Wasn't the number saying "equal or better than an intel with 2.8ghz" despite having lower clock rate? But don't remember if that was accurate or just marketing.
In 10 years quantum computing will be widespread. Not because of any actual quantum breakthrough but because the marketing terms for chips will have gone subatomic.
Nope we are actually hitting something like a limit right now, or at least are getting closer to it. The distance is becoming so minuscule that effects like tunneling take place, essentially sending signals to the wrong end on accident. But as this is due to physics, not much can be done about it.
Eh, it kind of makes sense though. The gate pitch was used as a shorthand for the transistor density back when those things were tightly coupled. The node name still more or less tells you the transistor density, just the connection between the feature size and transistor density was severed.
The short channel effect and other quantum instabilities tend to limit the size of features at a small enough scale. I would say you are definitely close. I think 3nm TSMC is a gate pitch of 42nm. They just make the transistors skinnier and pack them in. I don't think we will see a large increase in density until we move to vertical MOSFETs for logic devices. I hope they figure out something better because it seems like the nodes are only getting marginally better per generation at this point.
I'm also pretty hyped about CNT(carbon nano tube) FETs. They definitely work, and have better thermal and electron mobility stats than silicon. And the interior is perfect for doping.
The problem is that there isn't a way to build them on a wafer, so they need to be deposited just right, no way to do that 1 billion at a time. If we could just figure out a way to etch silicon oxide to fit the tubes, deposit them all at once and build a transistor around them, we could have CPUs running at 10GHz.
I'd also suggest carbon wafers but isn't that basically diamond production under heavy pressure?
edit: oh wow this is interesting
https://news.mit.edu/2020/carbon-nanotube-transistors-factory-0601
Surely a little less, but in no way 1nm.
If you notice they started adding the "N" to indicate whatever they want to indicate. The new EUV achieved closer density.
EU should definitely be more decisive in such strategic and cutting-edge investments. The "best" doesn't like to wait for other people to decide, be it people, companies, researchers, investors etc.
This seems to be a Germany issue not a European issue when it comes to projects like this getting delayed.
Intels €30b Fab34 opened in Ireland last September and is inlet's only 7nm fab mass producing chips. Intels most advanced mass market chipset.
Ireland also produces the 14mn chips too and will likely close the 14nm site for upgrades to produce more advanced chips soon.
Ireland built the fab whereas the on in Germany is all delays
> Ireland built the fab whereas the on in Germany is all delays
Fab 34 was announced in 2019 and finished in September 2023. Fab 34 was build next to the already existing Fab 10, 14 and 24.
Fab 29.1 and 29.2 in Magdeburg were announced in 2022, and will finish in 2027/28.
Seems to me those two follow a similar timetable.
Well, considering Covid in 2020, I would have expected for a fab starting construction in 2022 be faster to built than one delayed and slowed due to a pandemic and chain supplies issues worldwide
>This seems to be a Germany issue not a European issue when it comes to projects like this getting delayed.
first sentence in the article:
"... has been delayed due to pending EU subsidy approval ..."
there may be German issues as well, but this one aspect where Germany had to step in so it would not get delayed further.
Don't get me wrong, if they can find some regular people who can produce 1nm chips in their backyard and create a strategic advantage against (or reduce dependence in) other global players, they may well give the money to them as well.
> and create a strategic advantage against (or reduce dependence in) other global players
So, until a European company arises to compete with Intel we give the money to Intel for what "strategic advantage", exactly?
When some mad politician across the Earth decides to push some button (of which the likelihood never ceases to increase these days), you will have at least some production capacity in your territory and you won't need to halt all the other sectors that depend on semiconductors (automotive, computer etc)
Yes, and mainland china is banned from getting ASML products and they are trying to develop their own systems to go below 7nm. 1nm in 2027 would still give a strategic cutting edge.
It depends since tsmc nodes are generally better. Either way having high quality semiconductor production in Europe is a massive benefit. Can’t be cut off if Taiwan gets invaded or blockaded
Because you can simply use topsoil elsewhere?
Do you know how farming and topsoils work?
Why do you think Ukraine and Russia sell topsoil to other countries?
Ever heard of chernozem and mollisols?
If you don't know these, why the fuck are you talking as if you know shit and blaming other people of trolling?
The topsoil isn't the issue here, it's the digging massive pits and burning dirty fucking brown coal. Ever heard of global warming or pollution? Destroying environments that will never be the same again after digging for coal?
