Nuclear is carbon-free, I don’t see any problem with this. Solar and wind are not the answer to every problem, I think nuclear is part of a smart and efficient energy future.
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
65 points (82.8% liked)
World News
32372 readers
425 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Agreed. Nuclear is great at providing a constant baseload that renewable energy can supplement. Combine with some form of energy storage to store the excess energy generated and you gain the ability to cope with rapid changes in demand as nuclear has a much slower ramp up/down time. Some countries are doing this already with their battery stores.
So, what kind of nuclear reactors would you envisage to be built and what timeframe do you see in which they could make a meaningful contribution to replacing fossil fuels?
We have reactors from the 90s, so called generation III reactors, that have passive safety features that make them as safe as we realistically can. These 'traditional' designs or more modern gen III+, either are good options to build.
I quite like the ideas that Oklo have put forward with their liquid metal reactors that safe automatically should coolant flow stop. In a similar vein, pebble bed reactors can also offer similar fail-safe systems. Ultimately if they can bridge the gap until we figure out fusion which some very exciting advancements have been made in recently, even if still decades away is still within the life span of current nuclear reactors. Then our possibilities are limitless.
As for a timeframe? Yesterday would be a good start... I think they should have already been built and that much of the scare mongering regarding nuclear energy has in many ways exacerbated our present situation. The inherent fear that people have needs to be reduced before it is even anything more than a pipedream. The reality is that nuclear power takes huge investment and lots of time to build while also being a political football. But at the same time there are very few, if any, renewable sources that can provide as consistent power.
Inb4 the irrational environmentalists shitshow
when they could have went with wind and solar.
Eielson air force base is in the middle of Alaska. They get 4 hours of daylight in the winter, and minimal wind.
I used to do wind studies in remote regions in Alaska. We have very reliable albeit low velocity winds during the winter months. Just FYI.
Here's a map: https://windexchange.energy.gov/maps-data/319
Maybe it's possible, but central Alaska is relatively wind-poor compared to the great plains region.
Yes, it's what we call low velocity wind. It tends to be very laminar even at low altitudes due to the lower brush and tundra. There were some low velocity turbine concepts at the time but there was just no interest for it. But there is a massive energy resource available at a time when you need it here most. Hopefully things change. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is very good. Oklo is specifically aiming to provide power with minimal maintenance to remote areas that otherwise wouldn't have power. This contract is a very good testbed for the technology before being deployed to remote areas.
There have been research reactor that have been run successfully that cannot meltdown like Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island. Oklo is a fast reactor of similar design. Such reactor designs often will cool down and the nuclear reaction stop even when completely losing all coolant and power. They fundamentally cannot get into a positive feedback loop like an reactors that are have been run commercially. I'm unsure how long Oklo's nuclear waste is dangerous, but some fast reactors can actually be used to burn up waste from other reactors making. Their waste is dangerous for a few hundred years, instead of the tens of thousands of years of other reactors.
For a minute there I thought this was going to be about a nuclear aircraft. That's some wild 1950s shit right there.
That was my thought as well. I think the picture didn’t help.
With how many b-52s that crashed, I’m glad they didn’t all have a nuclear reactor on board.
With how many B-52s that carried thermonuclear bombs and crashed, I’m glad the US didn’t accidentally nuke itself and other countries.
oh no, don't tell me you are an anti-nuclear person.
Had to read this twice to understand it's not about nuclear powered planes. But yeah, more money down the drain.
Yeah that's obvious from the title.
They've got a nuclear powered pilot. I assume to save on catering.