Ross_audio

It isn't that simple. Solar power wasn't economical until China made a push to manufacture at scale.

Wind power received that push in Europe. Then China and India have joined in.

Not buying the massive nuclear reactors and buying smaller units could be possible. They exist. Alternative technologies also exist.

But nuclear generates heat, which we use to heat water into steam. Which drives a turbine to produce AC electricity.

Massive steam turbines are massive because they are efficient. Multistage turbines range from near 70% efficient for massive ones to 25% efficient for the smallest ones in serious use.

NTAC-TE is a technology that converts the radiation into electric current. Like solar panels converting the sun's radiation into electric current.

NASA uses it in space craft.

If we can get that working at an efficient rate smaller radioactive units will produce power without the efficiency loss of small steam generators. Then we can talk about small modular nuclear energy.

Unfortunately every pro nuclear person parrots the same gumf about nuclear being good, therefore we need to build the massive nuclear reactors.

They only consider talking about any other technology to try and defend nuclear when you point out why they shouldn't be built anymore.

So in 20 years, if we stop building massive nuclear reactors with the money, we might be able to complete some research and start building the correct nuclear technology at scale.

But that 20 years is vital and we need to spend that on carbon reduction now. That's reducing usage through insulation. That's renewables being added to the supply directly now. That's grid level storage to allow us to stop relying on massive steam turbines to hold a steady grid load.

In 20 years we can talk about nuclear again. Add an additional time for every wasted effort on a reactor like Hinckley C or Olkiluoto 3. Starting out as a thin justification and just economically viable.

But then spending 400% of their budget meaning carbon reduction would have been much higher investing elsewhere.

And 2 years of security updates.

They type of person who owns a set of wired headphones or earphones for over a decade doesn't replace their phone every 2 years.

And these days you really shouldn't try and keep a device on the internet without updates.

It's why the fair phone got rightly trashed when they ditched the headphone jack. Battery powered ear buds were completely against their demographics

HMD make decent repairable phones with a headphone jack. They took the Nokia brand for a while but they're now just HMD and they're doing some cool modular stuff with cases too.

Agreed.

Also, don't waste money on experimenting with the others. Just build renewables and grid storage.

And they are all uneconomical.

The nuclear industry only works economically when either we need weapons grade material as a byproduct or we happen to produce electricity as a byproduct when making weapons grade material.

They aren't an efficient use of resources.

Amazon had their walk in walk out stores.

AI was meant to track what you put in the basket and charge you without you going through checkout.

They launched as an AI store.

Humans were looking at cases and were just meant to be "error correction".

They were doing 80% of the work of tracking the images and barcodes into actual products.

Amazon closed the store.

Lots of "AI" systems are currently in this state. A computer can do the easy 10 to 20% of the job. Humans are doing the rest.

Venture capital are just investing in anything that looks like it's working on "AI". Even when it's currently taking more human labour than the work did previously.

Companies are launching now as "AI" gambling on getting that percentage up otherwise they end up late to market. Lots will fail to actually use AI and probably fold.

Then they can tell us where the budget comes from then fail to explain why it's worth five times the price of other renewables with grid storage.

Germany shut down it's reactors as they reached end of life. It isn't economical to build new reactors.

Nuclear has always been a military and strategic concern. Better than importing fossil fuels from potential bad actors during the cold war and you get some MAD weapons along with it.

If you support the weapons proliferation, you support nuclear. You believe in the cold war stand off and think it's valuable. If you don't, want nuclear war, you have to count that as another negative.

Arguing it's an efficient way to produce electricity, even if it's replacing fossil fuels, is disingenuous.

Pick two out of powerful, efficient, safe. That's nuclear power.

How about they Walk Walk Walk Walk Walk Walk Walk Walk

I know everything I need to know about heat pumps.

I live in a flat. I am literally not allowed to install anything outside for a proper split.

There is no location in my small property where noise would not disturb sleep or the general enjoyment of being here. So even with permission an air source pump is not viable.

I'd need permission to install a ground source unit outside which wouldn't be impossible.

But then it's likely to be got the whole building as that would be the most efficient.

I'm not sharing an energy bill for heating with my neighbours. My consumption is low.

There are millions like me in this country.

What I would install is an electric boiler. Essentially inductive or resistive heat.

Which is half as efficient as a heat pump. But I'd have control of my bill and with the consumption for a single person flat the long term expense of installing and maintaining a heat pump eat into any efficiency savings they have.

The only thing stopping me is gas is cheaper per kW because we're burning gas to make electricity at a ~45% efficiency compared to a 90% efficiency of piping it here to be turned directly into heat.

Cut fossil fuels out of the electricity supply. Then I'll install an electric boiler. Until then I'll burn gas more efficiently here.

Heat pumps work for those with outside space. Those who have luxuries.

Electric cars work for those with driveways. More outside space. More luxury.

I could buy into that luxury soon enough. I will upgrade my property at some point. But it's not going to solve any climate change issues unless they solve the issue for everyone, not just the middle class and upwards.

The government need to stop burning gas for electricity. When they do I'll probably be paying more for energy, but the poorest can use the same infrastructure and be subsidised.

Renewables, grid storage, reasonably priced charging with on street chargers near everyone's homes. We'll all be able to go carbon free.

Heat pumps are part of the solution, but really they're the smallest part. They only offer an efficiency saving over resistive heating. The cost is noise pollution, maintenance cost, space, and complexity.

I don't take the government's climate targets seriously when heat pumps are their main policy.

Except they were basically beyond design life.

And every new plant comes decades late and 4x the original budget.

It's Valve so I'm calling it now. There will be a Steam Deck 2. It wil be awesome.

There will be no Steam Deck 3. The market will take over and Valve will lose interest after the innovation is finished.

The water system is a business. The labs are businesses. A competent business shuttering when the market shrinks to avoid making a loss is an effect of Brexit.

The fact our water infrastructure is run as a business is an effect of Thatcher selling it.

We need to vote for a government to reverse Brexit eventually. But we're also still waiting 35 years to reverse the privatisation of the 80s.

The problem with voting for destructive Conservative governments is it costs a lot of money to replace the things they've given away or destroyed.

Honestly this isn't hard.

Businesses plan more than a year in advance.

These labs carried on as long as they could make a profit without significant maintenance cycle costs.

Then they look at their market and whether the next cycle is worth the investment.

If we were in the EU they'd be looking into claiming that large market in 2026, instead they're shuttering the business before it starts making a loss.

They're looking at 5, 10, and 25 year profitability. You're looking at a 1 year plan.

This is why politicians and their billionaire donors are so easily able to trick you into voting like an idiot. You choose not to think.