New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Rather than SMR's it would make more sense to do it on scale with existing infra.
For example making a giant reservoir against some mountain or hill top or just at high elevation area.
Then pump water up there when electricity is readily available and cheap, and use as a natural battery bank and let water out when there's no wind or sun or otherwise when there's high usage.
That is less efficient overall than other things like green hydrogen which have the added benefit that it could be used to power transportation of everything, from cars to planes.
At this time, for pure storage, yes, it is more efficient to pump water, twice as efficient, but that requires a lot of environmental degradation for building the reservoir, pumps, etc., those take a lot of space for being efficient. Green hydrogen uses a lot of complex stuff as well, but it is more compact and it can be transported through pipes or otherwise for other usage, especially for the decarbonization of transport. Besides, there could be only one huge plant to make hydrogen and draw power from any number of renewable facilities in the area as well as balancing a lot more of the grid because, unlike reservoirs which have a very limited capacity, hydrogen storage is very efficient and practically unlimited, reservoirs could be built as needed.
That being said, for storage only, and for daily fluctuations, yes, gravitational of various types could work as it is more efficient per round-trip and doesn't need huge capacities for a daily cycle.
Without ChatGPT I would not have a clue what was said.
I found this video explains it well:
There are two being built in Georgia that are scheduled to come online this year, and one in Tennessee opened in 2016.
Before that you have to go back to the 90s.
Regulatory hurdles are indeed high.
He must've been suffering horrendously.
This is inevitable, but for SMRs the threshold will be much lower.
They would be able to spew much-much less radioactive material in the event of a breach and a breach would be made much less likely because the temperatures and forces would be confined to a much smaller area, much easier to contain in case something goes wrong.
On the other hand, the lower regulatory threshold and the "democratization" of access to nuclear reactors would bring a whole slew of new problems. The sheer numbers would make the low chance of any individual one bursting into a probably bigger compounded chance overall, just that the damage would be lower and easier to contain.
I think only big and well supervised companies should be in this business of operating SMRs, not Microsoft or other unspecialized companies which, while big and unable to afford the fall-out from an accident, are less likely to invest the full amount needed to make sure the reactors operate in safety. There might be some maintenance companies approved, the way it works in Europe, only authorized companies could work with gas lines and infrastructure, even with the electric ones in most cases, with mandatory regular inspections and whatnot.
Let's go nuke microsoft
I would say this is their power plant to deploy the next AGI on Azure or similar platform
I suspect nuclear power can only get so cheap because of the inherent waste management and security requirements. Fission power will never be "I'm opening a convenience store, and I've got my order in a for nuclear generator for power" because of the proliferation risk. Heck, the "nuclear boy scout" made a reactor from taking americium from smoke detectors...someone could make a very nasty bomb from bigger fissile materials.
I think you're making an assumption that Microsoft must necessarily cut corners. This is not always the case - many companies do dangerous work responsibly in various fields of research, explosives, etc.
The rule of thumb is that, left to its own devices, any company would cut corners to cut costs. There might be exceptions, of course, but that is the rule, the race to the bottom would apply to any unregulated market, therefore a very tight regulation should put a threshold under which nobody should be allowed to go.
I can see ovh being next... let's hope they don't start a meltdown instead of a burn down of one of their dcs.
heh. I almost forgot about that.