• Null User Object@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    95
    ·
    1 year ago

    researchers designed a model that could generate 753 MWh of energy annually. That’s enough to power roughly 753 homes for about five weeks

    Why can’t the writers of these articles make useful comparisons? Can they just not do basic math? Each tower can generate enough electricity for about 72 homes… period. Just say that. No apples and oranges required.

    • SpiderShoeCult
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      because saying you’d need to build a power plant for every 72 homes would not make the technology very attractive

    • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Right. Like damn, get real. We gonna have 50-story towers decorating the landscape for every 73 homes?? It doesn’t even make sense for extremely remote and impoverished locations due to the amount of materials it needs (cost).

  • Technus@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    1 year ago

    The TTSS works out efficiently in a hot, dry climate. […] researchers also note that reliance on a continuous supply of large quantities of water is an issue that needs to be addressed.

    These two things don’t really add up.

    I suppose you could feed it with saltwater if you’re on the coast, but there’s a reason why you don’t pump that stuff around unless you really have to.

    • _s10e@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I missed the part where they pump water up to generate power from the downdraft (of cooled air). I don’t want to shit on cool ideas. Maaaaybe there’s are range of parameters where this works, but I’m holding my breath.

  • BeatTakeshi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    All these pseudo innovations because challenging consumerism and capitalism is not even an afterthought. The size of this shit…

    • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It uses a ton of material to power 73 homes annually (652 feet high and 45 feet in diameter), works best in a desert but requires a lot of water. Yeah, nuclear energy is really threatened by that. Modern microreactors in development make, for example, 1.5 MWe at let’s say 90% capacity factor. Assuming about 1000 kWh/mo for a house, that microreactor, which can fit on the back of a semi truck and be transported down the highway that way, can power 985 homes anually and doesn’t require cooling water (will require water for electrical steam generation).

      Yeah, I will stick with nuclear, thanks.

        • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          There are technology (reactor) demonstrations planned within the next 2-3 years, so not quite but very close. A lot of active R&D work going on right now for specific designs at a lot of companies.

            • CherenkovBlue@iusearchlinux.fyi
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              The technologies on which these reactor designs are based have been demonstrated previously. The specific designs are in progress and well on their way. AGR, EBR-II, and MSRE are examples.

                • Nacktmull@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  From how they argue, I get the impression that most of them are victims of astroturfing campaigns by the nuclear lobby tbh. The nuclear industry hates the idea to become redundant because of renewables, so they spread lies about being the solution to climate change. Like they ever gave any shits about the ecosystem, lol.

      • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        You realize that the thing you’re describing doesn’t actually exist and likely never will, right?

        Pro-nuclear folks are so weird.