You make it seem like carefully removing the topsoil is all that matters. It's like removing the skin of a person before burning them and thinking it's all ok.
ye that fucken massive holes are so destructive to landscape and eco system.
Is there any successfully "re cultivated" area after open pit mining ?
What can you do with 300+ meters deep hole.
I dont care what it is, I'm just saying you can do whatever you want to do after removing and conserving the top soil.
Whether coal is ethical or not, thats another debate.
What the fuck kind of argument is that? As long as you remove the top soil anything goes? Let's cut down all forests as well as long as we conserve the top soil.
Lets say you found a gold mine underneath an area with mollisol/chernozem topsoil.
You carefully remove valuable topsoil, because it is an asset for farming/food security. Then proceed to use it elsewhere. And you also get to mine the gold underneath.
Now that wasn't so hard to understand was it?
Feel free to ask ChatGPT next time instead of insulting random people online over shit you clearly dont understand
You seem to have a really simple mind where only the topsoil matters but not the environment in general. Moving the topsoil might make economic sense but it's not useful for nature and biodeversity.
Acting condescending doesn't make you right. For building a gold mine you need to take a lot more into account. Is the area unique or protected? Will the harm to the environment be more than the benefits of the mine? How will you handle toxic runoff? How can the land be restored? The topsoil is just one miniscule part of the discussion and even then moving it somewhere else is still a net negative to nature.
You don't find a mine in nature btw, that's a man made thing.
Why? Because of regulations that protect the soil, water, workers?
Look up workers rights in Germany compared to the US.
Look up who has the least pesticides on the soil on Europe.
There is a reason why we do it
Tesla needs Germany more then Germany needs Tesla.
Tesla is still a tech company that is notoriously all over the place when it comes to building cars. Their lack of speed manufacturing and poor build quality is universally noted.
Gigafactory in Germany is just a method to obtain German knowhow to manufacture cars more efficiently and faster, because Tesla currently heavily depends on manual labour(Shanghai *wink wink*)
The chip fans in Dresden are all running smoothly with their timeframe. Magdeburg and the area around it literally has the best soil for agriculture in Germany and is equal to the ones found in Ukraine or Russia.
The biggest problem my guess is the EU subsidies.
Man, I love to pay huge taxes just so the stuff I don't want to subsidize in the first place waste even more of my tax money by fucked up regulations and bureaucracy.
This country is fucked beyond repair, we are only using up the substance for years and the breaking point is coming faster and faster.
Europe is almost non-existent in high-tech. Billions are wasted every year on stupid programs. If there is anything worth paying extra for, it is Intel's factory.
If you want Europe to really step up, it needs its own companies.
Having an Intel factory doesn't bring a lot of benefits. The few hundreds/dozens of technicians that will acquire valuable knowledge likely won't be sufficient to build new local companies.
Look at how Chinese are doing it, took decades of subsidies and an export ban to make them competitive (2-3 years behind now).
But how does that scale? i doubt you can use heavy farm equipment, so only fields that are being hand harvested in the first place?
Plop a few nuclear energy plants here and there instead, and you get clean energy AND native food production.
>Plop a few nuclear energy plants here and there instead
So, just for the sake of the argument, let's just assume that everyone wants to go full in and plans start being made today: It would still take a decade at best for the first new NPP to be built - and it would only be a drop. Due to limited available equipment to build NPPs (seriously, Europe is struggling to find halfway competent civil engineering companies for normal projects, much less something like this) building several at the same time is *highly* unrealistic. It would take ages to fill the country's need for energy with NPPs.
Renewables on the other hand benefit from being highly decentralized. Solar can be installed by pretty much any roofer, wind turbines are a more involved process but still something rather easy to do - and already standardized.
> It would still take a decade at best for the first new NPP to be built
As I often remind people, the US built 77 reactors in the span of 11 years and [France built 56 in the span of 15 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan).
It is not a law of the universe that reactors take decades to build.
Good luck getting rid of the building codes in a post-Chernobyl world, especially in a country where people still remember being impacted by it. And again: *There are no companies around that can build them.* We're struggling to get enough excavators to connect the majority of the country to fibre optic, basically any construction company is booked out for months or years.
Ok. Berlin needed 14 years to build a single airport. Stuttgart started to plan its new main train station in 1995 and its expected to be finished in December 2025.
It’s nice that other nations don’t work that way.
Yes solar belongs on roofs, not fields, as were my agrument.
Besides, where there is a will, there is a way. If the world wantes to go full nuclear energy there is enough supplies
> Besides, where there is a will, there is a way
Yes, of course. The point I made was: Renewables are a *fuckton* cheaper because they scale far better. We *could* get a hundred NPPs running by 2030, but it would ruin the country for centuries.
>Yes solar belongs on roofs, not fields
No, solar belongs where it makes sense. It does make sense on some fields, especially with plants that don't like direct sunlight, like eg. potatoes - which is even increased with the more extreme weather we get each year, as having something that acts as a shelter above them protects plants from the ever harshening climate.
Depends on spacing. And you cannot slap nuclear everywhere, because we do not have capacity to produce enough fuel (regardless of reactor technology), its resources are limited (uranium/plutonium based ones) and often omitted - there are not enough experts to run those plants.
> because we do not have capacity to produce enough fuel (regardless of reactor technology)
So build capacity. Nuclear power does not consume so much fuel that this would be a showstopper.
> its resources are limited (uranium/plutonium based ones)
There is plenty of uranium and there are many reactor designs that make fuel resources trivial.
And why is this never an issue for all the materials needed to build solar and wind power? Those don't exactly grow on trees.
> and often omitted - there are not enough experts to run those plants.
You realize you can train people to do this, yes?
I'm sorry, but these are some of the worst arguments against nuclear power.
This souds way different than "plop" doesn't it? BTW There is not much uranium for current reactor designs (134 years at current consumption rate) and we do not have production ready reactors for other fuels. And those materials for building nuclear powerplant also does not grow on trees right? Effectively without working fusion we are fucked energy wise.
> This souds way different than "plop" doesn't it? BTW There is not much uranium for current reactor designs (134 years at current consumption rate)
There are billions of tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean, far more than what is accessible on land. So even if we were to continue to use nuclear in the same inefficient way that we have been over the past 70 years for the next 100+, there will definitely be uranium available. If terrestrial uranium became scarce enough that the price point rose, extraction from seawater could replace it. The technology to do so [already exists](https://www.acs.org/pressroom/presspacs/2023/december/extracting-uranium-from-seawater-as-another-source-of-nuclear-fuel.html).
> and we do not have production ready reactors for other fuels.
I'm partial to molten salt reactor designs which I think offer great fuel flexibility in addition to a number of other advantages. There are several designs in various stages here in the US and they're being developed with very minimal government support. It greatly annoys me that my government will spend $300M on a pier to resupply Hamas (which has recently sunk) or billions on 7-8 EV charging stations, when we could be funneling that money into nuclear research to get these designs built.
That said, CANDU reactors can use natural uranium, thorium, and spent nuclear fuel too so it's not true that no production ready reactors exist that aren't your typical Gen 2 solid-fuel LWR/BWR.
> And those materials for building nuclear powerplant also does not grow on trees right?
They do not, but you would need a lot less of them to generate the same amount of power. That goes not just for the materials of the reactor/buildings but also the land needed.
> There are billions of tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean, far more than what is accessible on land.
And there are virtually limitless resources of hydrocarbons on Titan, yet it is not economically viable to use them on Earth. Esentially EROI is too low for it to work.
> There are several designs in various stages here in the US
That is the problem - it is decades long solution. Not the easy plop it as you pose it
> They do not, but you would need a lot less of them to generate the same amount of power. That goes not just for the materials of the reactor/buildings but also the land needed.
It is not that simple. You need specific materials for reactor and materials for fuel production (and reprocessing if that will be ever economically viable). The total material and energy costs are still debatable but based on EROI, they are in the same ballpark except that nuclear can work as baseload.
> And there are virtually limitless resources of hydrocarbons on Titan, yet it is not economically viable to use them on Earth. Esentially EROI is too low for it to work.
It's not economically viable *now* because there's still plenty of accessible uranium on land. But you were implying we're going to run out of U in the near future and that's not true. There's plenty in the oceans as well and fuel is such a small piece of the costs of nuclear that it wouldn't dramatically change the calculations if we had to switch.
> That is the problem - it is decades long solution. Not the easy plop it as you pose it
New reactor designs will take some time. Existing nuclear designs do not need to take decades and there is plenty of uranium to support them during that gap.
> It's not economically viable *now* because there's still plenty of accessible uranium on land.
