Advanced Nuclear Reactors

ahhell said:
Solar, geographic limits and intermittent.
Wind, geographic limits and intermittent.
Tidal, geophraphic limits and intermittent

Batteries and other storage, absurd to think that's been solved. Sure, at some point in the future it will be, it ain't yet.

Nuclear is definitely needed as part of the mix if we want to get off of fossil fuels. Its absolutely letting the perfect be the enemy of the good to push for a no nuke energy infrastructure currently.

ETA, and of course your country is exemplary of all locations.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the other non fossil fuel forms of energy are not nearly advanced wnough to replace the sheer volume of power needed.
I repeat, I am convinced that a Lot of the ANti Nuclar Power people are really anti power in general and fantasize about an idyllic pre electric power world.
 
wobs said:
As I think I said earlier, the Green party in the UK often opposes solar farms, not just nuclear.
Click to expand...

They just don't like power, period, and fantasize about going back to some pre industrial agriclutre based utopia.
 
dudalb said:
Problem is that the other non fossil fuel forms of energy are not nearly advanced wnough to replace the sheer volume of power needed.
I repeat, I am convinced that a Lot of the ANti Nuclar Power people are really anti power in general and fantasize about an idyllic pre electric power world.
Click to expand...

Maybe not in the US but Oxford University published a report last year that it could be done in the UK with the right policy support and investment:

https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/ne...ly-wind-and-solar-shows-smith-school-analysis
 
dudalb said:
Problem is that the other non fossil fuel forms of energy are not nearly advanced wnough to replace the sheer volume of power needed.
I repeat, I am convinced that a Lot of the ANti Nuclar Power people are really anti power in general and fantasize about an idyllic pre electric power world.
Click to expand...

Some of it for sure. Pretty much all of it is more than a little bit utopian.

https://ourworldindata.org/electric...; although wind and solar are growing quickly.

35% of the worlds electricity currently comes from coal, coal is literally the worst. 30% of world production comes from renewables, the vast majority of which is hydro but somehow we are going to replace all of that coal, gas, and oil with solar, wind, and batteries?
 
ohms said:
Maybe not in the US but Oxford University published a report last year that it could be done in the UK with the right policy support and investment:

https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/ne...ly-wind-and-solar-shows-smith-school-analysis
Click to expand...


The authors note that the grid will need significant upgrades to handle this amount of renewable energy, including the scaling of energy storage. But, with an eye to quickly falling costs, they believe these challenges can be overcome with investment and policy support.
Click to expand...
Good thing we've solved that battery problem.
 
ohms said:
Maybe not in the US but Oxford University published a report last year that it could be done in the UK with the right policy support and investment:

https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/ne...ly-wind-and-solar-shows-smith-school-analysis
Click to expand...

I do not find this persuasive. First, so we're all on the same page, here's the actual report:

https://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/si...-demand-be-met-entirely-by-wind-and-solar.pdf

So skimming through this, I see a ton of problems. In no particular order:

"In general, we expect a continued steady decline in GB primary
energy consumption alongside a continued increase in economic growth and energy services." page 8

Never plan for decreasing energy consumption. That's just stupid.

OK, now on to how they plan to do it.

"210 TWh/year onshore [wind], assuming 5% of GB land would host turbines (generally collocated with agriculture), spacing at 6 times diameter, and approaching 7 MW in size" page 9

They think they can get people to accept 5% of GB land being taken up by windmills? Not a ******* chance in hell. This is completely unrealistic.

"560 TWh/year fixed offshore [wind], assuming 2% of GB’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) would be used for turbines, spacing at 7 times diameter, and approaching/exceeding 15 MW" page 9

Bwahahahahaha! No. Not gonna happen.

"544 TWh/year utility scale [solar], assuming 2% of GB land area (4,740km2) would hold panels" page 26.

Yeah, no way that's happening. There's a reason that the authors don't actually say specifically where this stuff can be located. There's just an assumption that people will accept a bunch of it all over the place, because it can be "dual use" space (even though that doesn't really work). And that's not gonna happen.

