Sakuu's 3D printed solid state battery could be a boon for electric vehicles

gamerk2

Posts: 603   +525
Yep, but I was talking more about electricity generation. If the nut bags of the 70s and on had quit their opposition to Nuclear, we would be breathing much cleaner air. Might even have stalled the EVs?
I'm fine with nuclear so long as three criteria are met:

1: Costs get under control.
2: There is a single purpose built location to store waste (currently, most is just stored on-site). Note this should really be an international thing...
3: The absolute worst case failure mode must be "safe shutdown".
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,687   +1,737
TechSpot Elite
Costs get under control.
Good point there. But after they are built, they are very cheap to run.

There is a single purpose built location to store waste
Most of us that grew up in Western Pa actually have heard more than enough about that. (Shipping Port.) But Deep geological disposal seems to be the way now and is quite safe.

The absolute worst case failure mode must be "safe shutdown"
I'm sure it now takes under a minute to scram a nuke plant.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 603   +525
I'm sure it now takes under a minute to scram a nuke plant.
The problem is even after you scram, you still need power to cool the plant down. Hence the irony of a Nuclear Power Plant needing external power if it needs to scram.

My stance if this: reactor design must be done in such a way where no combination of actions from within the control room will lead to a loss of containment. And to the best of my knowledge, we do not have that.
 

scavengerspc

Posts: 1,687   +1,737
TechSpot Elite
Very true. Renewable energy is simply not capable of being the primary source. It will always be marginal. That's the failure that was 'amply' demonstrated in Texas.
You still don't get it, do you? Renewables had nothing to do with it if someone there had at least a 6th grade education. Just for you, facts you can ignore, straight from Texas:

 
Last edited:

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,581   +4,986
Oh, I'm not disagreeing. My personal opinion is its already far too late to solve the problem, and society is going to collapse under the weight of all the climate related problems (loss of resources, mass migration into northern countries, etc.).

Honestly, "blow off the atmosphere with nukes" is fast becoming the least bad option on the table. I think Musk, Bezos, and company have the right idea: get off the planet ASAP.
IMO, Musk, Bezos and those espousing a similar solution would just f-up any planet they went to in due time because they would bring all the problems of humanity with them and just repeat them.

EDIT: Not to mention that it would certainly be an enormous task to get all of humanity to another planet. Technologically speaking, anyway. END EDIT.

IMO, if the Fusion clan wants to try to make a difference, I am not against it.

Certainly, I agree that things are not looking bright for many aspects of the environment.
Most of us that grew up in Western Pa actually have heard more than enough about that. (Shipping Port.) But Deep geological disposal seems to be the way now and is quite safe.
Yes, good old TMI. The first of the bad batch.

While I agree that deep geo disposal might be safe for us, I am not so sure about future generations especially if something cataclysmic happens in-between and the warnings about the area are lost. We just might be shoveling that dirt pile from one side of the yard to the other.

I'm sure it now takes under a minute to scram a nuke plant.
There are, supposedly, much safer reactor designs out there - some of them, apparently, do not even need to be shut down - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor#Reactor_types Then again, I am no expert on the matter.
The problem is even after you scram, you still need power to cool the plant down. Hence the irony of a Nuclear Power Plant needing external power if it needs to scram.

My stance if this: reactor design must be done in such a way where no combination of actions from within the control room will lead to a loss of containment. And to the best of my knowledge, we do not have that.
As I understand it, the problem with Fukushima was that the designers failed to adequately asses the probability of the plant being inundated by a tsunami - which is what happened, and their backup generator, tasked with providing the necessary backup power, was swamped and essentially taken out by said tsunami.
 
Last edited:

Bulllee

Posts: 229   +157
Very true. Renewable energy is simply not capable of being the primary source. It will always be marginal. That's the failure that was 'amply' demonstrated in Texas.
Ha but you go to the ports of Texas and see the refineries you would say that.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,581   +4,986
Here are a couple of timely articles, at least somewhat relevant to this topic and the comments on it: An Autonomous Electric cargo ship soon to endure its maiden voyage - https://www.engadget.com/yara-birkeland-autonomous-electric-cargo-ship-launch-date-211945689.html 7MWh battery included. :)

And another ambitious venture that has China in the news - https://interestingengineering.com/china-developing-23-million-megaship-miles-long

It will be interesting to see where, if anywhere, either of these ambitious ventures go.