this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2024
653 points (98.8% liked)

Technology

58719 readers
4815 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
(page 3) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ownsauce@lemmy.world 60 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

The article mentions Kairos Power but doesn't mention that their reactors in development are molten-salt cooled. While they'll still use Uranium, its a great step in the right direction for safer nuclear power.

If development continues on this path with thorium molten-salt fueled and cooled reactors, we could see safe and commercially viable nuclear (thorium) energy within our lifetimes.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-06/china-building-thorium-nuclear-power-station-gobi/104304468

To my layman's knowledge, using thorium molten-salt instead of uranium means the reactor can be designed in a way where it can't melt down like Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Edit: The other implication of not using uranium is that the leftover material is harder to make in to bombs, so the technology around molten-salt thorium reactors could be spread to current non-nuclear states to meet their energy needs and reduce reliance on coal plants around the planet.

[–] xavier666@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The meltdown that happened in Chernobyl happened because of mismanagement. Yes, there were design flaws in the system, but lots of rules had to be broken before the design flaws were triggered.

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 0 points 20 hours ago

Nah, mismagement happened yes, but any other nuclear plant wouldn't have exploded, they used a old technology even for that age, for cust cutting or faster to build idk that's why it exploded

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] sweetpotato@lemmy.ml 43 points 1 day ago (7 children)

So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn't replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that...cool

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The other side of the coin is that AI currently uses more power than is produced by all renewables across the globe annually. So at least they'll be offsetting that, which would be a net positive.

And it seems like Google's funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs, which is another win that could lead to replacing coal plants in many countries with small scale reactors that don't run on uranium.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And it seems like Google's funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs

Hopefully.

But the cynic in me is always concerned when shareholder owned companies are operating something that has the potential to go very wrong very quickly if/when they cut too many corners in the pursuit of that extra 0.5% of profit.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

For what it's worth, many, maybe most (sorry, can't be bothered to look up the stats right now) nuclear plants in the US are already owned by some publicly traded company beholden to its shareholders who expect it to turn an ever increasing profit for them.

Not that it gives me the warm-fuzzies that that's the case, but it's not quite as big of a departure from the current situation as you're making it out to be.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sweetpotato@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes it's obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody's arguing that. What I'm talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.

No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It's not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that's just one of the problems. It's the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).

It's also that Google could have been taxed more(I'm sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'll be amazed if this ever comes to fruition.

Generally speaking renewables + storage are the cheapest way of generating non-polluting power. After that there's nuclear power and it's much, much more expensive:

After that, and even more expensive are SMRs. Also, they don't actually exist yet as a means of generating power.

From the article, "For example, it has already received the green light from the U.S. Nuclear Registry Commission (the first one to do so) to build its Hermes non-powered demonstrator reactor in Tennessee. Although it still doesn’t have nuclear fuel on-site, this is a major step in its design process, allowing the company to see its system in real life and learn more about its deployment and operation."

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Generally speaking renewables + storage are the cheapest way of generating non-polluting power.

At variable scale, based on time of year and weather. Nuclear is much better for base-load, particularly at the scale of GWs. You know exactly how much electricity you're going to get 24/7, and the fuel costs aren't exposed to a market that can vary by 150-300% annually.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day ago (8 children)

The high price of nuclear power comes from it being a stagnant and obsolete technology for 30 years.

As well as being choked to death in red tape.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] TimLovesTech@badatbeing.social 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Growing from a broad research effort at U.S. universities and national laboratories, Kairos Power was founded to accelerate the development of an innovative nuclear technology ...

Kairos Power is focused on reducing technical risk through a novel approach to test iteration often lacking in the nuclear space. Our schedule is driven by the goal of a U.S. demonstration plant before 2030 and a rapid deployment thereafter. The challenge is great, but so too is the opportunity.

So basically academics finding people to fund a large scale lab experiment, they want to get working by 2030. It sounds like they sold Google on an idea (for funding) and now have to move their idea from the lab to the real world. It does sound safer than water cooled plants of old at least.

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (14 children)

Will energy prices become negative when the AI bubble bursts?

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 11 points 1 day ago

These are the small, buried reactors right? The ones that we tested on paper but haven't gotten NRC/DOE to sign off on?

I know they are MSRs but still...

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›