Technology

58091 readers

3119 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

278

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled (arstechnica.com)

submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 comments fedilink hide all child comments

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled::NuScale and its primary partner give up on its first installation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Uranium_Green 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean you can vary it pretty significantly depending on the reactor type, but even if you couldn't you can still put the energy to work in alternative ways, such as pumping water up into reservoirs/damns to generate energy at other points, or using the excess energy to split water. There are many ways to use excess energy.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So your solution to excess nuclear is to store it. The solution to shortfalls of renewables is also to store it.

Why do we need nuclear?

[–] Uranium_Green 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

But storage without inpacting available energy requires an excess, and the current shortfall of renewables is that there isn't enough energy produced for a significant excess (same goes for nuclear). Either way I was addressing the literal aspect of energy generation being 24/7 with nuclear.

Not to mention I could see viable uses for nuclear still, especially in processes that are effectively 24/7 hot water production via heat exchangers for providing heating to literal cities, energy production for large arc furnaces.

And don't mistake my view of nuclear as not seeing the benefits of renewable, my father lived on a boat where the heating and appliances were all run via solar panels and forklift batteries for more than 10 years of his life.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

It's relatively easy to get to 95% renewables. We have tons of historical weather data on wind and sun patterns. You can then calculate the extent of the lull when you won't have either one. Pad that number, then put in enough storage to cover it. Natural gas may be needed for that last 5% (it's a lot more difficult to get renewables to 100% than 95%), but that's minimal.

This is all achievable by 2030, the time when we want to drastically cut emissions. In contrast, there is no plan that gets nuclear in place by 2030. If you had all the permits signed and dirt starting to be dug today, you couldn't make that time line.

Nuclear does not help us reach these goals. It takes too long, is too expensive, and doesn't synergize with renewables well at all.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

You can do the same with excess power from renewables though. My point was that you need something to fill in the gaps when renewable output is low, whether that be from batteries, pumped storage, peaker plants, etc.

Nuclear doesn’t fit in here, there are no nuclear peaker plants.