this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Technology
58123 readers
4482 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
We've had 70 years to figure out how to produce cost-competitive nuclear energy. It's time to move on.
We did produce cost competitive nuclear. When France went through it’s oil crisis recovery shift to nuclear, they built them every single year for a decade, going from a couple to 40+ in the span of a decade.
We’ve just stopped. So then of course the institutional knowledge disappears.
That's fair. I'm not anti-nuclear on principle. If we had gone all-in 30 years ago it would've made some sense. To build new nuclear now though is a waste of money.
Honestly its a pretty great use of money if you're thinking long term. A useful if not ideal energy source for the climate crisis especially with batteries not quite being there yet, and thinking past that to more substantial space exploration/colonization its good to already have a working power source that doesn't rely specifically on earths environment.
Batteries are already "there", with more chemistries entering production.
You know how nuclear power works, right? It heats water to turn it into steam, which drives turbines so it needs a water source. It's not something you can use in space. The Mars rover uses the natural decay of plutonium-238 to turn heat into electricity, it's a completely different thing, no fission required.
And electric cars have had over 100 years, so should we have given up on them? Your argument is flawed.
Not at all. We've seen massive advancements with EVs, 300+ miles ranges for under $40k are common now. Has nuclear both gotten more capable and cheaper during its lifetime? The answer is a resounding no.
All of those EV advancements were only in the passed 20 years.
The first electric vehicle was made well over 100 years ago. Until very recently they were considered wildly expensive and impractical.
You consider nuclear to me unnecessary and impractical because we’ve had the tech for 75 years and it’s still expensive. Yet nuclear tech is younger than EVs, and you discredit advancements because… reasons.
Your stance confuses me.
Why is it confusing? One is a battery on wheels, the other is controlled nuclear fission, creating steam to drive turbines for electricity generation.
Now I know you’re just trolling.
Have a good night
I'm not trolling, you're just a little slow is all.
The technology of modern reactors ,like the one in the article, is a greater advancement from early reactors that the 1900th century electric car to a modern one.
The materials, manufacturing techniques, fuels, controls, and components are only achievable due to modern advancements.
The latest reactors will be cheaper, more efficient, and safer. They are a necessary stopgap to overcome the transient nature of renewable energy in the UK and an important piece in ensuring energy availability and detachment from from fossil fuels.
Oh come on. Cheaper? Nuclear reactors frequently go way over budget and take longer than promised to build.
We don't need nuclear as a stopgap, in fact, it's not helpful to have base load at all with renewables - nuclear has to run at as close to 100% uptime as possible to make any financial sense. What do you do on windy, sunny days when renewables are generating more power than is required? You can't switch off a nuclear plant very quickly.
Nuclear makes no sense any more. We need to save the cash and invest in more renewables and storage, and an upgraded power grid.
We know historic nuclear is expensive. Cost is the entire point of SMRs. Let's not use reductionist logic to make a complex problem seem simple. It is complicated and whether SMRs succeed is still to be determined but there is good logic in the aims they have set out and I hope they succeed.
As for renewable, it would be wonderful if we could store energy to overcome the ebs and flows of power they currently produce, but I am not aware of any technology currently allowing this to sufficient costs and practicalities. This is where nuclear may be required
It doesn't matter if you produce 400% the required energy in a year with renewables if we have to go without even a fraction of the time.
If cost is the entire point of SMRs, prepare to be very disappointed.
Of course we can store energy, we've been doing it for thousands of years. Pumped hydro, flywheels, various battery chemistries, compressed air, molten salt, green hydrogen, and so on are all viable and should be used where appropriate. For instance pumped hydro is excellent if you have the terrain.
If it is that easy, show me one example where any of those technologies have been deployed at a scale required for even a day usage of an entire nation?
Truth is, its hard to do. We will get there, but not sufficiently fast for where we need, hence the continuing need for nuclear.
Iceland, Paraguay, Costa Rica, Norway.
We're ahead of where you think we are, no need for nuclear.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018-05-24/a-100-renewable-grid-isnt-just-feasible-its-already-happening/#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20compiled%20by,%2C%20and%20Denmark%20(69.4).
Not a single one is an example of what I asked.
Maybe the solution for the UK is to create mountainous rivers or move the country to techtonically active parts of the planet.
I gave you what you asked. I assume you've heard of Dinorwig? That's in Wales. Plenty of elevation changes there and in Scotland.