5 ms·

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-overview https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor... I'm on the

https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactors.aspx#section-overview https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular-reactor... I'm on the fence about an all electric future- we simply don't have the grid capacity in most parts of the world - but the Germans and French who control the EU should have been developing SMNR years ago. They are now in an energy checkmate situation with a hostile country with an economy the size of Italy. Not clever,

raverbashing 4y ago
France is looking into small reactors it seems But has RR actually shipped one of these?
- theplumber 4y ago
  I believe NuScale is leading the way
XCSme 4y ago
This is why I think the more likely future is for each house to have their own electricity generator (solar panels?) and batteries to store the energy.
- lazide 4y ago
  The capex to do that was unreachable for the vast majority of the population, even when money was ‘cheap’.
- xyzzyz 4y ago
  In Europe, much fewer people live in houses, and thanks to the dense, walkable cities they enjoy, they have much fewer roof and yard space to put the panels. Also, unlike US, most of Europe doesn’t have huge swaths of hot and sunny plains that are currently not used for anything valuable. Look at the satellite view of Germany, France or Poland: it’s all farms, with occasional forests.
  - XCSme 4y ago
    I do live in Europe and lived in various European countries, that being said the apartment buildings could also have a similar solution (their own solar panel/wind turbine/geothermal) OR simply do that in a more localized way (each city has their own solar/wind farms). Combine this with more regulations regarding energy saving/consumption (promote more efficient electric devices). In the end I see it as having multiple independent energy-generating clusters (each building, or each city, or each country) and sharing excess energy outside the cluster only when needed.
    - xyzzyz 4y ago
      > the apartment buildings could also have a similar solution (their own solar panel/wind turbine/geothermal) They can’t, though. Apartment buildings are too efficient at packing people together to have enough per capita roof square metrage for panels. Practical wind turbines are huge. A typical wind turbine blade is longer than the height of a 10 story building. Geothermal is also rather impractical as a source of energy, due to low thermal conductivity of the rock. > In the end I see it as having multiple independent energy-generating clusters (each building, or each city, or each country) and sharing excess energy outside the cluster only when needed. You are describing here exactly the current status quo. That how energy works right now.
    - adrianN 4y ago
      You need a lot of PV per person if you want to satisfy all their primary energy needs. On the order of 150sqm. Apartment buildings don't have enough roof space to be self-sufficient.
grapeskin 4y ago
> They are now in an energy checkmate situation with a hostile country with an economy the size of Italy. I think looking at national threats by their GDP is kind of weird. Afghanistan led to the downfall of the USSR but had basically nothing going for it economically. The US also blew decades of effort and money. ISIS plowed through its region with sheer mongol-like savagery and managed to wreak havoc in major western countries sometimes as well. America went basically all out trying to stop Vietnam, then one of the poorest countries on earth, and got nowhere. Gas is currently cheap and that makes Russia’s economy look small. If prices, say, quintuple globally and Russia keeps pumping out the same quantity, that’s a huge jump despite few internal changes and they’d have the world by the balls. Meanwhile, the Swiss could decide to all retire tomorrow permanently and drop their relatively huge GDP (half of Russia’s) to 1% of what it is now and the world would probably shrug and move on. Russia is depended on globally for food, fuel, and loads of random resources. They’re just temporarily considered cheap while some things (eg banking) are currently considered high value. That could change very quickly.
- OOD 4y ago
  >America went basically all out trying to stop Vietnam, then one of the poorest countries on earth, and got nowhere. This is ahistorical. The US in no way, shape, or form when "all out" trying to stop North Vietnam. It was a poor country, but it was heavily armed and resupplied by the USSR and China, including leveraging some of the newest fighter jets, SAMs, etc. the USSR had to offer.
  - grapeskin 4y ago
    They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Vietnam's neighbors were absolutely destroyed by the US. Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? There is no higher level.
    - OOD 4y ago
      >They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Categorically false. There were huge swaths of Vietnam that were off limits to bombing. >Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. Yes, with a fraction of the warplanes, airmen, etc. due to advances in technology like strategic bombers and cluster weapons. The overall air efforts are incomparable to what transpired in WWII. >What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? If only there was a term to encapsulate such a concept... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war >There is no higher level. There absolutely is a higher level. Google what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.
dntrkv 4y ago
If we wait for our grid capacity to improve before we transition, we'll be waiting for decades to come. We need to quickly transition now to force the government to fund improved transmission and supply. Our governments aren't great at building things for future needs, but when your citizens are in danger of going without electricity, you bet your ass these politicians will do what needs to be done. As an example, look at the mRNA vaccine development.
atlasunshrugged 4y ago
I don't think it's fair to blame France, they have long been pushing for nuclear as evidenced by their energy sources being hugely reliant on domestic nuclear rather than foreign energy. It's really been the German greens hellbent on holding back nuclear across the EU.
- wewxjfq 4y ago
  > on domestic nuclear rather than foreign energy What a statement. > It's really been the German greens hellbent on holding back nuclear across the EU The German Greens, stalling investments into nuclear energy across the world. A powerful cabal.
  - atlasunshrugged 4y ago
    Not sure what's odd about my either statement, below are some links as evidence as it seems like you think there's something controversial about what I said. IEA on France's energy mix: https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/france A few articles on Germany being against nuclear: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-veto-eu-plan-to-label-nuclear-energy-as-green-european-commission/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-veto-eu-plan-to-l... https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/01/08/why-germans-remain-so-jittery-about-nuclear-power https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/01/08/why-germans-rema...
- an-unknown 4y ago
  > I don't think it's fair to blame France, they have long been pushing for nuclear as evidenced by their energy sources […] … and right now you can see how "successful" they are with their nuclear power plants: so "successful" that they have to import energy because a lot of their nuclear power plants are currently offline, due to unexpected problems related to safety. Even better, the current hot weather also causes serious problems and reduces power output.

