3 ms·

This is why if nuclear is to have a future it would be via Small Modular Reactors. But even that appears to be too expensive.

einpoklum 3y ago
Indeed. I mean, I'm not sure the smallness is a key factor, but the modularity for sure and maybe the size limitation comes with that. I'm not much of a fan of nuclear (pun not intended?) and would like to see solar + wind (+ other renewables) cover most of the load. But if enough resources were pooled to design an SMR, with extensive safety studies, lifetime planning, involvement of multiple parties (e.g. scientific and engineering teams from different world states) - I don't think I could really oppose, especially given the global warming situation. Of course - there's "ideal nuclear" and there's real existing nuclear, which is quite different and often very problematic.
- hinkley 3y ago
  Matt Ferrell posted a video about vertical bifacial solar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM) last week that has me hopeful for more demand-aligned solar output. They absorb more indirect light, but the main advantage is that hot panels drop in efficiency, and standing them up improves heat dissipation substantially. One of the bits that stood out to me is that it has an output curve that partially lines up with The Duck, because you get a period of low-angle exposure near sunset. I suspect you get quite a drop at high noon, but that's fine as long as not all solar panels in the grid are vertical.
hinkley 3y ago
I've been anti-nuclear for a long time, and SMR is the least unpalatable choice. Not without caveats though. Humans are shit at statistics. Their sense of the aggregate danger of putting 100 'safe' items in close proximity often underestimates the odds by half, and in some cases by an order of magnitude. You might get lucky and lose two personal hard drives in your entire life, but the IT guy managing 100 drives is dealing with failed drives 'all the time'. Backblaze reports on something like 10,000 drives and they are claiming something on the order of 200-300 failures. And I think that's per quarter, not per year. What do you do with an array of reactors where one right in the middle did not fail cleanly?

einpoklum 3y ago

Indeed. I mean, I'm not sure the smallness is a key factor, but the modularity for sure and maybe the size limitation comes with that. I'm not much of a fan of nuclear (pun not intended?) and would like to see solar + wind (+ other renewables) cover most of the load. But if enough resources were pooled to design an SMR, with extensive safety studies, lifetime planning, involvement of multiple parties (e.g. scientific and engineering teams from different world states) - I don't think I could really oppose, especially given the global warming situation. Of course - there's "ideal nuclear" and there's real existing nuclear, which is quite different and often very problematic.

hinkley 3y ago
Matt Ferrell posted a video about vertical bifacial solar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM) last week that has me hopeful for more demand-aligned solar output. They absorb more indirect light, but the main advantage is that hot panels drop in efficiency, and standing them up improves heat dissipation substantially. One of the bits that stood out to me is that it has an output curve that partially lines up with The Duck, because you get a period of low-angle exposure near sunset. I suspect you get quite a drop at high noon, but that's fine as long as not all solar panels in the grid are vertical.

hinkley 3y ago

I've been anti-nuclear for a long time, and SMR is the least unpalatable choice. Not without caveats though. Humans are shit at statistics. Their sense of the aggregate danger of putting 100 'safe' items in close proximity often underestimates the odds by half, and in some cases by an order of magnitude. You might get lucky and lose two personal hard drives in your entire life, but the IT guy managing 100 drives is dealing with failed drives 'all the time'. Backblaze reports on something like 10,000 drives and they are claiming something on the order of 200-300 failures. And I think that's per quarter, not per year. What do you do with an array of reactors where one right in the middle did not fail cleanly?