this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)

TechTakes

1397 readers
169 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

BRING IT ON NITPICKY NUKE NERDS

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Soyweiser@awful.systems 35 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (3 children)

BRING IT ON NITPICKY NUKE NERDS

Well acthtually we prefer to be called fission/fusion nerds

"greenwashing is cheaper than action" indeed. (edit2) On that note, storytime about the clownshow that is Dutch politics. So our radical right wing government is pro nuclear power, of course, and they want to build more powerplants. So what are they planning on doing? They are going to start a study on which locations are best. Which is maddening, as these studies have already been done before (so it prob is just an attempt to hopefully have the study finish when it isn't them in power anymore so they are not at risk of starting an too expensive megaproject). But it gets worse, the absolute clowns of our farmers party just went 'fuck the studies' and they just pointed at a province where there are a lot of farmers and went 'we will put a powerplant there'. And this is how they discovered nuclear powerplants need running water and they picked one of the areas without a major river. ('im ignoring the clownshow re 'the immigration crisis' (not a crisis) as this post is already too long, and there is a big risk of honk overdose if I go into that).

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

Our local Swedish right-wingers in gov have a chubby for nukes too[1], because their main motivation besides hating on brown people is pissing off Greens. But in the Swedish way they handed this off to a researcher ("utredning") who found out that to get the industry on board you need a) rock-solid political promises (so need to get the Social Democrats at least on board) and b) have a price guarantee for power for at least a decade, along with massive government loan guarantees.

It's gonna be hard to get voters interested in 10 new reactor sites (NIMBY gets supercharged when it comes to nukes) if it slightly pushes up lending rates and power bills.


[1] the right-wing part of the opposition social democrats like them too to be fair

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

wouldn't it make more sense to put NPP on seashore and just dump waste heat to ocean like everyone else does

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OhNoMoreLemmy@lemmy.ml 27 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm looking forward to seeing the tech attitude of "move fast and break things" being brought to nuclear reactors.

[–] mountainriver@awful.systems 10 points 4 weeks ago

What could possibly go wrong? Better ask for forgiveness then plant permissions!

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 21 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

BRB making a video for a cold fusion based kickstarter. I smell money

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 17 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Remember to say it's optimized for net zero datacenter operations

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BlueMonday1984@awful.systems 20 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

If these nuclear plants manage to come to fruition, it'll be the sole miniscule silver lining of the bubble. Considering its AI, though, I expect they'll probably suffer some kind of horrific Chernobyl-grade accident which kills nuclear power for good, because we can't have nice things when there's AI involved.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 16 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

even if you're ardently pro-nuclear, SMRs are just a failure purely on the economics and always have been. And that's before wind/solar/battery made them just obsolete. So SMRs are the perfect tech when you don't want to do anything useful.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 20 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

how come all these botfans talking points are just repackaged cryptobros talking points

it keeps happening

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 18 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

you'd almost think they were literally the same fucking guys

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 4 weeks ago

coincidence?? yeah probably

[–] swlabr@awful.systems 14 points 4 weeks ago

just one more SMR bro

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 17 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I don't claim to be an expert on nuclear power, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but from what I've seen, smaller reactors don't seem to make much sense. The trend seems to be towards bigger reactors with bigger power output. Some of it thanks to the bureaucracy of getting permits per reactor, but also the physics, engineering, real estate and economics involved. Conventional (i.e. existent) reactors are typically a fairly small part of a nuclear power plant's footprint, so no matter how much you miniaturize them you will have the overhead of security, operations, cooling and electrical infrastucture.

If someone can fill me in on the benefits of smaller, more modular nuclear reactors and how they might outweight those of large installations, I'm interested.

[–] skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 15 points 4 weeks ago

square-cube law is in full force there

one argument in favour of SMRs i've seen is that while less efficient than regular sized reactors, these are cheaper per unit (but not for MW) so some of them can be built earlier than bigger reactors. which doesn't matter because these things don't exist

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 13 points 4 weeks ago

The hypothetical benefit is that prefabricated parts are a lot less dependent on the site. This will make the reactor cheaper to build.

There's also a perception sleight of hand - "modular" doesn't mean the reactor is a module you ship in on a big truck, put some uranium in and away you go. You're building a power station in a fixed location.

Also you still need a shitload of water.

[–] gerikson@awful.systems 17 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Thanks for posting this good collection of links. HN has as hard-on for SMRs and as a first-order approximation that means they're wrong, but it's good to have something more than vibes backing it up.

[–] dgerard@awful.systems 14 points 4 weeks ago

I got a lot of them from very pro-nuclear guys too, but ones who can count

[–] blakestacey@awful.systems 17 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (2 children)

Google has signed a deal with California startup Kairos Power for six or seven small modular reactors. The first is due in 2030

So, well after the bubble is going to pop.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mindaika@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I am 100% in support of deploying nukes to Google and Amazon

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] o7___o7@awful.systems 15 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Of all the things that will never happen, this is the one that will never happen the most.

[–] bitofhope@awful.systems 12 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I give it slightly higher odds than AGI.

Edit: or cryptocurrency replacing fiat

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 15 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I swear they looked at Bill Gates failing to launch SMRs and thought: "he's a smart guy"

[–] Moonrise2473@feddit.it 13 points 4 weeks ago

At least is technically feasible (although completely impossible to do in that timeframe)

Unlike the cold fusion energy deal that Microsoft greenwashed last year that's pure science fiction (invent, create, test and build a cold fusion reactor in just 4 years: impossible unless they got a time machine or found some alien tech in a remote cave)

We buy tech of the future that might or might not work/get government approval/make actual sense to build so we can't be blamed for ruining the climate with AI using up all the energy. That's the more earth bound version of: I don't care about climate change because we will live on Mars soon^(tm)^.

load more comments
view more: next ›