Submitted by Natural_Dark_2387 t3_10l2pin in technology
Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j5v4qh4 wrote
Nice, let’s see if it takes a decade to build and still costs the same as regular nuclear, if it is, it’s still worthless to replace fossil fuels in any meaningful way so we can mitigate climate change
dern_the_hermit t1_j5vj9wu wrote
It's a sign that our staid and slow system of building nuclear plants - which has been a big part of rising costs - is finally changing to embrace reality.
Nuclear plants can be built in a few years. It's just we're not very good at it, and this is the sort of thing that can change that.
darkestsoul t1_j5v9nlt wrote
"I feel like it's not enough progress so it sucks."
Any step in the direction of building more nuclear plants is a step in the right direction.
Luci_Noir t1_j5w5k7c wrote
No, not “any step.” If they can do it cheaply and reliably that’s great but it’s never happened. Wasting time and billions of dollars for nothing is not a step in the right direction.
Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j5val8r wrote
If we rely on nuclear plants to replace fossil fuels hundreds of millions of people will die from extreme weather events and loss of arable land. Yes progress is good, but if this is just more of the same it’s not progress, it’s just a waste of time and resources the could go into actually replacing fossil fuels.
If nobody is willing to put up the money to wait decades to profit for normal nuclear, why would they do it for new, potentially more expensive nuclear?
Even if it doesn’t take a decade and it costs less (fat chance it costs less, the article literally says the designers think it will costs up to 50% more to generate electricity) the infrastructure to mass produce them won’t be ready for decades, well past every tipping point for 1.5 and 2 degrees average temperature increase.
Honestly, when people are advocating for nuclear it really makes me think they have zero understanding of the timeframe and urgency involved in needing to replace fossil fuels
pmotiveforce t1_j5xuwmf wrote
The fact that the anti nuclear brigade has been saying this same shit for 40 years is a huge part of the reason behind the looming climate crisis.
So thanks for that.
Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j5xvrz4 wrote
To be net zero by 2050 fossil fuel plants need to be shut down and relaxed by 2050.
The average build time for a nuclear plant is just shy of a decade.
The fastest built time ever was just under four years.
There isn’t enough nuclear production capacity to build enough parts to replace nuclear plants that will be decommissioned by 2032, let alone to increase the net generation of nuclear power globally.
I don’t deny that with 20-30 years of expansion we could start replacing power generation needs with nuclear at 5% or more a year.
Do you understand that the basic mathematics behind nuclear plants means that they can’t be a meaningful part of replacing fossil fuels before 2050. Getting to 15-20 % electricity generated by nuclear would be a great help and provide good baseload power in case storage technologies aren’t advanced/produced enough to meet up with 100% renewables. But to reach that point requires hundreds and hundreds of times the funding, manufacturing capacity for components, and specialised construction teams than currently exist. In comparison renewables are on track to have over a TW of power generation built every year in solar panels alone, for a fraction the cost and in better than record nuclear time every single time, while also being fully recyclable now. Hundreds of gigawatts hours of pumped hydro locations are being planned and built for less than the cost of Nuclear even when combined with the cost of renewable generation. Hundreds of gigawatts of batteries are planned to be built and installed by 2030 in LiOn let alone newly developed iron batteries that are cheaper to build, require less rare component, and are more suitable to build large stationary batteries out of than lithium. Nuclear just isn’t going to happen, and doesn’t really need to
pmotiveforce t1_j64cg4g wrote
You're missing my point. We should have started massive build-outs 50 years ago. We didn't because of the Usual Suspects (big oil, and "environmentalists").
Now they keep saying the same shit, "oh, it's too late! Too expensive! We'll have Renewables Any Day Now".
Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j657qf5 wrote
Yes we should have, now it’s too late to include them in significant amounts. Thanks for recognising we can’t replace fossil fuels with much nuclear power 😊
pmotiveforce t1_j65akk5 wrote
Oh, they're coming. How do you think the west coast is going to have to deal with their water problem? Nuclear power and desalination.
Fuckyourdatareddit t1_j65avwr wrote
😂 you think people will pay multiple times what they need and wait years longer to power desalination plants 😂 You can just build a solar farm and solar thermal storage AND you use the concentrated salts leftover for the solar thermal.
People don’t spend extra money for zero benefit buddy
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments