5 years? LOL. Is this the same 5 years that EV batteries were supposed to last?
Okay, let's say we build 3x the capacity to meet your 700MW average, and replace after 10 years, it's still way way cheaper than naval nuclear reactors.
They do if they are used right. What we need is a more intelligent electricity grid that can coordinate the residential batteries so that they benefit more than just the owner. To make it fair the owner would have to be compensated of course, but that sounds like a great way to pay for infrastructure.
How about instead of a tax the utility company just sends the battery pack a signal to tell it when to activate? Could be done over the internet or some kind of power line comms system or even something separate like ISM band radio (LoRa or Sigfox).
Have a legal mandate to reduce emissions and reduce costs for consumers, i.e. run it for the benefit of the planet and the owner rather than the power company. Give people a small incentive to adopt it.
Compared to renewables, which will cover everything just fine thanks. Renewables + storage will cover 100% of our needs eventually, it's just a question of how soon.
Nuclear can't be the basis of widespread cheap energy because not every country can be trusted with it. In fact even the ones that have it already can barely be trusted, and occasionally screw up.
The solution is renewables + storage, because they can be deployed almost anywhere cheaply and with minimal risk.
The seawalls were critical because even after the emergency pumps were lost it was still possible to save the reactors using mobile pumps. They were available and working on site, but failed to cool the reactors because the water they pumped in was diverted to storage tanks.
The damage from the tsunami had broken the monitoring system that could have told staff that the valve diverting the water was in the wrong position. No-one could get near it to physically check due to damage.
Thus if the seawall had been adequate, or even just reduced the amount of damage, even without emergency cooling pumps the situation might have been saved.
Given that the consequences of a disaster are potentially in the trillions of Euro/dollar range, and even the relatively contained disasters we have had like Fukushima are in the hundreds of billions range, the insurer is going to make damn sure that accidents don't happen. That means strict requirements when it comes to safety.
In nuclear's case the insurer is the government because no private insurer could cover the potential payout.
So if you want to make nuclear cheaper then find a way to insure it privately with an insurer who has less stringent demands. Good luck with that.
A modern reactor can take up the size of a small shed in your backyard (if you have a cooling pool nearby). But we're not building those because someone may steal a rod of "weapons grade" fuel.
Probably more to do with the cost. According to this the cost of a carrier size reactor is $200 million, plus $40 million for end-of-life disposal, plus operating costs. For about 700MW.
And that's just the reactor of course, you need to build a plant and cooling system around it. You don' have the sea to use as a heatsink. That compares to about $33 million for 700MW of wind, so you can throw a nice big battery on top of that and it's still way cheaper.
Healthcare makes sense because it's cheaper to provide socially. Nuclear isn't price competitive or as clean as the alternatives. There is simply no need for it any more either.
Unless Gates is going to fund not just the prototype reactor but also the commercial ones for their entire lifetimes, including full insurance which appears to be impossible since no insurance company can afford it, then none of this changes the fact that nuclear is stupidly expensive and uneconomical.
Also putting the word "terra" in the name of your nuclear project is... Unwise.
The advertisers are probably quite happy about this. It means their crap is overwhelming the real stuff.
It's got the point where everything, even the real stuff, seems fake because the fake imitations are getting better. In fact there is a feedback loop, where real people see the fake people being effective and adopt their methods.
Slashdot is not immune. Sometimes half the posts on a story seem fake, like they were written by bots or copy/paste shills. They probably aren't though, they are mostly real people just doing what they see working for others, adopting that fake-sounding tone because it gets likes.
A slightly more relevant question is what are the transport links like?
I know people who live in southern Europe, often Spain because it's cheap, but work for companies in northern Europe. It's only possible because when they need to meet face to face once a month they can get on a cheap flight and be there in a few hours.
Assuming your numbers are correct (Wikipedia seems to disagree), you are only considering the dollar value. How much is not being forced into bankruptcy by illness worth to someone? How much is having insurance at all, or being able to afford the deductible worth?
Of course it depends how big the welfare system is already. In countries with decently generous systems and socialized healthcare UBI doesn't look so expensive. On top of that you would expect there to be changes to the economy to further reduce the cost, and a reduction in the problems associated with poverty and means-tested welfare too. Such things are hard to put a price on.
They know very well what works, it's just that the more effective the technique the more push-back they get for using it.
At the extreme end you have stuff which is simply illegal, then you have stuff which is banned on TV and the more popular web sites. Stuff that browsers block by default (pop-ups and Javascript abuse). Paying influencers to mislead their viewers.
All the time they are looking for new ways to get away with what they know works, and other people are looking for ways to stop them.
Stuff like that is just a bit of silly fun, the problem is more to do with stuff like the fake outrage industry that posts endless videos about people being "triggered" on YouTube. Parody is great, convincing large numbers of people that there is a culture war going on that is in fact entirely manufactured clickbait for your YouTube channel just creates an army of dangerously delusional useful idiots.
Your don't consider the most popular IDE that is widely used in professional settings to be a "real / professional development environment", and your alternative is EMACS + sed.
Even if you were not lying, why would I bother "doing my homework" when I can just press two keys in Visual Studio and have it all done perfectly with zero effort?
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of speculation why not find out?
Huawei will let governments inspect their code and publish known good firmware hashes. Does Cisco?
5 years? LOL. Is this the same 5 years that EV batteries were supposed to last?
Okay, let's say we build 3x the capacity to meet your 700MW average, and replace after 10 years, it's still way way cheaper than naval nuclear reactors.
Residential batteries don't make sense
They do if they are used right. What we need is a more intelligent electricity grid that can coordinate the residential batteries so that they benefit more than just the owner. To make it fair the owner would have to be compensated of course, but that sounds like a great way to pay for infrastructure.
