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.
What’s he done to the education system in the US of A.
Permanently Deleted
Permanently Deleted
You can hardly blame that just on Gates. Every moron in the government has been pushing standardized tests as some way of grading teachers and schools for decades at this point, and this program coincided with Obama's equally disastrous and very similar federal program. Which was an improvement over Bush's even more disastrous program.
Especially when you realize Gate's program was of limited scope while Dubbya/Obama/Trump's DOE's fuckups covered the entire country for a far longer period of time.
BUT BILL GATES 5G CORONA AAAAAAA!!!11
Thanks Obummer
This is, honestly, a dogshit "article".
Permanently Deleted
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.
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.
That's a very out of date talking point
Renewables power entire countries at this point. What the fuck are you talking about?
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.
Do you know why Chernobyl even happened? The reactors were designed and built by one ministry, but they were operated by a different ministry. And the first ministry did NOT share proper operational instructions, yet they knew and had internal documentation that such a shut down will result in a melt down. Workers at Chernobyl had no real clue what they were doing. It's not a problem of nuclear power, it's a problem of corruption and the power struggle of Soviet politics.
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.
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
You're just an ignorant lunatic.
You're someone who can't make any kind of counter argument and just stoops to making personal attacks.
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.
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.
Tell that to France.
Really?
The country that has extremely old reactors, that need to shut down, because the rivers got too hot from the cooling water?
The country that spend billions on building a single new reactor?
Yeah really. 63% of their power is from nuclear.
Sure they cost a lot of money to build but they’re clean and safe.
And expensive in the long run, more expensive than other forms of power. And they take forever to build.
How is that helping again? The reactors going online in 20 years won't help against climate change.
Lol you better strap on buddy cuz we're gonna be fighting climate change for a lot longer than 20 years
And the fight has to start for good as soon as possible.
Even ignoring costs, we can't wait 20, 30 years for all the reactors coming online. Until then it's too late to mitigate at least the worst effects.
All the renewables are right there. Scalable, cheap, easy to deploy. Why not use them? Why the pipe dreams?
All forms of energy have issues. For hydropower, you have a limited number of rivers you can dam up, and a limited amount of rainfall in a year (I live in Norway, we talk about water levels in the reservoirs every winter). For wind, it's about the fluctuations and the available area to build in (most of Europe is either city or farmland, can't build windmills everywhere). For solar, fluctuations are the biggest issue. For offshore wind, we're just now starting to see that wind farms of a significant size can substantially impact the weather on nearby coastlines.
The point is: We need to diversify our energy mix in such a way that we mitigate as many of these issues as possible. Nuclear takes a long time to build, but we're going to need even more energy in 20-50 years than we do now. Just imagine how much more electricity we need to produce to replace fossil fuels in the transportation sector alone.
Building nuclear does not mean we stop building renewables, or that we build less of them. It means that we build nuclear in addition to renewables. In the short run (20-30 years) we are going to need a whole lot of renewables very fast. If we start building nuclear now, those reactors can come online and start taking some of the load in 20-30 years. We have to plan for both the long and short term at the same time.
Building nuclear does not mean we stop building renewables, or that we build less of them.
Money as a finite resource as of now, so money spent on nuclear is not spent on renewables and storage. And that is the number 1 priority if we want to be carbon neutral as fast as possible. And if we manage to transition to an all renewable energy system and continue to need even more energy we can hopefully start with fusion in 20 years. But in the short term i would only invest in renewables.
Money is a finite resource as of now
Most renewable energy projects are not larger than that private entities can invest and build them, as they are assumed to be profitable. Nuclear requires large, governmental investments. Both can be funded if we push the private sector by squeezing out fossil fuels with regulation and forcing them to invest in renewables.
If (...) we continue to need even more energy we can hopefully start with fusion in 20 years.
The problem with starting with fusion in 20 years is twofold:
1: It assumes we will have viable, large scale fusion reactors developed within 20 years. Thats a big if.
2: If we start in 20 years, we won't have them until 30-40 years from now.
Thats why we have to start planning now for exactly the case you are talking about: A situation 20 years from now when we have transitioned mostly to renewables, but still need more energy. That is a very likely future, which is why we need to build nuclear now, so that we have it in 20 years, when we will need it.
It's too expensive to fight climat change? Come on.
Solar and wind are way cheaper. Why would any sane person choose the more expensive option?
BTW: you obviously misinterpreted my point. Either intentionally, then you are dishonest, or you are so preoccupied with proving your (moot) point, that you read what you hoped to read.
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.
And unlike renewables it will keep getting more expensive over time
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.
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.
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.
Well, then show me any viable concept. Just one. Not an "experimental protoype". An actual concept, that is even roughly comparable in cost to currently deployed systems.
Here's a brand new concept developed by scientists that will drastically lower emissions: ban private jets
Prepare for downvotes from the nuclear bros.
Yeah, those idiots just love to wank each other about it.
And I'm sure, 99% of those guys also have very strong opinions on Crypto....
Hi, I'm a physicist who believes that nuclear power is the most realistic option of moving ourselves off fossil fuels, without the astronomical cost and untested technology that would be required in order to create a majority intermittent grid.
I do also have strong feelings about crypto, mostly about how much of a incredible waste of resources it is and how disgusting it is that the obvious scam nature of most of it hasnt been clamped down on by governments
without the astronomical cost and untested technology
Well, both of those assertions are just wrong. May have held water a couple of decades ago though.
If you're a physicist why are you stating what you "believe"? I would've thought facts and evidence would be more appealing than feels. Of course facts and evidence point to nuclear being a massive waste of everyone's money when far cheaper alternatives are now available. Maybe that's why?
bevaise human afairs cant be reduced down to a sime harmonic oscillator and solved. There is no equation to solve for "best societal outcome".
renewables are good to an extent but storage is an unsolved and difficult problem. Including enough storage to make them work as the majority source of power for a grid is vastly more expensive than nuclear power. Currently we are nowhere near that however, and given solar and wind deployment are bottlenecked in many places the obvious way forwards is to build as much renewables AND nuclear as possible.
Source on "storage is an unsolved and difficult problem" and "the majority source of power for a grid is vastly more expensive than nuclear power" because both of those appear to be false.
Facts and theory can only tell you so much, eventually things need tested and there are a lot of factors going into a potential move t nuclear power
You might have a better discussion if you leave out the insults, your preconceived notions of people, and well not being a dick.
Ah I wish the internet had more people like you :/
See, if all I hear from these people are unsubstantiated bullshit claims that are completely detached from reality, I can only assume that they are idiots. Simple as that.
Give me a good argument, then we can talk. But simply babbling the same "cheap, safe, super awesome, no downsides, free cotton candy" bullshit over and over and over again is simply not very persuasive.
Stones and glass houses mate.
With very little interaction you were rude, dismissive, and massively reductive.
You do you bro, but may I suggest trying to be better.
I'm not rude, I'm just pointing out, that the nuclear circle jerk is bullshit.
Again, give me proper argument and don't just attack me personally.