raverbashing 4y ago

France is looking into small reactors it seems But has RR actually shipped one of these?

theplumber 4y ago
I believe NuScale is leading the way

XCSme 4y ago

This is why I think the more likely future is for each house to have their own electricity generator (solar panels?) and batteries to store the energy.

lazide 4y ago
The capex to do that was unreachable for the vast majority of the population, even when money was ‘cheap’.
xyzzyz 4y ago
In Europe, much fewer people live in houses, and thanks to the dense, walkable cities they enjoy, they have much fewer roof and yard space to put the panels. Also, unlike US, most of Europe doesn’t have huge swaths of hot and sunny plains that are currently not used for anything valuable. Look at the satellite view of Germany, France or Poland: it’s all farms, with occasional forests.
- XCSme 4y ago
  I do live in Europe and lived in various European countries, that being said the apartment buildings could also have a similar solution (their own solar panel/wind turbine/geothermal) OR simply do that in a more localized way (each city has their own solar/wind farms). Combine this with more regulations regarding energy saving/consumption (promote more efficient electric devices). In the end I see it as having multiple independent energy-generating clusters (each building, or each city, or each country) and sharing excess energy outside the cluster only when needed.
  - xyzzyz 4y ago
    > the apartment buildings could also have a similar solution (their own solar panel/wind turbine/geothermal) They can’t, though. Apartment buildings are too efficient at packing people together to have enough per capita roof square metrage for panels. Practical wind turbines are huge. A typical wind turbine blade is longer than the height of a 10 story building. Geothermal is also rather impractical as a source of energy, due to low thermal conductivity of the rock. > In the end I see it as having multiple independent energy-generating clusters (each building, or each city, or each country) and sharing excess energy outside the cluster only when needed. You are describing here exactly the current status quo. That how energy works right now.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    You need a lot of PV per person if you want to satisfy all their primary energy needs. On the order of 150sqm. Apartment buildings don't have enough roof space to be self-sufficient.

