4 ms·

Bankruptcy in less than five years. Those small reactors are at best very expensive and have very limited usefulness. You would have to imagine a use case where

Bankruptcy in less than five years. Those small reactors are at best very expensive and have very limited usefulness. You would have to imagine a use case where there's no reliable power grid and no space or climate for solar and wind, which are both cheap, save and scalable. Even emergency systems run reliably on diesel generators and batteries. The reasonable use cases they describe have already been covered. They are competing in a market with better solutions, which is why they have to list "crypto" and "bitcoin" to advertise their own scam.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago
Like, a case of a potential war with Russia or China? Good luck using diesel when all of it will be prioritised for the military. Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive.
- hnbad 2y ago
  > Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. If you're a nuclear country in a full-scale war with Russia or China, you are dead. Your family is dead. Your friends are dead. Everyone you know or love or hate is dead. Everyone who isn't dead is dying or going to die. Those who survive will be holed up in bunkers built with the expectancy that the population will naturally thin out (i.e. die off) to make the scarce supplies last or they will be on the surface facing starvation if they don't die from disease, weather or lack of access to potable water first. I don't know at which point after the Cold War people forgot what "mutually assured destruction" means but as soon as you fire the first nuclear weapon, humanity ends. And it doesn't matter if the weapon is nuclear or not because most weapons systems that can deliver nuclear payloads can also deliver conventional payloads and all that matters is what your enemy thinks you're doing. This kind of rhetoric: > Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. This will make your enemy err on the side of you intending nuclear annihilation and respond in kind. The only reason we haven't killed ourselves yet is that a couple of times some level-headed soldiers weren't myopic enough to fall for their country's nationalist fervor and instead refused to follow the orders they were given. If the US enters a full-scale war with Russia or China or any other serious nuclear threat, the bombs will fall before you have to worry about FEMA camps or the US national guard knocking on your barn door to confiscate your rusty diesel barrels.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    And people keep promoting nuclear "everywhere" without asking the question of what that means for countries that aren't the US or the small number of existing nuclear powers. Proliferation. Are people really going to argue that the best energy production scheme for Brazil is 80,000 1MW nuclear reactors? Are they all going to be secured?
  - batushka5 2y ago
    [dead]
  - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
    So, you are going to immediately surrender? This is not how a war between US and Russia/China will unfold. It will start and proceed as a regular war.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      Neither side will use the nukes? Are you sure? Really, really, bet your life sure? (It's possible that there will be an "irregular" war where one or both sides are not officially flagged as such, but that's also going to be lower intensity. Arguably Ukraine is already in this state)
    - hnbad 2y ago
      No, you do what Iran (a potential nuclear power) did when Israel (a known nuclear power) committed an explicit act of war by bombing its consulate and killing some of its top brass: you respond with an appropriately measured but ultimately symbolic counter-attack and hope the other side understands that this is an opportunity to likewise exercise caution in its counter-counter-attack. Or you do what the US and Soviet Union did for most of the Cold War: a cold war involving proxies. Or you do what Russia did in Ukraine and the US did in Syria: covert operations with (diplomatically speaking) plausible deniability. A "war between US and Russia/China" would not start with a full-scale armed conflict. It would be a gradual escalation of force. Contrary to what cold war propaganda may have conveyed: the other side is rarely suicidal. At that scale it's more Realpolitik than 1980s Hollywood villain plots.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. How would killing anyone (Russians or Chinese or whatever) would help you survive? A boots-on-the-ground invasion of the USA is absolutely not a realistic prospect. In case a war goes hot ICBMs is the thing you should worry about. Honestly I just don't understand what you imagine might happen where "kill as many Russians as possible" is the path to survival for someone residing in the USA.
  - cynicalsecurity 2y ago
    Because I don't want the West to fail? You must be ready to protect yourself. Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity. It's a suicide in a situation when your enemies are actively plotting plans on how to kill you. You can't be naive. Ukrainians already made this mistake.
    - pjc50 2y ago
      > Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity The risk is real. You may argue about its priority, but that doesn't change the reality. > Ukrainians Worst possible example, given the existing disaster exclusion zone in their country, and everyone watching nervously as shells fall around the Zaprozhia nuclear plant.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
belorn 2y ago
Diesel generators are really dirty and they need to be regularly tested in order to function as backup, which in city cores, nature protected areas or protected water areas is a major issue. Batteries are better. They are a bit heavy, carries a fire risk, and can be a bit expensive, but can work depending on situation. I do know however that data centers being built in my country are not using batteries for backup. They want to use diesel generators given costs and capacity, and they also want to use places with clean fresh water for cooling. Thus they ask for environmental protection exemptions so they can use diesel generators.
- adrianN 2y ago
  No environmental protection exceptions would be necessary if they just used nuclear instead /s
  - belorn 2y ago
    Small reactors are already used in environments where the unit is self contained with no environmental impact during operation (passive cooling). The discussion of environmental impact of those units are generally about decommissions once they are removed from the environment where they have been operating. Large generators are not self contained and usually need a lot of water for cooling, and they have waste heat. They are also very large concrete buildings, so environmental considerations are needed there.
    - adrianN 2y ago
      Where is a small passively cooled reactor used for a job that requires a water cooled diesel?
- locallost 2y ago
  Batteries carry a fire risk, so let's use a nuclear reactor instead.
  - belorn 2y ago
batushka5 2y ago
[dead]
throw0101c 2y ago
> Bankruptcy in less than five years. Those small reactors are at best very expensive and have very limited usefulness. If I were them, I'd be talking to the (US) military. Their reactors are: > The new generation of advanced microreactors can produce between 1 and 20 megawatts of thermal energy that could be used directly as heat or converted to electric power. * https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ Per Table A-1 (¶A-27), a sustained load (60-80%) of an Army camp is between 1.7 and 5.1 MW: * PDF: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-40D.17%20(SECURED).pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-40D.... You wouldn't necessary have fewer reactors (2-4?) than generators (4-8) because of redundancy, but if you don't have to regularly truck fuel to the camp, that certainly simplifies logistics. (Or perhaps as much fuel, as vehicles would still needed, though with 'excess' power perhaps going (mild) hyrbid could be possible.) I could also see applications in the energy sector (offshore, remote land locations). Not sure how many 'off grid' communities would be up for a <20 MW power source.
- pjc50 2y ago
  That is certainly going to be the #1 use. It was a huge problem during the occupation of Afghanistan that all electricity had to be generated from diesel that was shipped 1500+km from ports in Pakistan, through dubiously-controlled areas. That cost $2trn in total, proving the unlimited supply of money for bad ideas provided they involve killing the right people. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... (It's interesting to compare that with the costs of WW2 and how urgent projects were handled then. WW2 involved a real threat to US territory, so everyone was on board with rapidly developing innovative solutions. Afghanistan, by comparison, was reprisals against a landlocked country which posed no real threat, so once the occupation started everyone lost interest - but it was still heresy to question spending the money. No attempt was made to really solve the power problem, because nobody would ever question the $300m a day)
  - credit_guy 2y ago
    Highly unlikely. No way the US Army will put a nuclear reactor in a place that can be overrun by insurgents. Any other piece of equipment, you can put a stick of TNT next to it and detonate it on your way out of there. Not so with a nuclear reactor.
Symmetry 2y ago
Sounds great for small island nations.
loufe 2y ago
No they have not been covered, as mentioned in a root comment, I work at a remote mine site in the sub-arctic where 95% of energy comes from diesel. All the inuit villages and all the mines this high up generate power the same way. This could make a huge difference. That said, I'm very cognisant that the quantity of sites is limited. However, Canadian, Russian, Svalbardian, Greenlandic mining is picking up and I think these could be a key way to enable electric mining as climate change opens up these new areas of exploraiton and exploitation of mineral reserves.

cynicalsecurity 2y ago

Like, a case of a potential war with Russia or China? Good luck using diesel when all of it will be prioritised for the military. Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive.

hnbad 2y ago
> Also, no one would care if it's green or not in case of a full-scale war. If you're a nuclear country in a full-scale war with Russia or China, you are dead. Your family is dead. Your friends are dead. Everyone you know or love or hate is dead. Everyone who isn't dead is dying or going to die. Those who survive will be holed up in bunkers built with the expectancy that the population will naturally thin out (i.e. die off) to make the scarce supplies last or they will be on the surface facing starvation if they don't die from disease, weather or lack of access to potable water first. I don't know at which point after the Cold War people forgot what "mutually assured destruction" means but as soon as you fire the first nuclear weapon, humanity ends. And it doesn't matter if the weapon is nuclear or not because most weapons systems that can deliver nuclear payloads can also deliver conventional payloads and all that matters is what your enemy thinks you're doing. This kind of rhetoric: > Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. This will make your enemy err on the side of you intending nuclear annihilation and respond in kind. The only reason we haven't killed ourselves yet is that a couple of times some level-headed soldiers weren't myopic enough to fall for their country's nationalist fervor and instead refused to follow the orders they were given. If the US enters a full-scale war with Russia or China or any other serious nuclear threat, the bombs will fall before you have to worry about FEMA camps or the US national guard knocking on your barn door to confiscate your rusty diesel barrels.
- pjc50 2y ago
  And people keep promoting nuclear "everywhere" without asking the question of what that means for countries that aren't the US or the small number of existing nuclear powers. Proliferation. Are people really going to argue that the best energy production scheme for Brazil is 80,000 1MW nuclear reactors? Are they all going to be secured?
- batushka5 2y ago
  [dead]
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  So, you are going to immediately surrender? This is not how a war between US and Russia/China will unfold. It will start and proceed as a regular war.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    Neither side will use the nukes? Are you sure? Really, really, bet your life sure? (It's possible that there will be an "irregular" war where one or both sides are not officially flagged as such, but that's also going to be lower intensity. Arguably Ukraine is already in this state)
  - hnbad 2y ago
    No, you do what Iran (a potential nuclear power) did when Israel (a known nuclear power) committed an explicit act of war by bombing its consulate and killing some of its top brass: you respond with an appropriately measured but ultimately symbolic counter-attack and hope the other side understands that this is an opportunity to likewise exercise caution in its counter-counter-attack. Or you do what the US and Soviet Union did for most of the Cold War: a cold war involving proxies. Or you do what Russia did in Ukraine and the US did in Syria: covert operations with (diplomatically speaking) plausible deniability. A "war between US and Russia/China" would not start with a full-scale armed conflict. It would be a gradual escalation of force. Contrary to what cold war propaganda may have conveyed: the other side is rarely suicidal. At that scale it's more Realpolitik than 1980s Hollywood villain plots.
krisoft 2y ago
> Your only priority would be to kill as many Russians as possible to survive. How would killing anyone (Russians or Chinese or whatever) would help you survive? A boots-on-the-ground invasion of the USA is absolutely not a realistic prospect. In case a war goes hot ICBMs is the thing you should worry about. Honestly I just don't understand what you imagine might happen where "kill as many Russians as possible" is the path to survival for someone residing in the USA.
- cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  Because I don't want the West to fail? You must be ready to protect yourself. Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity. It's a suicide in a situation when your enemies are actively plotting plans on how to kill you. You can't be naive. Ukrainians already made this mistake.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    > Calling nuclear reactors environmentally unfriendly is pure insanity The risk is real. You may argue about its priority, but that doesn't change the reality. > Ukrainians Worst possible example, given the existing disaster exclusion zone in their country, and everyone watching nervously as shells fall around the Zaprozhia nuclear plant.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

