Nuclear is only expensive because of all the regulatory hurdles that've been put in it's way, as well as the nigh-endless lawsuits from greenie-weenies.
He's not looking to build an actual power plant. He's looking to build a test reactor and explore how to reduce costs via unitization and economies of scale. The biggest cost for reactors (outside of the regulatory burdens and lawsuits) is the fact that each and every reactor is it's own unique thing.
True. But the same can be said of ANY form of generation technology. And, due to nuclear power's sheer power density, it's carbon offset point comes FAR sooner than anything else out there.
Actually something can be accomplished by doing the first two.
Something like 40% of energy usage in the US is consumed by HVAC in BUILDINGS. We have all these badly designed structures that simply bleed heat and waste power trying to eternally play catch-up.
We can individual homes to the point where you could space heat them with a TOASTER and solar gain when people aren't actually in the home warming them with waste body heat. And even current homes could be retrofit to this standard.
It's possible to engineer far larger buildings to similar levels of energy efficiency as well. And in many cases, current buildings could be retrofit to nearly this standard.
If done properly, we do NOT need to simply replace the entire energy generation capacity of the US at peak demand with Nuclear.
We could replace most of our baseline with nuclear, our remaining Hydro, and geothermal. We ca then offset peak demands with judicious use of Solar, Wind and Wave power alongside power storage options (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, solar thermal, etc).
If done while slowly tweaking building code across the country, ACTUAL demand can be brought down while capacity ramps up.
There WILL be carbon footprint from the construction and manufacturing end. But, long-term, the carbon offset would be huge.
You have places where you go down a thousand feet or so and you're good. You have a suitable hot spot. But there are other places where you can drill all you like, you're NOT going to get a usable geothermal well in anything like a rational budget.
The government is insane there. The regulations there are even MORE insane. Earthquakes. Home/property prices are even MORE insane. Areas like SF are inundated with homeless, drug needles and piles of shit.
Sometimes you can overcome logistical problems by simply throwing money at it.
Other times, you could throw every last cent, ruble, kopeck, yen, yuan, won, bot, pence, etc on the planet at it and it still won't make some problems go away.
If POTUS asks you about something like this, simply tell him that a manned Mars mission on a 1-2 year (since launching in December of 2020 would essentially be 2 years) timetable falls into the latter category.
Hey, unlike past presidents, this one actually ASKED NASA about it.
The problem is, simply implementing such gamified carbon trading systems locally are masturbation. They don't make a huge dent in the problem. Unless we're talking universal buy-iin from places like Europe, China and India as well, you're pissing into the wind. The problem is, China and India aren't ever going to actually implement and follow this. They'll game it at every opportunity. Or just outright ignore it.
We need to concentrate on real-world engineering solutions for this, because you're not simply going to "carrot and stick" 7 billion people.
Build in sufficient capacity with a non-peaking source like nuclear. Use excess power production during low-demand times to do things like desalinate seawater and crack CO2 to produce hydrocarbon fuel.
The problem with your examples are things that can (and in some cases actually ARE taken care of via private contractor).
As for the 800,000 people? What promise was broken? Did the government suddenly pass a law stating that these people had universal and irrevocable employment until the end of time?
NOPE!
Are these people going to be paid for time they didn't work ANYHOW when the shutdown is over?
Yes, not all of them can. But, you think calling and dealing with your creditors, as opposed to just ignoring it and hoping it'll end five minutes ago, might give them some breathing room?
How many people NOT doing IPOs and just going to their regular jobs every day, day in and day out miss the 800K non-essential employees of the government are not at work, but will be paid for doing nothing anyhow, once the shutdown is over?
It's all snake oil designed to make you spend money on crap you simply don't need and can't actually differentiate from a reasonably high bit-rate current MP3/FLAC/WMV while using ridiculously expensive "audiophile" equipment, let alone most standard computer speakers or or headsets.
Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear is only expensive because of all the regulatory hurdles that've been put in it's way, as well as the nigh-endless lawsuits from greenie-weenies.
You're envisioning it this way because you've been indoctrinated by decades of "Nookyoolur = BOMZ!" groupthink.
If you throw that billion dollars the right way, it just might.
If his endeavor can deliver a modular reactor design that can be unitized to take advantage of economies of scale?
He's not looking to build an actual power plant.
He's looking to build a test reactor and explore how to reduce costs via unitization and economies of scale.
The biggest cost for reactors (outside of the regulatory burdens and lawsuits) is the fact that each and every reactor is it's own unique thing.
Wrong.
Nobody's asking to build any Gen2/Gen3 reactors.
They're looking to build safe-by-default Gen4+ designs.
True. But the same can be said of ANY form of generation technology.
And, due to nuclear power's sheer power density, it's carbon offset point comes FAR sooner than anything else out there.
No. An MSR is actually fairly simple. The expensive part is all the regulatory BS, plus the endless lawsuits.
He tried.
