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.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
On the one hand, I think that's great. We need more nuclear power to mitigate the climate disaster.
On the other hand, I don't trust anything Bill Gates does after he totally fucked up the U.S. education system.
I'm sorry don't you think Bush, among many others, had something to do with that as well? There are more oligarchs than just Gates. The leaders of Big Tech are so far up their own ass you don't even realize you've followed them in there.
We don't need more nuclear power to mitigate the climate disaster we need to stop endless consumerism and strip of power these who got us here.
Would you prefer using oil or gas instead? If we are going to transition away from fossil fuels, nuclear will have to be a part of our new generation system.
I would prefer using renewable sources and cutting off the useless shit like private jets
The world would be a bit better if everyone flew coach or stayed home, but it would be a lot better if the developing world had access to lighting, air conditioning, washing machines, transportation, fertilizer, and desalinated water without a corresponding increase in carbon emissions.
Renewables (with storage and long-distance transmission) are part of the solution, but we need to invest in all viable forms of carbon-free energy like there's no tomorrow, because if we don't, then for a lot of people there won't be.
The world can't be better if the plan is to make things worst (planned obsolescence). Feeding these who got us there is not a solution to the problem
I agree that we should build more durable technology and reduce income inequality, but we need to fight the laws of physics first. Debate is a luxury granted by a stable civilization, which largely depends on a stable climate.
We'll eventually figure out nuclear fusion even in a post apocalyptic nuclear fallout world.
Nuclear power is also a technology for a stable civilization not one ruled by corrupted politicians that play war with each others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhzhia_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Investing in nuclear power also means allowing engineers to improve the technology. There are plenty of reactor designs (mostly on paper) that can safely shut down without human intervention, which would make them much less of a liability in a warzone.
All of them will increase waste by 30% and will not make a cheaper energy.
Let's save downvotes for comments that don't contribute (like zer0's first few).
While I still disagree with his later stuff, it's certainly more productive of a conversation.
I realize downvote != disagree is a fight we can never win, but it's still worth trying.
I definitely agree with you on how planned obsolescence and consumerism is a huge issue. But we still need energy from something and this sounds like a great start.
I'm all about the three R's. Especially prioritizing the order they are in.
REDUCE and REUSE first, recycle only if needed.
And pirate, ARRR!
Excuse me indeed, the 4 important R's
Good luck. Any plan on how to?
Renewables don't work.
Renewables power entire countries at this point. What the fuck are you talking about?
That's a very out of date talking point
We need to do both of those things. Mindless consumerism aside, the best option to solve our base energy needs which are not frivolous (infrastructure, healthcare, education etc etc) is nuclear.
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.
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.
It's your stance that is confusing. I mean if you didn't strawman on purpose.
Now I know you’re just trolling.
Have a good night
I'm not trolling, you're just a little slow is all.
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 know historic nuclear is expensive. Cost is the entire point of SMRs. Let's not use reductionist logic to make a complex problem seem simple. It is complicated and whether SMRs succeed is still to be determined but there is good logic in the aims they have set out and I hope they succeed.
As for renewable, it would be wonderful if we could store energy to overcome the ebs and flows of power they currently produce, but I am not aware of any technology currently allowing this to sufficient costs and practicalities. This is where nuclear may be required
It doesn't matter if you produce 400% the required energy in a year with renewables if we have to go without even a fraction of the time.
If cost is the entire point of SMRs, prepare to be very disappointed.
Of course we can store energy, we've been doing it for thousands of years. Pumped hydro, flywheels, various battery chemistries, compressed air, molten salt, green hydrogen, and so on are all viable and should be used where appropriate. For instance pumped hydro is excellent if you have the terrain.
Yeah we'll just install ... checks notes ... Flywheels for our entire energy consumption.
That seems not only smart but cheap and safe too!! Lol
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.
The water source is used only for cooling; the heated steam is condensed and fed back into the reactor in a closed loop. While cooling is more difficult in space than on Earth, it's not impossible.
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.
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?
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.
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.