11–20 of 122 posts
I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?
I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2022-04/LCA_3_FINAL%20...
I think a low carbon mix will result in the cheapest, most reliable and cleanest energy grid.
> "The Trump administration is proud to support the rebirth of America’s nuclear industry and ensuring Americans have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come." > "The demonstration and the licensing pathway it establishes represent a key step toward deploying electricity-producing microreactors for U.S. military installations by September 30, 2028." So which is it? Power to the people…
Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.
I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?
Do it all.
> "The Trump administration is proud to support the rebirth of America’s nuclear industry and ensuring Americans have access to affordable, reliable and secure energy for generations to come." > "The demonstration and the licensing pathway it establishes represent a key step toward deploying electricity-producing microreactors for U.S. military installations by September 30, 2028." So which is it? Power to the people…
"Antares is a nuclear fission energy company developing compact microreactors for defense and space applications"
I am still quite confused on the scientific consensus: Should we double down on renewable energy and solve its issues with lots of batteries or should we invest in next generation nuclear energy? Both at the same time? Does anyone know?
Renewables and batteries to keep your AC, workplace EV charger, stove, pool heater and (since recently) green ammonia producer going, nuclear to prevent e.g. aluminium smelters from seizing up.
Also the cheapest way to make renewables work 24/7 is to build HVDC lines - they cost as much as a highway per unit length and even undersea cables would deploy for less and faster than equivalent nuclear.
The total length of HVDC lines just in China is currently more than 40k km, so they've literally deployed enough of them to wrap around the globe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.
Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.
Rooftop solar is an example of small scale decentralized energy production, maximum efficiency is not the only relevant metric.
> And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities
Why not? If they're considered safe and pass all inspections, what's the problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.
Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.
Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.
Secondly although generating large amounts of power is more efficient in terms of generation, generating power close to the point of use is significantly more efficient in terms of power loss on the grid as I understand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would microreactor concepts not be suitable for commercial use? History is overwhelmed with examples of large, rare and expensive tech being produced in small cheap packages and becoming massive commercial successes that make the old way look primitive.
Because large scale production is generally more scalable and efficient. And you probably don't want dozens of "microreactors" scattered across cities.