Or rich countries can go in and build them in return for complete ROI and a percentage of revenue afterwards.
I think that would rightly be seen as economic neo-colonialism.
1 Like
Perhaps, but hopefully they would realize that if warming isnāt controlled that the rich countries will probably adapt and they will be the ones that truly suffer. Itās kinda win win for everyone.
Small modular reactors may be the innovation that solves the problem of meltdowns.
TOKYO ā One of Japanās top industrial engineering companies will join a U.S.-led project to build a new type of nuclear power plant designed with added precautions against meltdowns, Nikkei has learned.
JGC Holdings will help build a plant in the state of Idaho designed by NuScale Power, an American company whose proposal for a small modular reactor (SMR) involves immersing the containment units in a pool of water. . . .
Japanās Fukushima nuclear disaster a decade ago shows what happens when reactor cooling systems break down. The loss of emergency power after a devastating 2011 tsunami led to reactor meltdowns at the Fukushima Daiichi plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co. Holdings.NuScaleās SMR design seeks to remove this risk, as the water in the pool takes a month to evaporate and helps keep the reactorās temperature down.
The U.S. government supports research and development in small-scale reactors.
Small nuclear reactors have been hailed as an option for replacing fossil fuel power plants as nations commit to cutting carbon dioxide emissions in the coming decades.
Nuclear is ideal for dealing with climate change, because it is the only carbon-free, scalable energy source thatās available 24 hours a day. The problems with todayās reactors, such as the risk of accidents, can be solved through innovation.
ā Bill Gates
I heard companies have been aiming to develop small nuclear ābatteriesā that can be buried under a community and provide power for that community. Essentially one of those self limiting reactors that works for say 10-20 yearsā¦
I think the problem is most power plants today uses old PWR designs that require all kinds of systems to work correctly. Chernobyl for example used really old designs that arenāt safe (as in less safe compared to PWR) either.
If Taiwan is to build more nuclear power plants they will need to adopt newer reactor designs that are much safer.
NuScale and TerraPower, which was founded by Gates, both have promising designs. Iām pretty sure TerraPowerās prototype with the DOE is in the works too.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-advanced-reactor-designs-watch-2030
IMO tough carbon taxes should be implemented and the funds used for research like this and other high risk, high reward or long-term research thatās difficult to get private funding for.
The human genome project took 13 years and billions of dollars, but eventually every dollar invested returned at least $141 to the economy. The Internet took off so fast because the government committed to buying the tech when it was ready. No one was afraid of investing. Big government needs to lead the way here too.
1 Like
Instead they are building more gas powered plants that may need to shut down before the end of their useful lives. Itās very short-sighted. The planning shouldnāt be to reduce emissions in the short term, it should be getting to zero ASAP, and often those goals donāt overlap.
I donāt like gas powered plant because itās really only good for meeting peak demands. Their generation is also expensive.
British columbia, Canada. Hydro electric power. Show me anywhere nuclear is better in any metric. Nuclear isnt as amazing as some crack it up to be, not as evil either. However nuclear waste is still an.issue no one seems to have answered aside from dump it in holes abd shut the fuck up about itā¦not a great answer, and yet universally spouted.
Hydro is great and green in some areas and blows away almost everything else. Dont let china fuck up its image. Green energy works, nuclear is an ideal backup. Like it is currently to coal in taiwan.
1 Like
Hydro has geographical/geological limitations. Canāt build it anywhere. Also dam failures killed far more people than nuclear.
There are things we can do with nuclear waste apart from hiding it in some hole, but since the technology used for reprocessing fuel is also used in making bombs, it isnāt politically possible.
Thatās easy. Hydro is finite. Once itās fully utilized its done. Then you get droughts and climate change that could reduce output.
What if the region wants 3 or 4 tunes the power than hydro can provide. Energy use will keep increasing rapidly.
32N164W
I already answered that. Buried in geologically stable clay for millions of years is fine, and modern reactor designs have little waste and actually create more fuel than they use. Weāll find use for most of the āwasteā we have now anyways.
And can actually release more carbon than coal for decades if the soil is carbon rich. Not to mention destruction of habitat.
Californiaās Geysers plant has a net annual output of 6,516 GWh, thatās half of Nuclear Power Plant IIIās net annual output. For renewable energy, Iād say thatās pretty darn good.
Thereās no reason why Taiwan canāt build at least one to make up for 2.5% of Taiwanās total annual output.
As @Taiwan_Luthiers points out there are limitations. Other issues include large quantities of methane produced, ecological destruction, and geopolitical implications. There are some species of fish (salmon, in BC) that can use ladders but the Mekong is looking at severe downstream impacts affecting livelihood and sustainability for 10s of millions due to upstream damming by China. I had a work situation some years back that really changed my attitude to hydro, you can read up on disadvantages/problems with dams if you want to learn more.
BC is definitely a good example of good hydropower, but it is still imperfect. The Site C dam is a recent example of challenges with hydro even in BC. Nuclear is definitely great, until it isnāt and then we have Chernobyl and Fukushima which I agree make hydro suddenly more appealing.
When rockets are bit more reliable weāll probably start sending it straight to the sun, or producing off-planet and shipping the power back while keeping the waste on the moon.
Or we can reprocess the waste and keep using it until it becomes less radioactive. But politics prohibit it.
Sending anything to the sun is actually very expensive. Not just a question of rocket reliability but to send anything to the sun you must first send the rocket to Jupiter, and using its slingshot to kill your orbital velocity enough to fall into the sun. Itās a LOT harder than you think. As the Earth actually orbits the sun at fairly fast speeds, killing all that speed requires rockets that do not yet exist.
Try it in Kerbal Space Program and tell me what you think.
Costs are going down; perhaps you have heard of Elon Musk? Anyways, Iām not suggesting it could or should be done now, but that in the long term it is a better option than damming the entire planet.
How are nuclear waste going to damn the entire planet?
Do you know Fukeshima and chernybol is teeming with life? Because us humans are too afraid of nuclear power, but animals and plants are not it seems.
Also nuclear waste can be reprocessed or repurposed for other use. Maybe it isnāt good enough to generate power but it could still be used as batteries or something else.
Even with Elon Musk sending anything more than a tiny probe into the sun is prohibitively expensive.
we were talking about dams; damming the entire planet, not damning the entire planet