Comment by Diplomjodler@feddit.de on Bill Gates-backed nuclear contender Terra Power aims to build dozens of UK reactors

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.

So travelling wave is out and SMRs are in? Right. What both have in common is that they’re just pipe dreams. Nuclear power never was and never will be economically viable. If we could all just accept that we could get on with real solutions.

The energy density of nuclear fuels is unparalleled.

Modern reactor designs are extremely safe and stable, the only downside is the cost.

The cost is so high because they are basically boutique projects. Having a standardized design with mass produced components would go a long way to making nuclear reactors more affordable.

And just why do you think that never happened? The Soviets tried that. And how did that go? The Japanese tried to use American designs without adapting them to local conditions and that’s how we got Fukushima. A nuclear reactor is simply too complex to be built in an assembly line. And all the promises of “small modular reactors” have been nothing but pipe dreams so far. I’m not saying it’s not doable. I’m saying it won’t happen any time soon. Anyone who touts nuclear power as a solution to climate change is either delusional or not arguing in good faith.

And all countries that run nuclear reactors these days are completely corruption free? Just look at Fukushima and the aftermath. And that’s one of the less corrupt countries of the world.

We’ve had 70 years to figure out how to produce cost-competitive nuclear energy. It’s time to move on.

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.

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 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.

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

Bill Gates-backed nuclear contender Terra Power aims to build dozens of UK reactors(www.cityam.com)

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Our Rules

Approved Bots

Community stats

Community moderators