belorn 2y ago

Diesel generators are really dirty and they need to be regularly tested in order to function as backup, which in city cores, nature protected areas or protected water areas is a major issue. Batteries are better. They are a bit heavy, carries a fire risk, and can be a bit expensive, but can work depending on situation. I do know however that data centers being built in my country are not using batteries for backup. They want to use diesel generators given costs and capacity, and they also want to use places with clean fresh water for cooling. Thus they ask for environmental protection exemptions so they can use diesel generators.

adrianN 2y ago
No environmental protection exceptions would be necessary if they just used nuclear instead /s
- belorn 2y ago
  Small reactors are already used in environments where the unit is self contained with no environmental impact during operation (passive cooling). The discussion of environmental impact of those units are generally about decommissions once they are removed from the environment where they have been operating. Large generators are not self contained and usually need a lot of water for cooling, and they have waste heat. They are also very large concrete buildings, so environmental considerations are needed there.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    Where is a small passively cooled reactor used for a job that requires a water cooled diesel?
locallost 2y ago
Batteries carry a fire risk, so let's use a nuclear reactor instead.
- belorn 2y ago

batushka5 2y ago

[dead]

throw0101c 2y ago

> Bankruptcy in less than five years. Those small reactors are at best very expensive and have very limited usefulness. If I were them, I'd be talking to the (US) military. Their reactors are: > The new generation of advanced microreactors can produce between 1 and 20 megawatts of thermal energy that could be used directly as heat or converted to electric power. * https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ https://nanonuclearenergy.com/microreactors/ Per Table A-1 (¶A-27), a sustained load (60-80%) of an Army camp is between 1.7 and 5.1 MW: * PDF: https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-40D.17%20(SECURED).pdf https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-40D.... You wouldn't necessary have fewer reactors (2-4?) than generators (4-8) because of redundancy, but if you don't have to regularly truck fuel to the camp, that certainly simplifies logistics. (Or perhaps as much fuel, as vehicles would still needed, though with 'excess' power perhaps going (mild) hyrbid could be possible.) I could also see applications in the energy sector (offshore, remote land locations). Not sure how many 'off grid' communities would be up for a <20 MW power source.

pjc50 2y ago
That is certainly going to be the #1 use. It was a huge problem during the occupation of Afghanistan that all electricity had to be generated from diesel that was shipped 1500+km from ports in Pakistan, through dubiously-controlled areas. That cost $2trn in total, proving the unlimited supply of money for bad ideas provided they involve killing the right people. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/31/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-end-of-the-war-in-afghanistan/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/20... (It's interesting to compare that with the costs of WW2 and how urgent projects were handled then. WW2 involved a real threat to US territory, so everyone was on board with rapidly developing innovative solutions. Afghanistan, by comparison, was reprisals against a landlocked country which posed no real threat, so once the occupation started everyone lost interest - but it was still heresy to question spending the money. No attempt was made to really solve the power problem, because nobody would ever question the $300m a day)
- credit_guy 2y ago
  Highly unlikely. No way the US Army will put a nuclear reactor in a place that can be overrun by insurgents. Any other piece of equipment, you can put a stick of TNT next to it and detonate it on your way out of there. Not so with a nuclear reactor.

Symmetry 2y ago

Sounds great for small island nations.

loufe 2y ago

No they have not been covered, as mentioned in a root comment, I work at a remote mine site in the sub-arctic where 95% of energy comes from diesel. All the inuit villages and all the mines this high up generate power the same way. This could make a huge difference. That said, I'm very cognisant that the quantity of sites is limited. However, Canadian, Russian, Svalbardian, Greenlandic mining is picking up and I think these could be a key way to enable electric mining as climate change opens up these new areas of exploraiton and exploitation of mineral reserves.