Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ?

On Mon, 9 Dec 2024, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 09/12/2024 15:35, Rich wrote:

So assuming the "no carbon" goal is required, we can't get/there/  from
/here/  without something like nuclear to handle what 'storage' claims
it will be able to do, in twenty plus years.

>
Its all nonsense.
>
I spent ages analysing all the options and nothing in the end was cheaper or more effective overall than nuclear power, and that wouldn't cover the industrial and transport uses of fossil fuels any more than 'renewables'...
>
You can't drive a truck on batteries across America, or a container ship from Taiwan.
>
Sweden is investing in new nuclear power..
>
In the end the rising price of fossil will move us towards nuclear power simply because it offers a competitive cost benefit vis à vis systems of inordinate complexity based on intermittent renewable power.
>
The future will be mainly nuclear, and since once you have any nuclear at all there is no reason to make it more expensive and less reliable and destroy the environment with renewable energy, no one will.
>
Renewables aren't dead yet, but they are beginning to smell..

I agree. Nuclear is the future. There will be smaller niche cases for solar and wind, in country side homes during the summer, or by using tax subsidies to get some extra solar into data centers, but as you say, once our nuclear knowledge has been rebuilt and regained, it should be possible, in theory, to build traditional nuclear in 3-5 years (I think south korea is doing it in 5 currently) and SMR:s will hopefully be even faster.