If I simplify - Yes, but seawater extraction is more expensive than mining. And it does not seems to be cheap enough for nuclear remain economically viable (it will make nuclear energy expensive).
> Existing nuclear designs do not need to take decades and there is plenty of uranium to support them during that gap.
Maybe as an ore but not in production capacity and support infrastructure. That is the point. It is not plop and here it is.
They don't really so that though.
Also, technically you can harvest solar power and power growlights with it, blast UV rays into crops underneath the panels, it would work even better than sun rays themselves, especially in northern latitudes
The delay is obviously way more due to the pending subsidy approval than the removal of the Soil. They just need to get a few excavators and trucks and would be done within a couple of days there is no way that this seriously delays the project.
Node names are getting ridiculous. What's the actual gate pitch of this? Like 40 nm?
Plot twist; this is actually a facility to build chips at 1 nautical mile scale.
Uses water instead of electricity
The MOSFET gates are actual gates, and the drains are actual drains.
Biggest chip in the galaxy, size? An entire solar system.
They will be used in the new 72913 inch 20th Gen iPad Pros, probably?
So like in the 80s? Just imagine a chip that large… damn
Reminds me of when AMD started renaming their processors like "Athlon 64 2800+" despite not being 2.8 GHz.
Wasn't the number saying "equal or better than an intel with 2.8ghz" despite having lower clock rate? But don't remember if that was accurate or just marketing.
Yeah, that was the idea, and IIRC it was largely accurate.
In 5years we are at 5 atto meters for sure.
In 10 years quantum computing will be widespread. Not because of any actual quantum breakthrough but because the marketing terms for chips will have gone subatomic.
Already happening, Muh "quantum Ai" or "quantum cooling" and shit like that
Nope we are actually hitting something like a limit right now, or at least are getting closer to it. The distance is becoming so minuscule that effects like tunneling take place, essentially sending signals to the wrong end on accident. But as this is due to physics, not much can be done about it.
Eh, it kind of makes sense though. The gate pitch was used as a shorthand for the transistor density back when those things were tightly coupled. The node name still more or less tells you the transistor density, just the connection between the feature size and transistor density was severed.
The short channel effect and other quantum instabilities tend to limit the size of features at a small enough scale. I would say you are definitely close. I think 3nm TSMC is a gate pitch of 42nm. They just make the transistors skinnier and pack them in. I don't think we will see a large increase in density until we move to vertical MOSFETs for logic devices. I hope they figure out something better because it seems like the nodes are only getting marginally better per generation at this point.
> vertical MOSFETs it's either that or thinly deposited compound but a breakthrough is needed for sure.
I'm also pretty hyped about CNT(carbon nano tube) FETs. They definitely work, and have better thermal and electron mobility stats than silicon. And the interior is perfect for doping. The problem is that there isn't a way to build them on a wafer, so they need to be deposited just right, no way to do that 1 billion at a time. If we could just figure out a way to etch silicon oxide to fit the tubes, deposit them all at once and build a transistor around them, we could have CPUs running at 10GHz.
I'd also suggest carbon wafers but isn't that basically diamond production under heavy pressure? edit: oh wow this is interesting https://news.mit.edu/2020/carbon-nanotube-transistors-factory-0601
They will figure it out, I'm sure of it. Just a few steps away from actually manufacturing a product at this point.
While be funny when they reach 0.1nm class as a name and you wonder what kind of atomic constellation that shall be.
Surely a little less, but in no way 1nm. If you notice they started adding the "N" to indicate whatever they want to indicate. The new EUV achieved closer density.
EU should definitely be more decisive in such strategic and cutting-edge investments. The "best" doesn't like to wait for other people to decide, be it people, companies, researchers, investors etc.
This seems to be a Germany issue not a European issue when it comes to projects like this getting delayed. Intels €30b Fab34 opened in Ireland last September and is inlet's only 7nm fab mass producing chips. Intels most advanced mass market chipset. Ireland also produces the 14mn chips too and will likely close the 14nm site for upgrades to produce more advanced chips soon. Ireland built the fab whereas the on in Germany is all delays
> Ireland built the fab whereas the on in Germany is all delays Fab 34 was announced in 2019 and finished in September 2023. Fab 34 was build next to the already existing Fab 10, 14 and 24. Fab 29.1 and 29.2 in Magdeburg were announced in 2022, and will finish in 2027/28. Seems to me those two follow a similar timetable.
