4 ms·

My bet is that we'll sooner have HVDC lines going all around the planet than this. There's a wave of projects of this sort like this here: https://xlinks.co/m

by Tade0 4y ago

My bet is that we'll sooner have HVDC lines going all around the planet than this. There's a wave of projects of this sort like this here: https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ https://xlinks.co/morocco-uk-power-project/ Which sounds bonkers on the surface, but actually isn't using any new, groundbreaking technology(also implementations at half the length already exist), so it's projected to be more cost-efficient than e.g. Hinkley Point C - a nuclear plant that was supposed to produce roughly the same amount of power, but is yet to start after all the delays and cost overruns.

hedora 4y ago
I wonder if it would be cheaper to build floating nuclear reactors in international waters, then sink a cable back to shore. The idea isn't to improve safety; instead it would be to avoid cost overruns and delays by bypassing regulators. I suspect it would accidentally improve safety as a side effect, but I am a cynic.
- Tade0 4y ago
  > The idea isn't to improve safety; instead it would be to avoid cost overruns and delays by bypassing regulators. From what I've read the issues are usually connected with execution - critical components breaking during assembly and the like. Also regulations concern mostly safety, so it's not like they're there just to be an impediment. But you generally don't have to go such lengths to bypass regulators - just make sure that your plant is hosted by a dictatorship. The Astravyets plant was built on time(5 years!) and within budget($11bln). Allegedly there was an accident during construction - the concrete housing for the reactor cracked. There was also an incident last year which resulted in radiation reports from that area being shut down for several hours. But hey, so far there hasn't been any major malfunction.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > The Astravyets plant was built on time(5 years!) and within budget($11bln). You forgot the bit where you sign up to be Rosatom's whipping boy for 30 years. But hey! It was on time and most of it passed safety inspections.

by Tade0 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

I wonder if it would be cheaper to build floating nuclear reactors in international waters, then sink a cable back to shore. The idea isn't to improve safety; instead it would be to avoid cost overruns and delays by bypassing regulators. I suspect it would accidentally improve safety as a side effect, but I am a cynic.

Tade0 4y ago
> The idea isn't to improve safety; instead it would be to avoid cost overruns and delays by bypassing regulators. From what I've read the issues are usually connected with execution - critical components breaking during assembly and the like. Also regulations concern mostly safety, so it's not like they're there just to be an impediment. But you generally don't have to go such lengths to bypass regulators - just make sure that your plant is hosted by a dictatorship. The Astravyets plant was built on time(5 years!) and within budget($11bln). Allegedly there was an accident during construction - the concrete housing for the reactor cracked. There was also an incident last year which resulted in radiation reports from that area being shut down for several hours. But hey, so far there hasn't been any major malfunction.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > The Astravyets plant was built on time(5 years!) and within budget($11bln). You forgot the bit where you sign up to be Rosatom's whipping boy for 30 years. But hey! It was on time and most of it passed safety inspections.