Bill Gates-backed nuclear contender Terra Power aims to build dozens of UK reactors::A Bill Gates-backed clean energy player is hoping to build dozens of nuclear reactors in the UK and will compete with global rivals.

  • AggressivelyPassive
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -311 year ago

    No matter how you think about nuclear power in general, it will not be of any substantial help against climate change.

    It’s expensive and takes forever to build. Even the optimistic projections of the vendors are well above what wind and solar deliver right now.

    Nuclear power is just a tech bro pipe dream. Nobody needs it. It’s just prestige.

      • AggressivelyPassive
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -31 year ago

        Really?

        The country that has extremely old reactors, that need to shut down, because the rivers got too hot from the cooling water?

        The country that spend billions on building a single new reactor?

          • AggressivelyPassive
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -41 year ago

            And expensive in the long run, more expensive than other forms of power. And they take forever to build.

            How is that helping again? The reactors going online in 20 years won’t help against climate change.

            • @SCB
              link
              English
              101 year ago

              Lol you better strap on buddy cuz we’re gonna be fighting climate change for a lot longer than 20 years

              • AggressivelyPassive
                link
                fedilink
                English
                21 year ago

                And the fight has to start for good as soon as possible.

                Even ignoring costs, we can’t wait 20, 30 years for all the reactors coming online. Until then it’s too late to mitigate at least the worst effects.

                All the renewables are right there. Scalable, cheap, easy to deploy. Why not use them? Why the pipe dreams?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  All forms of energy have issues. For hydropower, you have a limited number of rivers you can dam up, and a limited amount of rainfall in a year (I live in Norway, we talk about water levels in the reservoirs every winter). For wind, it’s about the fluctuations and the available area to build in (most of Europe is either city or farmland, can’t build windmills everywhere). For solar, fluctuations are the biggest issue. For offshore wind, we’re just now starting to see that wind farms of a significant size can substantially impact the weather on nearby coastlines.

                  The point is: We need to diversify our energy mix in such a way that we mitigate as many of these issues as possible. Nuclear takes a long time to build, but we’re going to need even more energy in 20-50 years than we do now. Just imagine how much more electricity we need to produce to replace fossil fuels in the transportation sector alone.

                  Building nuclear does not mean we stop building renewables, or that we build less of them. It means that we build nuclear in addition to renewables. In the short run (20-30 years) we are going to need a whole lot of renewables very fast. If we start building nuclear now, those reactors can come online and start taking some of the load in 20-30 years. We have to plan for both the long and short term at the same time.

                  • DerGottesknecht
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Building nuclear does not mean we stop building renewables, or that we build less of them.

                    Money as a finite resource as of now, so money spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables and storage. And that is the number 1 priority if we want to be carbon neutral as fast as possible. And if we manage to transition to an all renewable energy system and continue to need even more energy we can hopefully start with fusion in 20 years. But in the short term i would only invest in renewables.

              • AggressivelyPassive
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                Solar and wind are way cheaper. Why would any sane person choose the more expensive option?

                BTW: you obviously misinterpreted my point. Either intentionally, then you are dishonest, or you are so preoccupied with proving your (moot) point, that you read what you hoped to read.

    • @TenderfootGungi
      link
      English
      141 year ago

      The goal of several of these new companies is to build small modular plants that are cookie cutter instead of individual boutique designs. That should bring cost down substantially.

      • @IchNichtenLichten
        link
        English
        81 year ago

        It’s the opposite. Nuclear plants were built as large as possible because that was the only way that made any kind of financial sense. SMRs are a waste of money.

        • HobbitFoot
          link
          fedilink
          English
          41 year ago

          It might have been why in the past, but the issues right now with building new plants is getting a design through production that can survive the review process. Costs come down on the second plant because you have a design you can clone rather than developing it from scratch.

          There are already several uses by several countries in using miniature nuclear power plants. This is just an attempt to make it more available to everyone.

