4 ms·

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

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.