Recent changes in US laws have made doing so unfeasible for him.
And what do we do in the mean time? Just suck it until such power beaming is feasible?
As I've said about nuclear and fusion.
Fission-for-now, and fusion-when-feasible.
The same thing would go for power beaming.
Actually something can be accomplished by doing the first two.
Something like 40% of energy usage in the US is consumed by HVAC in BUILDINGS.
We have all these badly designed structures that simply bleed heat and waste power trying to eternally play catch-up.
We can individual homes to the point where you could space heat them with a TOASTER and solar gain when people aren't actually in the home warming them with waste body heat. And even current homes could be retrofit to this standard.
It's possible to engineer far larger buildings to similar levels of energy efficiency as well. And in many cases, current buildings could be retrofit to nearly this standard.
If done properly, we do NOT need to simply replace the entire energy generation capacity of the US at peak demand with Nuclear.
We could replace most of our baseline with nuclear, our remaining Hydro, and geothermal.
We ca then offset peak demands with judicious use of Solar, Wind and Wave power alongside power storage options (batteries, flywheels, pumped hydro, solar thermal, etc).
If done while slowly tweaking building code across the country, ACTUAL demand can be brought down while capacity ramps up.
There WILL be carbon footprint from the construction and manufacturing end. But, long-term, the carbon offset would be huge.
Mainly that's because of all the regulatory hurdles and lawsuits all you greeny-weenies put into place.
It's not nonsense.
You're trying to compare maximum output of 2 facilities rated for 1GW.
But a nuclear plant basically outputs at maximum capacity for 90% of the year.
A 1GW solar plant only has maximum output for a fraction of a day, for a fraction of all the days of the year.
So, over the course of a year, a 1GW-rated nuclear plant will output far more power than a 1GW-rated solar plant.
Because collecting that energy in solar has massive land use, landfill and ecological implications.
But geothermal is extremely location-specific.
You have places where you go down a thousand feet or so and you're good. You have a suitable hot spot.
But there are other places where you can drill all you like, you're NOT going to get a usable geothermal well in anything like a rational budget.
I wouldn't live in California if you paid me.
The government is insane there.
The regulations there are even MORE insane.
Earthquakes.
Home/property prices are even MORE insane.
Areas like SF are inundated with homeless, drug needles and piles of shit.
Aw hell naw.
China pretty much has cornered production on solar panels.
Now they'll start ratcheting up the pricing.
Sometimes you can overcome logistical problems by simply throwing money at it.
Other times, you could throw every last cent, ruble, kopeck, yen, yuan, won, bot, pence, etc on the planet at it and it still won't make some problems go away.
If POTUS asks you about something like this, simply tell him that a manned Mars mission on a 1-2 year (since launching in December of 2020 would essentially be 2 years) timetable falls into the latter category.
Hey, unlike past presidents, this one actually ASKED NASA about it.
The problem is, simply implementing such gamified carbon trading systems locally are masturbation.
They don't make a huge dent in the problem.
Unless we're talking universal buy-iin from places like Europe, China and India as well, you're pissing into the wind.
The problem is, China and India aren't ever going to actually implement and follow this.
They'll game it at every opportunity. Or just outright ignore it.
We need to concentrate on real-world engineering solutions for this, because you're not simply going to "carrot and stick" 7 billion people.
Solar also kills wildlife.
And the land usage involved can create ecological disruption problems.
Build in sufficient capacity with a non-peaking source like nuclear.
Use excess power production during low-demand times to do things like desalinate seawater and crack CO2 to produce hydrocarbon fuel.
It's not an "either/or" problem.
They can be used together.
We need more of this kind of research if we're going to successfully attack the problems involved in climate change and excessive atmospheric CO2.
Because gamified economic schemes aren't going to cut it.
No. I realize it QUITE well.
The problem with your examples are things that can (and in some cases actually ARE taken care of via private contractor).
As for the 800,000 people? What promise was broken? Did the government suddenly pass a law stating that these people had universal and irrevocable employment until the end of time?
NOPE!
Are these people going to be paid for time they didn't work ANYHOW when the shutdown is over?
YEP!
They always do, and it's already handled.
"Not guaranteed"
https://www.foxnews.com/politi...
You were saying?
Yes, not all of them can.
But, you think calling and dealing with your creditors, as opposed to just ignoring it and hoping it'll end five minutes ago, might give them some breathing room?
Seriously.
Show of hands here.
How many people NOT doing IPOs and just going to their regular jobs every day, day in and day out miss the 800K non-essential employees of the government are not at work, but will be paid for doing nothing anyhow, once the shutdown is over?
Hi def audo!
But records produce "warmer" sound!
It's all snake oil designed to make you spend money on crap you simply don't need and can't actually differentiate from a reasonably high bit-rate current MP3/FLAC/WMV while using ridiculously expensive "audiophile" equipment, let alone most standard computer speakers or or headsets.