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.

    • Laser_Frog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And electric cars have had over 100 years, so should we have given up on them? Your argument is flawed.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Zron@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

        • Laser_Frog@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • Laser_Frog@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

    • sunbeam60@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.