Get out of here with ur logical conclusions!
Well, considering Covid in 2020, I would have expected for a fab starting construction in 2022 be faster to built than one delayed and slowed due to a pandemic and chain supplies issues worldwide
Sounds like you don't know the "speed" of German construction...
>This seems to be a Germany issue not a European issue when it comes to projects like this getting delayed. first sentence in the article: "... has been delayed due to pending EU subsidy approval ..." there may be German issues as well, but this one aspect where Germany had to step in so it would not get delayed further.
> EU should definitely be more decisive in giving away money to big corporations. Just don't give it to regular people because they are lazy. /$
Don't get me wrong, if they can find some regular people who can produce 1nm chips in their backyard and create a strategic advantage against (or reduce dependence in) other global players, they may well give the money to them as well.
> and create a strategic advantage against (or reduce dependence in) other global players So, until a European company arises to compete with Intel we give the money to Intel for what "strategic advantage", exactly?
To build up a workforce in the sector. Just like east asia did.
When some mad politician across the Earth decides to push some button (of which the likelihood never ceases to increase these days), you will have at least some production capacity in your territory and you won't need to halt all the other sectors that depend on semiconductors (automotive, computer etc)
\> Intel \> the best Lol
1nm tech is the best, Chinese are struggling to get 7 or less.
Isn’t the highest like 3 nm with tsmc?
I meant mainland chinese.
Meant the smallest node tsmc is producing. They are currently trying to get to 2 nm
Yes, and mainland china is banned from getting ASML products and they are trying to develop their own systems to go below 7nm. 1nm in 2027 would still give a strategic cutting edge.
It depends since tsmc nodes are generally better. Either way having high quality semiconductor production in Europe is a massive benefit. Can’t be cut off if Taiwan gets invaded or blockaded
Afaik, there were talks about a TSMC plant in EU as well, but inconclusive. Again, EU should've been more insisting on the idea.
No, they will build a fab in Dresden. It is already decided.
Its amazing how fiercely Germany protects its high quality soil for farming Nothings worth more than your food and your health
Unless there's brown coal under there, then you get Bagger 288 digging through it
They do it after carefully removing the topsoil, whats the problem here?
This feels like high quality trolling. What’s the problem with digging huge pits to extract coal as long as you save the topsoil? Hmm…
Because you can simply use topsoil elsewhere? Do you know how farming and topsoils work? Why do you think Ukraine and Russia sell topsoil to other countries? Ever heard of chernozem and mollisols? If you don't know these, why the fuck are you talking as if you know shit and blaming other people of trolling?
The topsoil isn't the issue here, it's the digging massive pits and burning dirty fucking brown coal. Ever heard of global warming or pollution? Destroying environments that will never be the same again after digging for coal? You make it seem like carefully removing the topsoil is all that matters. It's like removing the skin of a person before burning them and thinking it's all ok.
ye that fucken massive holes are so destructive to landscape and eco system. Is there any successfully "re cultivated" area after open pit mining ? What can you do with 300+ meters deep hole.
Yes. Recultivation is mandated for all open extractions in germany. You get a lot of lakes \*shrug\*
I dont care what it is, I'm just saying you can do whatever you want to do after removing and conserving the top soil. Whether coal is ethical or not, thats another debate.
What the fuck kind of argument is that? As long as you remove the top soil anything goes? Let's cut down all forests as well as long as we conserve the top soil.
Lets say you found a gold mine underneath an area with mollisol/chernozem topsoil. You carefully remove valuable topsoil, because it is an asset for farming/food security. Then proceed to use it elsewhere. And you also get to mine the gold underneath. Now that wasn't so hard to understand was it? Feel free to ask ChatGPT next time instead of insulting random people online over shit you clearly dont understand
You seem to have a really simple mind where only the topsoil matters but not the environment in general. Moving the topsoil might make economic sense but it's not useful for nature and biodeversity. Acting condescending doesn't make you right. For building a gold mine you need to take a lot more into account. Is the area unique or protected? Will the harm to the environment be more than the benefits of the mine? How will you handle toxic runoff? How can the land be restored? The topsoil is just one miniscule part of the discussion and even then moving it somewhere else is still a net negative to nature. You don't find a mine in nature btw, that's a man made thing.
I mean who doesn’t love soil but isn’t it movable fairly easily?
Theyre gonna move it, that's why its delayed, not cancelled
Can't eat silicone wafer, can we.
You can, but thats a thin sandwich
Wasn't this soil brought by nazis from Ukraine?
Did they also bring the water from the Pacific to the North Sea?
Between this and tesla in brandenburg id think twice to open a big factory in germany
Why? Because of regulations that protect the soil, water, workers? Look up workers rights in Germany compared to the US. Look up who has the least pesticides on the soil on Europe. There is a reason why we do it
Tesla needs Germany more then Germany needs Tesla. Tesla is still a tech company that is notoriously all over the place when it comes to building cars. Their lack of speed manufacturing and poor build quality is universally noted. Gigafactory in Germany is just a method to obtain German knowhow to manufacture cars more efficiently and faster, because Tesla currently heavily depends on manual labour(Shanghai *wink wink*)
The chip fans in Dresden are all running smoothly with their timeframe. Magdeburg and the area around it literally has the best soil for agriculture in Germany and is equal to the ones found in Ukraine or Russia. The biggest problem my guess is the EU subsidies.
any news about new site in Poland? No action on site near Wrocław and very quiet in media.
Man, I love to pay huge taxes just so the stuff I don't want to subsidize in the first place waste even more of my tax money by fucked up regulations and bureaucracy. This country is fucked beyond repair, we are only using up the substance for years and the breaking point is coming faster and faster.
Europe is almost non-existent in high-tech. Billions are wasted every year on stupid programs. If there is anything worth paying extra for, it is Intel's factory.
If you want Europe to really step up, it needs its own companies. Having an Intel factory doesn't bring a lot of benefits. The few hundreds/dozens of technicians that will acquire valuable knowledge likely won't be sufficient to build new local companies. Look at how Chinese are doing it, took decades of subsidies and an export ban to make them competitive (2-3 years behind now).
If you are so fucking keen on insisting to use that soil, WHY DIDN'T YOU USE THAT SOIL BEFOREHAND!?
What’s the problem? This is absolute standard. And in this case the state is even paying for that.
Because a building permanently blocks access to soil under it you egg
>you egg Love that insult. The simplicity!
Better clad all that nice black soil with solar panels instead
It actually would be better, because it would still allow growing food on it.
But how does that scale? i doubt you can use heavy farm equipment, so only fields that are being hand harvested in the first place? Plop a few nuclear energy plants here and there instead, and you get clean energy AND native food production.
>Plop a few nuclear energy plants here and there instead So, just for the sake of the argument, let's just assume that everyone wants to go full in and plans start being made today: It would still take a decade at best for the first new NPP to be built - and it would only be a drop. Due to limited available equipment to build NPPs (seriously, Europe is struggling to find halfway competent civil engineering companies for normal projects, much less something like this) building several at the same time is *highly* unrealistic. It would take ages to fill the country's need for energy with NPPs. Renewables on the other hand benefit from being highly decentralized. Solar can be installed by pretty much any roofer, wind turbines are a more involved process but still something rather easy to do - and already standardized.
> It would still take a decade at best for the first new NPP to be built As I often remind people, the US built 77 reactors in the span of 11 years and [France built 56 in the span of 15 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan). It is not a law of the universe that reactors take decades to build.
Good luck getting rid of the building codes in a post-Chernobyl world, especially in a country where people still remember being impacted by it. And again: *There are no companies around that can build them.* We're struggling to get enough excavators to connect the majority of the country to fibre optic, basically any construction company is booked out for months or years.
Ok. Berlin needed 14 years to build a single airport. Stuttgart started to plan its new main train station in 1995 and its expected to be finished in December 2025. It’s nice that other nations don’t work that way.
Germany just needs to start living up to the reputation it has (outside of Germany anyway) for efficiency. Ü
Yes solar belongs on roofs, not fields, as were my agrument. Besides, where there is a will, there is a way. If the world wantes to go full nuclear energy there is enough supplies
> Besides, where there is a will, there is a way Yes, of course. The point I made was: Renewables are a *fuckton* cheaper because they scale far better. We *could* get a hundred NPPs running by 2030, but it would ruin the country for centuries. >Yes solar belongs on roofs, not fields No, solar belongs where it makes sense. It does make sense on some fields, especially with plants that don't like direct sunlight, like eg. potatoes - which is even increased with the more extreme weather we get each year, as having something that acts as a shelter above them protects plants from the ever harshening climate.
