Energy density is used as a metric to claim nuclear energy the next step, but really cost has driven energy advancements, and this is why renewables will win.
The energy density of solar fuel is a million times higher than that of uranium fuel pellets - which is especially helpful in space. Hard to store in this form though.
This is beautifully, but it might exaggerate in the opposite direction and ignore contingent factors. Yes, price always wins at a local scale and at a specific time, but the density advantage might still manifest itself on historic timescales. For example there is an excellent argument to be made that the industrial revolution itself started specifically because of the low quantity of wood available in Britain. Coal mines - while, for the people of 18th century Britain, inferior economically to a good supply of hard wood - created a very particular set of conditions where early steam engines could appear and be improved upon:
It was specifically this application, pumping water out of coal mines, that could make the early steam engines cost effective. A wood powered steam engine would have been to fuel hungry to make sense - because it would have required more manual work to cut and deliver the wood than what the engine was able to deliver in a form of jerky motion. You cut all surrounding trees and then must fetch them from greater and greater distances until the whole scheme falls apart. This is exactly where the high density of a coal mine shines, because you could obtain immense quantities of energy in a relatively confined space. Once a minimum viable version of the steam engine started to operate, it became economic to iterate on its design, improve power and efficiency, culminating with the "modern" steam engine of James Watt that went on the power the entire 19th and early 20th century, creating industrial processes and markets which could take advantage of high density fuels, later oil etc.
But the initial leap-frog would have been difficult without access to high density, high quality coal mines. So to disprove the energy density argument it's not enough in my opinion to show that, in a certain time and place, energy price wins regardless of density. That much is obvious, but dense sources appear to have a natural price advantage on historic timescales - they require interaction with less physical matter, less land, less people and effort etc., if only technological progress can translate that density advantage into price. That is the fundamental (broken) promise of nuclear.
The energy density of solar fuel is a million times higher than that of uranium fuel pellets - which is especially helpful in space. Hard to store in this form though.
"Can't fight economics" --- I totally agree with you. Insightful and well-thought article. Thanks for sharing this for free!
This is beautifully, but it might exaggerate in the opposite direction and ignore contingent factors. Yes, price always wins at a local scale and at a specific time, but the density advantage might still manifest itself on historic timescales. For example there is an excellent argument to be made that the industrial revolution itself started specifically because of the low quantity of wood available in Britain. Coal mines - while, for the people of 18th century Britain, inferior economically to a good supply of hard wood - created a very particular set of conditions where early steam engines could appear and be improved upon:
https://acoup.blog/2022/08/26/collections-why-no-roman-industrial-revolution/
It was specifically this application, pumping water out of coal mines, that could make the early steam engines cost effective. A wood powered steam engine would have been to fuel hungry to make sense - because it would have required more manual work to cut and deliver the wood than what the engine was able to deliver in a form of jerky motion. You cut all surrounding trees and then must fetch them from greater and greater distances until the whole scheme falls apart. This is exactly where the high density of a coal mine shines, because you could obtain immense quantities of energy in a relatively confined space. Once a minimum viable version of the steam engine started to operate, it became economic to iterate on its design, improve power and efficiency, culminating with the "modern" steam engine of James Watt that went on the power the entire 19th and early 20th century, creating industrial processes and markets which could take advantage of high density fuels, later oil etc.
But the initial leap-frog would have been difficult without access to high density, high quality coal mines. So to disprove the energy density argument it's not enough in my opinion to show that, in a certain time and place, energy price wins regardless of density. That much is obvious, but dense sources appear to have a natural price advantage on historic timescales - they require interaction with less physical matter, less land, less people and effort etc., if only technological progress can translate that density advantage into price. That is the fundamental (broken) promise of nuclear.