Major problem is cost: at $4B for 345 MW, it costs $12 per W. Reference: natural gas is $1/W by CCGT. Cheaper to do solar or wind, at $1 per W, no fuel either. Wind is better because of more energy generated per day. Hydrogen storage solves the storage problem. So to disappoint you Mr Siu, no nukes!
@jackwang1234
3 ай бұрын
That's the building cost, it can run several decades, also it helps to consume nuclear waste, I believe this is a good thing
@JosephHui57
3 ай бұрын
$1 for wind and CCGT are also build cost. No advantage for nuclear
@siriusinkheart
3 ай бұрын
In older generations of nuclear power plants (NPPs), steam generation relies on pressurized superheated water, typically around 300°C, which transfers heat through a heat exchange process. This contrasts with sodium metal, which has a melting point near 800°C. The efficiency of heat exchange is illustrated by the heat transfer equation, indicating that greater temperature differences lead to higher efficiency in heat exchange processes.
@jeanneleung7953
3 ай бұрын
重要課題。
@albertiwong
3 ай бұрын
references please, all i know is that it is based on fast reactor technology. The risk is the leak of sodum coolent causing fire and explosion as stated by mr. siu. As far as the workings of the natrium reactor, i found no material.
In essence, it's Thorium based. Way before Larry, an article by the Economist stated its principles and the way energy is multiplied and contained. As compared to conventional, its working temperature is way lower. Thus, the need for a heavy shield is not mandated technically. The reason nuclear fission was used rather than thorium was likely due to the corrosion of pipelines by sodium, besides other technical and human factors.
@stuartcc-g2d
3 ай бұрын
行波式又唔問我,所以多餘話人哋唔知到!
@pandoralee8707
3 ай бұрын
🙏thanks for info and support you
@memehongkong
3 ай бұрын
So nice of you
@kaho41285Y
3 ай бұрын
核准工人干涉😂核反應!鈾元素238
@JosephHui57
3 ай бұрын
For reference The Palo Verde Generating Station supplied electricity at an operating cost (including fuel and maintenance) of 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour in 2015.[9][10] In 2002, Palo Verde supplied electricity at 1.33 cents per kilowatt-hour;[8] that price was cheaper than the cost of coal (2.26 cents per kW·h) or natural gas (4.54 cents per kW·h) in the region, but more expensive than hydroelectric power (0.63 cents per kW·h). Also in 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents per kW·h. By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde Generating Station was 6.33 cents per kW·h.
@PO-nb8qc
3 ай бұрын
PhD knows very little but very deep in general. However many don’t even know their fields very deep. In my industry (semiconductor), many are Phd.
not all his money. only few billions. but still good that he try.
@siriusinkheart
3 ай бұрын
That's the essence of capitalism. Ideas are proposed, and wealthy capitalists invest in them. There's no central authority dictating societal progress. For older programmers, it's akin to comparing multi-threaded asynchronous programming to single-threaded blocked I/O programming.
@wmc8948
3 ай бұрын
日本核電就系用鉟燃料,所以佢地自稱如果受核襲擊可以好短時間造出核武還擊,所以是危險物品。
@claudiushoho2619
3 ай бұрын
只係理論上,核武器入面既核燃料,濃度要好高,要用好多電力同好多時間,北韓整咗10幾年先有十幾粒
@puikanmok1894
3 ай бұрын
very good
@memehongkong
3 ай бұрын
Thank you! Cheers!
@yangwarren9954
3 ай бұрын
Bill gate 一早就睇好核能. 連Elon musk 最近都话核裂变是no brainer, 系最合理的选择. 不知萧生是否会睇好铀价会大幅上升??
@@michaellee4637 首先,我已經多次說明,燒生所講嘅係用「液態鈉」,係Liquid metal cooled reactor,而你所講嘅係「molten salt reactor」,根本就唔同野! 大陸真係做到,使鬼在2020年起既核電廠重係用「龍華一號」呢啲咁傳統嘅反應機組先! 重唔吹到上天好似大陸covid 疫苗咩 而且你自己都話重有十年先得! 好奇一問,你所指既反應堆其實有乜實際例子在用緊架,可以俾個例子!
@mrye2485
3 ай бұрын
其实我觉得那么多钱 都不知道要用多少辈子 造福一下地球吧
@灶拜王子
3 ай бұрын
nice
@michelleau7230
3 ай бұрын
感謝蕭生談論, 比爾蓋茨建新核電廠, 和傳統方法有何分別。
@tracyman4583
3 ай бұрын
Happy Father’s Day Mr. Siu
@siriusinkheart
3 ай бұрын
TerraPower and similar concepts are not entirely waste-free. They utilize nuclear waste from older generations of nuclear power plants. While the spent fuel will still be radioactive, it will contain less energy and pose fewer risks, although it will still have a very long half-life. Disposal methods could include dumping the spent fuel in the deepest parts of the ocean (this is speculative and my nonscientific humble opinion), but TerraPower's plan primarily involves using geological repositories.
Пікірлер: 98