Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why does nuclear have a niche in a green future? I don't see it surviving. Locations with insufficient wind/solar will be supplied externally, either by grid or by transport of synthetic chemical fuels. Places like very high latitudes (where wind is often very good, btw) are so sparsely populated they cannot by themselves sustain a nuclear industry.



If we string solar plants all around the planet, the sunny side can always supply the night side.


> If we string solar plants all around the planet, the sunny side can always supply the night side.

Does this include stringing them across the Pacific Ocean, which covers thirty percent of the Earth's surface?


Awfully optimistic when we can't even get one 200-mile HV line greenlit after 10 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_–_New_England_Transmiss...


Building cables across the ocean raises much more demanding engineering problems but much less demanding political problems than building them across multiple states. You don't have to please a bunch of different regional governments and land owners when you're building across the ocean. If you have a government that can dictate national projects like in China you can build long cables over land even faster, but that political alternative also comes with its own problems (to put it mildly).


That would require world peace


And lossless energy transmission.

And several large floating sea cities full of engineers to maintain it all.


Naa, we use gigantic mirrows in space to bring light to the night side.


in theory SMRs don't need much maintenance so could work in these situations. And on the plus side, when they do melt down - not many casualties.


When the entire Railbelt grid in Alaska (the largest grid there) has an average load of 600 MW, there simply isn't much market for SMRs at high latitudes.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: