Is there a way of designing safe nuclear plants in safe places in the world and efficiently exporting that energy to other parts within that same region?
Thank you for your answers. I know v little on the subject but am a big believer in the inherent power that nuclear generates and its’ cost effectiveness.
Alternatively, it probably isn't cost-effective with current technology, but on a fundamental level, you could use a nuclear reactor to power a system that chemically recombined atmospheric CO2 and water back into hydrocarbon fuels. Unlike fossil-derived hydrocarbons, these hydrocarbons would be carbon-neutral since you'd be sourcing all the carbon from the same atmosphere that it would eventually be dumped back into. This is probably going to make sense for things like vehicles, aircraft, rockets, etc. long before it makes sense for power generation, but there are definite benefits. We already have all the necessary technology to burn hydrocarbons, meaning that any improvements in synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels can potentially eliminate the need to switch these things over to batteries or whatnot. Which may be extremely helpful if we run into serious resource constraints over lithium, or if we grow increasingly concerned with the environmental byproducts of lithium battery production.
A 1,100 kV link in China was completed in 2019 over a distance of 3,300 km with a power of 12 GW.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
It is feasible to transmit electrical power over far greater distances than most people imagine. For reference Barcelona to Moscow is a 3,000 km flight.
Another possible bonus of your scenario could be https://phys.org/news/2020-01-chemists-product-nuclear-power... wherin the use of an depleted uranium catalyst could be plugged somewhere into that to produce ethylene.
In general, build a not-fancy light water reactor away from the ocean and major fault lines.
We have the most experience with LWRs, and they are pretty safe except for the impact of major natural disasters.
There are other reactor designs, but we really need more experience with them.
Time and money has ran out for nuclear.
The money run out because the technology itself is expensive, the waste disposal is expensive, the costs for repairs were skyrocketing for years (not to mention the costs for buying energy from Germany because of the break downs) and the costs for decommissioning are not even priced in. Also, they recently shut down research there too because...you probably guessed it: too expensive.
I like it when nuclear fans come in, downvote me and the only comment is full of advertisement phrases and lack of information but somehow it must be about me...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current#Ad...
There are significant energy losses if all you want on the other end is electricity. But not so bad if you're burning it for heat.
In theory a nuclear reactor could produce both electricity and heat to produce synthetic fuels, making it more cost effective than renewables.
For electricity only it looks like renewables are significantly cheaper however.