic levels, outpacing the EU’s ~4.6% gain,..."

So much for those higher wages translating into higher economic growth.

Even a moment's reflection should convince you that your argument is not only specious, but absurd. Minimum wage earners in the US are only 1% of the total workforce. It's ludicrous to believe raising their salaries is anything more than statistical noise on total GDP growth. It does, however, drastically hurt those very workers you're attempting to protect.



So now you want to not only mandate higher wages for fry cooks, but for every worker in the US? Heck, why not just mandate a $5M annual salary for everyone? Won't that mean we can all buy yachts and private jets?

TANSTAAFL. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

"Oops! You forgot the same upheaval struck Europe at the same time" - do you know why? European banks had bought US mortgage-related assets which effected everybody and the trade blockage just turned everything into a global crisis.

"So much for those higher wages translating into higher economic growth. " - except that you misquoted the numbers and you didn't take into account what was happening post 2020. Thanks to Biden, the US enjoyed great growth because it sold to the EU what it blocked from Russia (like LNG) and was better insulated from the economic fallout of the war. you are simply lying to get your point across.

"Minimum wage earners in the US are only 1% of the total workforce." - you are talking about the federal minimum wage of 7.25$ which is different from state minimum wages. this is why you only see 1%. more than a third of americans earn less than 20$/h (and these are wages before taxes)

"why not just mandate a $5M annual salary for everyone?" - how about you start with a living wage instead of telling customers that they have to pay mandatory 20-30% tips or else the person who served you will starve to death?

Instead of doing this, the US is just increasing its military budget while cutting Medicaid. All the while pedo trump is helping with market manipulation for insider trading. It's just pathetic.

 

[Endymio]

"Oops! You forgot the same upheaval struck Europe at the same time" - do you know why? European banks had bought US mortgage-related assets which effected [sic] everybody

Oops! While that was a factor, many European nations had their own, unrelated housing bubble as well -- Ireland was struck probably the hardest, where they'd actually built more houses than they had people to occupy them.

In any case, your point is doubly wrong. If the only cause of Europe's crisis came from the US, then you'd expect them to recover even faster from it than the US did.

except that you misquoted the numbers and you didn't take into account what was happening post 2020. Thanks to Biden, the US enjoyed great growth because it sold to the EU what it blocked from Russia

LOL, No matter what starting year I pick, you people quibble "that's not fair!". If 2008 and 2020 are both bad, how about 1980-2000? In 1980, the US GDP was 15% smaller than the EU. By the year 2000, it was 30% larger. Oops again!

a third of americans earn less than 20$/h

Thanks for proving my point. Almost none of the country has a minimum wage that high -- yet many are earning it. When you figure out why, you'll understand your error.

... instead of telling customers that they have to pay mandatory 20-30% tips

Nowhere in the US are tips mandatory. And if you think wait staff will stop demanding tips if we raise the minimum wage -- think again.

or else the person who served you will starve to death?

Calm down the drama histrionics. Odd that you claim the current minimum wage causes "people to starve to death" ... yet no one is starving.

 

[Puiu]

Oops! While that was a factor, many European nations had their own, unrelated housing bubble as well -- Ireland was struck probably the hardest, where they'd actually built more houses than they had people to occupy them.

In any case, your point is doubly wrong. If the only cause of Europe's crisis came from the US, then you'd expect them to recover even faster from it than the US did.


LOL, No matter what starting year I pick, you people quibble "that's not fair!". If 2008 and 2020 are both bad, how about 1980-2000? In 1980, the US GDP was 15% smaller than the EU. By the year 2000, it was 30% larger. Oops again!


Thanks for proving my point. Almost none of the country has a minimum wage that high -- yet many are earning it. When you figure out why, you'll understand your error.


Nowhere in the US are tips mandatory. And if you think wait staff will stop demanding tips if we raise the minimum wage -- think again.


Calm down the drama histrionics. Odd that you claim the current minimum wage causes "people to starve to death" ... yet no one is starving.

There is no point in talking about economic crisis from many decades ago when you keep ignoring the context because it is inconvenient to you.

"If the only cause of Europe's crisis came from the US," -- nobody here is making that argument. they are simply pointing out the fact that you are lying about why it happened and how it spread to Europe. if you cannot stop lying then how are we supposed to have a proper argument with you? it's impossible.

"Almost none of the country has a minimum wage that high" - as always you love to ignore context and make wild claims. do all states have the same taxes on income and have the same cost of living? obviously not. again you are trying to deflect from the real issue because you cannot handle the argument and facts put forth.

"Nowhere in the US are tips mandatory." - except that they are in many places (even if it's not legally correct) and where they aren't you are forced by social norms with the same sobbing story of "they can't make a living wage without tips".

This is what you support:

"How the f* do you think they can make money? How is my staff supposed to make f* money?"

If you are going to tell me that this isn't "normal" in the US... This is exactly what you support. (alongside pedophiles like trump)

 

[Northy]

Looks to me like that robot is installing the panels upside down.

 

[mbrowne5061]

The majority of electricity in the US is generated within 150 miles of where it is consumed, and we still lose nearly 7% of the total from line losses. And you're absolutely correct that HVDC reduces line losses over long distances -- except these systems are large, complex ... and very expensive.

In any case, you've just decimated your original argument. Even if we needed electric power in the middle of the Mojave, we could pipe it there from a nuclear plant sited near the ocean.

"They should have just put a nuclear power plant at this site, it would have generated more electricity for the same or less area! Plus, this project is nowhere near any place that uses electricity!"

"Well, while I agree we need more nukes, this is a desert and nuclear power plants need water. Also, LA is 150 miles away, which is well within range of current electrical transmission technology"

"You've decimated your own argument! Just put a nuclear plant on the coast!"

Could you be any goofier?

Also, nuclear plants need fresh water. The salt from ocean water typically doesn't agree with two out of the three cooling stages in most designs. You can use the ocean as a final heat sink, but the reactor coolant loop and power generation loop need fresh water due their high pressures and phase changes (in the case of power generating loop). Last time I checked, LA and the Mojave were kind of infamous for their lack of fresh water.

 

[Endymio]

"They should have just put a nuclear power plant at this site, it would have generated more electricity for the same or less area! Plus, this project is nowhere near any place that uses electricity!"

Could you be any goofier?

That quote wasn't in either of our original posts, nor the post to which you originally replied. You transmogrified @LordVile95 's original post into specifying a nuclear plant in the desert, rather than what he actually said.

To quote someone else here -- "could you be any goofier?"

Also, nuclear plants need fresh water. The salt from ocean water typically doesn't agree with two out of the three cooling stages in most designs.

Wrong again. California's Diablo Canyon is a prime example:

"...Diablo Canyon Power Plant does not use local freshwater sources for its main cooling system; it uses a once-through system that draws roughly 2.5 billion gallons of seawater daily from the Pacific Ocean...."

Diablo's primary coolant loop is a CLOSED SYSTEM. It does not consume water.

 

[mbrowne5061]

That quote wasn't in either of our original posts, nor the post to which you originally replied. You transmogrified @LordVile95 's original post into specifying a nuclear plant in the desert, rather than what he actually said.

To quote someone else here -- "could you be any goofier?"

My sarcastic post never said you two were the same; just that your point was goofy given the rest of the conversation and what technologies are actually common.

Wrong again. California's Diablo Canyon is a prime example:

"...Diablo Canyon Power Plant does not use local freshwater sources for its main cooling system; it uses a once-through system that draws roughly 2.5 billion gallons of seawater daily from the Pacific Ocean...."

Diablo's primary coolant loop is a CLOSED SYSTEM. It does not consume water.

1. You mean the plant slated for decommissioning in 2030 (after getting one stay of execution already), because CA is electing to build solar, wind, and storage projects instead (despite their higher KWhr costs)? That plant?
2. Every single PWR uses a closed loop for the primary and secondary loops. These loops still experience losses because no seal is perfect, especially when dealing with such high pressures, so they would need to be topped up with fresh water regularly.

 

[Endymio]

My sarcastic post never said you two were the same; just that your point was goofy given the rest of the conversation and what technologies are actually common.

No. @LordVile95 suggested California would be better served with a nuclear plant in place of this solar farm, to which you interjected the goofy (your word, not mine) objection that 'nuke plants can't be in the desert'.

1. You mean the plant slated for decommissioning in 2030 (after getting one stay of execution already), because CA is electing to build solar, wind, and storage projects instead (despite their higher KWhr costs)? That plant?

Glad you brought that up! California's unwise attempts to rely on wind and solar have turned it from a net energy exporter to the largest energy importer in the state, given it the highest electricity rates in the continental US, and brought the spectre of blackouts to the state:

California Blackouts Serve as a Cautionary Tale

With temperatures topping 100 degrees and millions working from home due to COVID-19, hundreds of thousands of California homes went dark in August.

www.cec.coop

2. Every single PWR uses a closed loop for the primary and secondary loops. These loops still experience losses because no seal is perfect, especially when dealing with such high pressures, so they would need to be topped up with fresh water regularly.

Wrong again. Those closed loops don't use freshwater, but purified, demineralized water. Diablo Canyon consumes 2.5 billion gallons of seawater daily for once-through cooling; the amount of purified water they lose in the sealed cooling loops is just a few hundred gallons -- of which the plant produces itself onsite, from reverse-osmosis of seawater.

Your statement was incorrect. Nuclear plants don't require a large continual source of fresh water.