How about instead of a tax the utility company just sends the battery pack a signal to tell it when to activate? Could be done over the internet or some kind of power line comms system or even something separate like ISM band radio (LoRa or Sigfox).
Have a legal mandate to reduce emissions and reduce costs for consumers, i.e. run it for the benefit of the planet and the owner rather than the power company. Give people a small incentive to adopt it.
It can be, if cost is irrelevant to you.
They said grid scale batteries wouldn't work. They have now been demonstrated to work. We don't need to wait, we need to get on with this.
Compared to renewables, which will cover everything just fine thanks. Renewables + storage will cover 100% of our needs eventually, it's just a question of how soon.
Nuclear can't be the basis of widespread cheap energy because not every country can be trusted with it. In fact even the ones that have it already can barely be trusted, and occasionally screw up.
The solution is renewables + storage, because they can be deployed almost anywhere cheaply and with minimal risk.
The seawalls were critical because even after the emergency pumps were lost it was still possible to save the reactors using mobile pumps. They were available and working on site, but failed to cool the reactors because the water they pumped in was diverted to storage tanks.
The damage from the tsunami had broken the monitoring system that could have told staff that the valve diverting the water was in the wrong position. No-one could get near it to physically check due to damage.
Thus if the seawall had been adequate, or even just reduced the amount of damage, even without emergency cooling pumps the situation might have been saved.
Even with battery backup wind is cheaper. Even offshore wind.
The problem is regulation.
No, the problem is insurance.
Given that the consequences of a disaster are potentially in the trillions of Euro/dollar range, and even the relatively contained disasters we have had like Fukushima are in the hundreds of billions range, the insurer is going to make damn sure that accidents don't happen. That means strict requirements when it comes to safety.
In nuclear's case the insurer is the government because no private insurer could cover the potential payout.
So if you want to make nuclear cheaper then find a way to insure it privately with an insurer who has less stringent demands. Good luck with that.
A modern reactor can take up the size of a small shed in your backyard (if you have a cooling pool nearby). But we're not building those because someone may steal a rod of "weapons grade" fuel.
Probably more to do with the cost. According to this the cost of a carrier size reactor is $200 million, plus $40 million for end-of-life disposal, plus operating costs. For about 700MW.
And that's just the reactor of course, you need to build a plant and cooling system around it. You don' have the sea to use as a heatsink. That compares to about $33 million for 700MW of wind, so you can throw a nice big battery on top of that and it's still way cheaper.
Healthcare makes sense because it's cheaper to provide socially. Nuclear isn't price competitive or as clean as the alternatives. There is simply no need for it any more either.
Unless Gates is going to fund not just the prototype reactor but also the commercial ones for their entire lifetimes, including full insurance which appears to be impossible since no insurance company can afford it, then none of this changes the fact that nuclear is stupidly expensive and uneconomical.
Also putting the word "terra" in the name of your nuclear project is... Unwise.
At the time there was no choice but to evacuate. There was no way of knowing how bad it would get, and in the end it proved to be necessary anyway.
The advertisers are probably quite happy about this. It means their crap is overwhelming the real stuff.
It's got the point where everything, even the real stuff, seems fake because the fake imitations are getting better. In fact there is a feedback loop, where real people see the fake people being effective and adopt their methods.
Slashdot is not immune. Sometimes half the posts on a story seem fake, like they were written by bots or copy/paste shills. They probably aren't though, they are mostly real people just doing what they see working for others, adopting that fake-sounding tone because it gets likes.
A slightly more relevant question is what are the transport links like?
I know people who live in southern Europe, often Spain because it's cheap, but work for companies in northern Europe. It's only possible because when they need to meet face to face once a month they can get on a cheap flight and be there in a few hours.
What a depressing view of humanity. People only work because of the threat of poverty?
In reality most people would prefer to better themselves and work towards that, as long as they see a realistic prospect of it happening.
Assuming your numbers are correct (Wikipedia seems to disagree), you are only considering the dollar value. How much is not being forced into bankruptcy by illness worth to someone? How much is having insurance at all, or being able to afford the deductible worth?
It's hard to take your comment seriously when your signature is begging for monthly donations to the Ayn Rand Institute.
Numbers plucked out of your arse I assume.
Of course it depends how big the welfare system is already. In countries with decently generous systems and socialized healthcare UBI doesn't look so expensive. On top of that you would expect there to be changes to the economy to further reduce the cost, and a reduction in the problems associated with poverty and means-tested welfare too. Such things are hard to put a price on.
They know very well what works, it's just that the more effective the technique the more push-back they get for using it.
At the extreme end you have stuff which is simply illegal, then you have stuff which is banned on TV and the more popular web sites. Stuff that browsers block by default (pop-ups and Javascript abuse). Paying influencers to mislead their viewers.
All the time they are looking for new ways to get away with what they know works, and other people are looking for ways to stop them.
Stuff like that is just a bit of silly fun, the problem is more to do with stuff like the fake outrage industry that posts endless videos about people being "triggered" on YouTube. Parody is great, convincing large numbers of people that there is a culture war going on that is in fact entirely manufactured clickbait for your YouTube channel just creates an army of dangerously delusional useful idiots.
One interesting thing to note from the testing methodology though:
Windows Update was temporarily disabled
Okay Microsoft, I need to verify your results. How do I disable Windows Update completely?
True professionals insist everyone runs Linux to use their amazing software?
In any case, the number 2 IDE is Eclipse, which runs on Linux and isn't EMACS+sed.
Your don't consider the most popular IDE that is widely used in professional settings to be a "real / professional development environment", and your alternative is EMACS + sed.
Okay.
Even if you were not lying, why would I bother "doing my homework" when I can just press two keys in Visual Studio and have it all done perfectly with zero effort?