evilos

I think the point is that you can't tell a good person from a bad one by inspecting the atoms.

Doesn't one company own almost all the dating apps in the US? That seems... potentially problematic.

Started construction in Feb 2022, with an estimated cost of 16.3 cents per kWh.

https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication...

He's a teenager going on adventures and working small jobs in between. His parent's house is a train ride away.

It's likely just a phase. Young people have been doing this since time immemorial. I think you are overreacting a tad.

I'm talking about financial risk btw, not safety risk.

Any large project like a dam or nuclear plant is risky from a financial perspective. You're putting up a lot of capital and probably paying a lot of interest. Larger projects in general tend to run over schedule and over budget too. Back in the day, the US was better at building big things and using public funds for them so it wasn't as risky. Add in the mountain of paper work that the regulators now require for everything nuclear and you have a very high risk project.

It doesn't have to be this way. Other countries have shown that you can consistently build these projects on time and in 4 to 5 years if you have an experienced work force, solid supply chain, and a reasonable regulator. Japan holds the record for a gigawatt scale reactor built in just over 36 months.

I've been wondering how to take America's existing grid structure (both in a physical and business sense) and get new nuclear plants built. Big infrastructure projects like nuclear plants are so risky for private entities that it is a hard sell.

In many places the answer has been that the state manages the project since sovereign states cannot go bankrupt. But maybe the answer in the US is that the monstrously large tech companies who need 24/7 (and more recently, clean) energy become the anchor customer.

Something's off there. From the product description:

3000WProduct Description

Widely used: Under 4 hours of full sunlight, the daily production capacity is 400wh/day. It is very suitable for RVs, caravans, oceans, camping vehicles, electric scooters, golf carts, power wheels, fishing motors, tool trailers, and backup power sources for small sheds.

【 Excellent Performance 】: Single crystal solar panels are made of corrosion-resistant aluminum frames, which can be used for more than ten years and can withstand strong winds (2400Pa) and snow loads (5400Pa). IP65 rated terminal box and 21% high battery efficiency.

[Easy to install]: Pre drilled holes on the back and plug and play cables allow for quick installation

【 Multi protection 】: 20A PWM controller: built-in short circuit, open circuit, and overload protection to ensure safety. And it supports three types of batteries: lithium batteries, lead-acid batteries, and colloidal batteries.

Technical parameters:

Rated power: 100W

This is false for the US (and UK as the other commenter pointed out).

> In the USA, utilities are collecting 0.1 to 0.2 cents/kWh to fund decommissioning. They must then report regularly to the NRC on the status of their decommissioning funds. About two-thirds of the total estimated cost of decommissioning all US nuclear power reactors has already been collected, leaving a liability of about $9 billion to be covered over the remaining operating lives of about 100 reactors (on the basis of an average of $320 million per unit). NRC data for the end of 2018 indicated that there was a combined total of $64.7 billion held in the decommissioning trust funds covering the 119 operational and retired US nuclear power reactors.

Depends on what you mean by "we". China is doing it as we speak.

Also, "it's been done before" is a much better argument than "we think we can make these massive and untested changes to our society because my studies say so" like I see constantly from solar/wind maximalists on demand response, mass v2g, hyper connected grid, underground hydrogen battery etc, etc.

If you don't like discussion what are you doing here?

While nuclear plants do pair well with storage (many pumped hydro storage stations were built to pair with nuclear plants), the idea that they cannot load follow is a myth. It is simply more economical for them to run at full load since fuel cost is a very small portion of nuclear operating expenses.

https://imgur.com/a/tB3x48U

Yes while that is great news, it's a demonstration reactor. An commercial operating license is a far greater hurdle.

Many people would argue that humans did cause this loss of sea ice.

Also I don't see how that justifies adding to the effect? Especially if we don't know can't compute the trade off? I'm sure someone has done that work but my it didn't immediately jump out at me during a cursory search.

Has this actually been quantified? Earth's albedo is a critical factor in the portion of the sun's energy that is rejected into space, just as GHG incidence in the atmosphere is.

In theory, darkening a portion of the Earth with high albedo (snow, sand) is worse than darkening a portion of the Earth with low albedo (roads, roofs, forest). Then it should be better to use a greener area for solar panels so long as the capacity factors would be similar.