And you know what they never once actually calculate in their report? Storage requirements. There are references to the issue, but the assumption is basically it'll get solved, no worries. Which, yeah nah, it's not that simple. Nor do they touch on the grid infrastructure costs involved in such a transition.

tl;dr: this is a completely unrealistic analysis.
 
dudalb said:
Problem is that the other non fossil fuel forms of energy are not nearly advanced wnough to replace the sheer volume of power needed.
I repeat, I am convinced that a Lot of the ANti Nuclar Power people are really anti power in general and fantasize about an idyllic pre electric power world.
Click to expand...

Nuclear Power is Stone Age Technology at this point.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Nuclear Power is Stone Age Technology at this point.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you think the age of a technology is relevant.

220px-KinderdijkWindmills.jpg
 
in 2025, only 2 new nuclear reactors came online globally, one, in China and one in Russia.
7 reactors were taken offline permanently, making it a net loss of of about 1GW of nuclear power globally.

Despite the hype, small, mass produced reactors remain a fantasy when it comes to availability or economic viability.
 
The biggest nuclear rollout for a generation will support the clean power mission – boosting energy security and protecting families’ finances. Great British Energy - Nuclear is aiming to sign contracts with Rolls-Royce SMRlater this year and will form a development company.

Great British Energy - Nuclear will also aim to allocate a site later this year and connect projects to the grid in the mid-2030s. Once small modular reactors and Sizewell C come online in the 2030s, combined with the new station at Hinkley Point C, this will deliver more nuclear to the grid than over the previous half century.
Click to expand...
www.gov.uk

Rolls-Royce SMR selected to build small modular nuclear reactors

Rolls-Royce SMR selected as preferred bidder to build country’s first small modular reactors.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk

 
Last edited:
yes, the idea to get costs down was to move away from bespoke reactors for each location and build as much as possible offsite.
 
China is building nuclear reactors at a speed unheard of in the West. More than 25 currently under construction, and another 25 that have received permits to be built.
 
Last edited:
The Great Zaganza said:
insignificant compared to their solar and wind output.
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

www.iea.org

China - Countries & Regions - IEA

China’s energy sector is moving into a new direction following the president’s call for an “energy revolution”, the “fight against pollution” and the transition towards a service-based economic model. Energy policy places the emphasis on electricity, natu
www.iea.org www.iea.org
 
Progress seems to be taking for thorium molten-salt reactors.

www.world-nuclear-news.org

Chinese molten salt reactor achieves conversion of thorium-uranium fuel

The experimental TMSR-LF1 thorium-powered molten salt reactor in Wuwei, Gansu Province, has achieved the first successful conversion of thorium-uranium nuclear fuel, the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences announced. ;
www.world-nuclear-news.org

ISTR reading that the reason the Manhattan Project did not use thorium was because they wanted enriched uranium and plutonium for the A-bomb.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
insignificant compared to their solar and wind output.
Click to expand...
Yes and no.

In 2024–2025, China's power generation remains dominated by coal, which provided roughly 58–61% of electricity, despite a massive surge in renewables. While coal capacity is still growing, non-fossil sources—led by rapid solar (approx. 10–11% share) and wind (approx. 9–11%) expansion—are meeting most demand growth, with clean energy surpassing 40% of the total generation mix in 2024.
Power Generation by Source (Estimated 2024/2025 Data):
Coal: ~59%–61% of generation (remains the primary source, although its share is slowly declining).
Solar & Wind: ~18%–22% combined (fastest-growing, with solar PV capacity exceeding 1,000 GW by May 2025).
Hydropower: ~13%–14% (largest source of clean electricity).
Nuclear: ~5% (significant role, with 55+ operational reactors as of 2023).
Natural Gas & Others: ~3%.

China is using a multi dimensional approach to power generation. And what I've read, they are going to increase substantially the amount of nuclear energy in their power portfolio. They are trying to reduce the amount of coal in a push for renewables. I guess one could argue that nuclear is not a renewable. I think it is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom