185
Bill Gates-backed nuclear contender Terra Power aims to build dozens of UK reactors
(www.cityam.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
185 points (93.0% liked)
Technology
59340 readers
5586 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
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.
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?
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.
Lol you better strap on buddy cuz we're gonna be fighting climate change for a lot longer than 20 years
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?
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.
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.
Most renewable energy projects are not larger than that private entities can invest and build them, as they are assumed to be profitable. Nuclear requires large, governmental investments. Both can be funded if we push the private sector by squeezing out fossil fuels with regulation and forcing them to invest in renewables.
The problem with starting with fusion in 20 years is twofold:
1: It assumes we will have viable, large scale fusion reactors developed within 20 years. Thats a big if.
2: If we start in 20 years, we won't have them until 30-40 years from now.
Thats why we have to start planning now for exactly the case you are talking about: A situation 20 years from now when we have transitioned mostly to renewables, but still need more energy. That is a very likely future, which is why we need to build nuclear now, so that we have it in 20 years, when we will need it.
If the large governmental investments go into renewables and storage we have more energy faster.
Also nuclear doesn't play nice with a energy network with a large fluctuating renewable part. As the running cost of a nuclear plant is minimal compared to the investment there is a huge incentive to let a nuclear plant run at max output all the time, thereby blocking the grid for renewables.
I'm not actually sure this is true in the long run. Yes, we will have more energy in 10 years, but will we have more in 30, 40, 50 years? When you look at the capacity of reactors built in e.g. France in (I think) the 70's-80's, it's clear that once you have reactor designs up and running, building a lot of capacity both cheaper and quicker. The first reactors are both most expensive, and take the longest to build.
And that's the exact point I'm trying to make: Not that we should only build nuclear, but that if we want to minimise the risk of future energy shortages, we should spread our eggs among as many baskets as possible. We can't just plan for 10-15 years ahead, we have to plan for 40-50 years ahead. On that time-scale, it is hard or impossible to say whether we will need nuclear. Therefore, it would be foolish to not invest in building and maintaining the institutional knowledge that comes with building reactors.
Even 20 years from now it is hard to say what our needs will be. Building reactors now ensures that we have some massive energy sources coming online in 20 years, if we in 15 years see that we have enough, we can scale down on other sources, but I think that is highly unlikely: We will always find a way to use excess energy for something useful.
But its the same with renewables and storage, they will improve as well and most likely keep their cost advantage.
And you seem to ignore Opportunity costs again. If we build to much nuclear plants and don't need the energy later we could have invested the money better in other areas, like education. Again, money is a finite resource.
And another reason why I prefer renewables to nuclear is decentralisation. With renewables everyone can partake in energy generation, while nuclear is only for big corporations or governments. I'd rather have a robust decentralised grid where almost everyone is consuming and producing local most of the time than a grid relying on a few huge producers, which are a huge target for sabotage or vulnerable to natural catastrophes.
I see your points, and largely agree with them. I don't think we're going to convince each other here, and thats because we put very different weight on the question
"What if we end up needing it, but haven't built it?"
To me, that is the deciding question, which makes me argue that we should invest in it, while for you it seems the answer is that we should invest in such a way that we minimise the probability of needing it in the first place, which I think is a fair answer.
Thats very aptly put. I would also like to not only work the supply side and make demand more flexible to better work with renewables. And maybe get rid of personal cars and get people to ride more bikes and so on... And if we manage to stall/reverse global warming in the next 20 years we hopefully have fusion for all of the really big energy needs.
But most importantly, we need to do everything to get rid of fossil fuels as fast as possible. And that's where I think we agree completely.
Definitely! We have to do pretty much everything we can to prevent the world from burning and drowning simultaneously.
On that note - I should probably get back to work ;)
It's too expensive to fight climat change? Come on.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, the idea is to save the planet.
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?
Get those tokens elsewhere IMO we should go for Both nuclear And renewables. We are not alone in the west.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
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?