          • @IchNichtenLichten
            link
            English
            91 year ago

            Nuclear has never been competitive in terms of cost against the alternatives, first coal and gas, now renewables. In fact, nuclear is only getting more expensive. I really don’t understand why you want to pay more for power than is necessary. I don’t.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                But it’s a waste of resources, remember money is a token used to distribute production potential and reconsider it - all those people and resources could be allocated to other more efficient projects.

                Nuclear in twenty years or solar, wind, trains, more efficiently insulated buildings, localized and ecologically sustainable infrastructure and industry before the end of the decade?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  a token used to distribute production potential

                  Get those tokens elsewhere IMO we should go for Both nuclear And renewables. We are not alone in the west.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              01 year ago

              We need to compare the cost of nuclear against firm renewables, including storage (developing technology) and long-distance transmission (location-dependent political/technical challenges).

              Comparing against coal and gas is meaningless unless we include the atmospheric cleanup costs.

              • 🦘min0nim🦘
                link
                fedilink
                English
                61 year ago

                In places where this has been studied extensively renewables with storage are still the cheapest by a long way. Australia has the whole state of South Australia (plus Tasmania) as a test case. SA has transitioned to almost 100% renewable supply in under a decade.

                We have a cost effective, distributed, redundant, easy to build solution. SMRs are not proven in cost or reliability. They should be studied and trialed, but not at the expense of acting responsibly today.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        The Westinghouse AP1000 was a modular design approved in 2004. The US started building one in 2010 and just finished this year (well, it’s not actually finished yet, but the first reactor is now online).

        I think China was the only country to build one in less than a decade - and it’s much easier to perform public works when you’re a authoritarian government who doesn’t have to deal with public or environmental concerns.

      • AggressivelyPassive
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Well, then show me any viable concept. Just one. Not an “experimental protoype”. An actual concept, that is even roughly comparable in cost to currently deployed systems.

        • @Womble
          link
          English
          91 year ago

          Hi, I’m a physicist who believes that nuclear power is the most realistic option of moving ourselves off fossil fuels, without the astronomical cost and untested technology that would be required in order to create a majority intermittent grid.

          I do also have strong feelings about crypto, mostly about how much of a incredible waste of resources it is and how disgusting it is that the obvious scam nature of most of it hasnt been clamped down on by governments

          • @IchNichtenLichten
            link
            English
            -51 year ago

            If you’re a physicist why are you stating what you “believe”? I would’ve thought facts and evidence would be more appealing than feels. Of course facts and evidence point to nuclear being a massive waste of everyone’s money when far cheaper alternatives are now available. Maybe that’s why?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -1
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Facts and theory can only tell you so much, eventually things need tested and there are a lot of factors going into a potential move t nuclear power

            • @Womble
              link
              English
              -11 year ago

              bevaise human afairs cant be reduced down to a sime harmonic oscillator and solved. There is no equation to solve for “best societal outcome”.

              renewables are good to an extent but storage is an unsolved and difficult problem. Including enough storage to make them work as the majority source of power for a grid is vastly more expensive than nuclear power. Currently we are nowhere near that however, and given solar and wind deployment are bottlenecked in many places the obvious way forwards is to build as much renewables AND nuclear as possible.

              • @IchNichtenLichten
                link
                English
                01 year ago

                Source on “storage is an unsolved and difficult problem” and “the majority source of power for a grid is vastly more expensive than nuclear power” because both of those appear to be false.

                • @Womble
                  link
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Storage at the scale needed to deal with intermittant generation is unsolved. You would be looking at trillions of dollars on top of the costs of actual generation for a large european country. Price per kWh of storage and usage of countries are easily searched figures, multiply them together for a few hundred hours and it is obvious.

                  That is what makes a majority renewable grid more expensive. Obviously fossil fuels are cheaper ignoring externalities, but assuming you want to get off those and dont have spare hydro capacity what otber choice is there?