I remember reading some article that said we could offset all of human emissions by painting Vermont stark white or something along those lines.

Covering a desert in solar panels seems like the exact opposite of that plan.

Same source as you (Lovering 2016), the Koreans built several 1 GW plants for an overnight cost of 2 Billion USD per plant or less in many cases. A seriously impressive feat. The graph seems to show a far greater cost decline than 13%.

https://i.imgur.com/J90HtWm.png

The Koreans just recently ousted an administration that was overtly hostile to nuclear energy and had declared a phase out. Now they are planning on increasing the share of nuclear electricity to 35%. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/South-Korea-incr...

I mean, we know we can build nuclear plants quickly because we've done it before. It is physically possible. China and Korea can still do it today.

If you just mean the bureaucracy is impossible to defeat, it would just take political will. Which we are seeing more and more of recently. The first of a kind build is always slow.

There is potential in the federally owned TVA which has around 35 GW in its portfolio. Also Georgia has a lot of coal and is the state with these new NPPs.

Plus the federal government doesn't need to mandate it. It can simply incentivize these plants to be built like it did with Solar/Wind.

It will likely take a minimum of ten years to get a non light water reactor certified by the NRC. And that is very optimistic. Then you have to build the first of a kind plant which is always more expensive and takes longer. Then you have to get good at operating these new kinds of plants.

It's true that MSR and Breeder reactors have lots of potential benefits over traditional LWRs but the truth is, LWRs are more than good enough for right now and we literally can't build enough of them if even if we tried.

You wouldn't want to power all of human society off of LWRs simply because they only access ~5% of the energy in the fuel. But we're so far away from that being a constraint. Build LWRs today and keep developing Breeder/MSR tech.

We paid the first-of-a-kind costs, we should reap the Nth-of-a-kind rewards. Replace all the coal capacity with AP1000s.

That's a 5 month range chief.

Until the containment structure or reactor pressure vessel are irreversibly damaged, it should be quite possible to reactivate them.

Reasonable adults can disagree on the economics of building new reactors, but to destroy a fully functional already paid for reactor in a country that burns so much lignite is brain dead to the point that it defies comprehension.

The German plants were world class too. Hopefully they will turn them back on soon.

This channel is one of my favorites. The mix of concise explanation, technical depth, and animation quality is consistently impressive.

Perhaps it's because my knowledge of computer graphics is lacking but I found this particular video to be one of their best.

This feels like the setup to a joke in an "AdamSomething" video where the punch line is you just end up with bad traffic in the underground stuff highway too.

Intel as a whole seems to be in pretty big trouble and rumor is that the GPU org is a dumpster fire in particular. I'd bet it's more likely than not that intel's GPU experiment ends within a year or two, unfortunately.

Which is a crying shame because the space could really use more competition, instead of less.

That is complete nonsense. The UN Scientific Commission, Harvard Medical School, Kyiv University found no evidence for increased cancer after Chernobyl.

https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.h...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31454285/

Radiation simply isn't as dangerous as everyone has been led to believe. We live in a radioactive world and the most basic aspects of our biology is designed to deal with it. Even in a hypothetical world with zero radiation, every single one of your cells on average experiences between ten thousand and fifty thousand DNA breaks a day. Because of the Oxygen our cells need to produce energy. You have to be exposed to significant amounts of radiation before you start to even approach the damage from normal wear and tear of life.

It really doesn't. Even the BEIR radiation safety council has had to admit recently that LNT has no scientific basis. (They refuse to stop using it out of 'an overabundance of caution'). And this is the institution that basically started and promoted the LNT way of thinking.

We know the basic mechanisms of cancer, DNA damage. We also know that on average each cell in the human body experiences around 10,000-50,000 single strand breaks per day due to...

Cellular respiration, ie Oxygen.

This fact alone kills LNT because in order to take LNT at face value you have to assume that radiation damage is cumulative and never repaired. If that were true, we'd all be dead.

Someone burned to death atop a wind turbine. Is this a reason why wind turbines should be banned? Of course not. What matters is costs vs benefits and nuclear is just as safe if not safer than wind/solar energy per TWh.