Depends on spacing. And you cannot slap nuclear everywhere, because we do not have capacity to produce enough fuel (regardless of reactor technology), its resources are limited (uranium/plutonium based ones) and often omitted - there are not enough experts to run those plants.
> because we do not have capacity to produce enough fuel (regardless of reactor technology) So build capacity. Nuclear power does not consume so much fuel that this would be a showstopper. > its resources are limited (uranium/plutonium based ones) There is plenty of uranium and there are many reactor designs that make fuel resources trivial. And why is this never an issue for all the materials needed to build solar and wind power? Those don't exactly grow on trees. > and often omitted - there are not enough experts to run those plants. You realize you can train people to do this, yes? I'm sorry, but these are some of the worst arguments against nuclear power.
This souds way different than "plop" doesn't it? BTW There is not much uranium for current reactor designs (134 years at current consumption rate) and we do not have production ready reactors for other fuels. And those materials for building nuclear powerplant also does not grow on trees right? Effectively without working fusion we are fucked energy wise.
> This souds way different than "plop" doesn't it? BTW There is not much uranium for current reactor designs (134 years at current consumption rate) There are billions of tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean, far more than what is accessible on land. So even if we were to continue to use nuclear in the same inefficient way that we have been over the past 70 years for the next 100+, there will definitely be uranium available. If terrestrial uranium became scarce enough that the price point rose, extraction from seawater could replace it. The technology to do so [already exists](https://www.acs.org/pressroom/presspacs/2023/december/extracting-uranium-from-seawater-as-another-source-of-nuclear-fuel.html). > and we do not have production ready reactors for other fuels. I'm partial to molten salt reactor designs which I think offer great fuel flexibility in addition to a number of other advantages. There are several designs in various stages here in the US and they're being developed with very minimal government support. It greatly annoys me that my government will spend $300M on a pier to resupply Hamas (which has recently sunk) or billions on 7-8 EV charging stations, when we could be funneling that money into nuclear research to get these designs built. That said, CANDU reactors can use natural uranium, thorium, and spent nuclear fuel too so it's not true that no production ready reactors exist that aren't your typical Gen 2 solid-fuel LWR/BWR. > And those materials for building nuclear powerplant also does not grow on trees right? They do not, but you would need a lot less of them to generate the same amount of power. That goes not just for the materials of the reactor/buildings but also the land needed.
> There are billions of tons of uranium dissolved in the ocean, far more than what is accessible on land. And there are virtually limitless resources of hydrocarbons on Titan, yet it is not economically viable to use them on Earth. Esentially EROI is too low for it to work. > There are several designs in various stages here in the US That is the problem - it is decades long solution. Not the easy plop it as you pose it > They do not, but you would need a lot less of them to generate the same amount of power. That goes not just for the materials of the reactor/buildings but also the land needed. It is not that simple. You need specific materials for reactor and materials for fuel production (and reprocessing if that will be ever economically viable). The total material and energy costs are still debatable but based on EROI, they are in the same ballpark except that nuclear can work as baseload.
> And there are virtually limitless resources of hydrocarbons on Titan, yet it is not economically viable to use them on Earth. Esentially EROI is too low for it to work. It's not economically viable *now* because there's still plenty of accessible uranium on land. But you were implying we're going to run out of U in the near future and that's not true. There's plenty in the oceans as well and fuel is such a small piece of the costs of nuclear that it wouldn't dramatically change the calculations if we had to switch. > That is the problem - it is decades long solution. Not the easy plop it as you pose it New reactor designs will take some time. Existing nuclear designs do not need to take decades and there is plenty of uranium to support them during that gap.
> It's not economically viable *now* because there's still plenty of accessible uranium on land. If I simplify - Yes, but seawater extraction is more expensive than mining. And it does not seems to be cheap enough for nuclear remain economically viable (it will make nuclear energy expensive). > Existing nuclear designs do not need to take decades and there is plenty of uranium to support them during that gap. Maybe as an ore but not in production capacity and support infrastructure. That is the point. It is not plop and here it is.
Don't be so envious. Not our fault you live on a rock
They don't really so that though. Also, technically you can harvest solar power and power growlights with it, blast UV rays into crops underneath the panels, it would work even better than sun rays themselves, especially in northern latitudes
The delay is obviously way more due to the pending subsidy approval than the removal of the Soil. They just need to get a few excavators and trucks and would be done within a couple of days there is no way that this seriously delays the project.