grapeskin 4y ago

> They are now in an energy checkmate situation with a hostile country with an economy the size of Italy. I think looking at national threats by their GDP is kind of weird. Afghanistan led to the downfall of the USSR but had basically nothing going for it economically. The US also blew decades of effort and money. ISIS plowed through its region with sheer mongol-like savagery and managed to wreak havoc in major western countries sometimes as well. America went basically all out trying to stop Vietnam, then one of the poorest countries on earth, and got nowhere. Gas is currently cheap and that makes Russia’s economy look small. If prices, say, quintuple globally and Russia keeps pumping out the same quantity, that’s a huge jump despite few internal changes and they’d have the world by the balls. Meanwhile, the Swiss could decide to all retire tomorrow permanently and drop their relatively huge GDP (half of Russia’s) to 1% of what it is now and the world would probably shrug and move on. Russia is depended on globally for food, fuel, and loads of random resources. They’re just temporarily considered cheap while some things (eg banking) are currently considered high value. That could change very quickly.

OOD 4y ago
>America went basically all out trying to stop Vietnam, then one of the poorest countries on earth, and got nowhere. This is ahistorical. The US in no way, shape, or form when "all out" trying to stop North Vietnam. It was a poor country, but it was heavily armed and resupplied by the USSR and China, including leveraging some of the newest fighter jets, SAMs, etc. the USSR had to offer.
- grapeskin 4y ago
  They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Vietnam's neighbors were absolutely destroyed by the US. Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? There is no higher level.
  - OOD 4y ago
    >They burned the entirety of the country to the ground. Categorically false. There were huge swaths of Vietnam that were off limits to bombing. >Laos is the most bombed country in world history due to the US trying to stop Vietnam. Yes, with a fraction of the warplanes, airmen, etc. due to advances in technology like strategic bombers and cluster weapons. The overall air efforts are incomparable to what transpired in WWII. >What would be considered "all out" if not dropping the most bombs in human history, and double the amount of WW2? If only there was a term to encapsulate such a concept... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war >There is no higher level. There absolutely is a higher level. Google what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki near the end of WWII.

dntrkv 4y ago

If we wait for our grid capacity to improve before we transition, we'll be waiting for decades to come. We need to quickly transition now to force the government to fund improved transmission and supply. Our governments aren't great at building things for future needs, but when your citizens are in danger of going without electricity, you bet your ass these politicians will do what needs to be done. As an example, look at the mRNA vaccine development.

atlasunshrugged 4y ago

I don't think it's fair to blame France, they have long been pushing for nuclear as evidenced by their energy sources being hugely reliant on domestic nuclear rather than foreign energy. It's really been the German greens hellbent on holding back nuclear across the EU.

wewxjfq 4y ago
> on domestic nuclear rather than foreign energy What a statement. > It's really been the German greens hellbent on holding back nuclear across the EU The German Greens, stalling investments into nuclear energy across the world. A powerful cabal.
- atlasunshrugged 4y ago
  Not sure what's odd about my either statement, below are some links as evidence as it seems like you think there's something controversial about what I said. IEA on France's energy mix: https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/france A few articles on Germany being against nuclear: https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-veto-eu-plan-to-label-nuclear-energy-as-green-european-commission/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-to-veto-eu-plan-to-l... https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/01/08/why-germans-remain-so-jittery-about-nuclear-power https://www.economist.com/europe/2022/01/08/why-germans-rema...
an-unknown 4y ago
> I don't think it's fair to blame France, they have long been pushing for nuclear as evidenced by their energy sources […] … and right now you can see how "successful" they are with their nuclear power plants: so "successful" that they have to import energy because a lot of their nuclear power plants are currently offline, due to unexpected problems related to safety. Even better, the current hot weather also causes serious problems and reduces power output.