Aren't they already doing similar things with mushrooms? (Sauce)

[deleted]

This is great news! I was on vacation in the caribbean last year and there was so much sargassum seaweed floating on the water that we didn’t want to swim!

Isn't that really the point, though? That it doesn't last? There's probably a need to improve that shelf life, but ultimately I don't see a way to get out of the cost for storage and recycling being higher, but that's because it actually uncovering some of the hidden costs of environmental damage of plastics.

Sounds like pro-pesticide propaganda.

There has to be on successful operation that’s running off algae. I’ll look it up skeebs

Awwwwww 😭😭😭

There are a couple of Silicon Valley startups working on this. The biggest issue is time. The “plastic” breaks down after about 6-8 weeks. So even though the product is about the same cost as regular plastic, it’s shelf life is much much shorter - ultimately increasing the cost if they have to throw it away before usage.

Why not both

[removed]

We need to eat it, not turn it into bags soon.

I hope that the employee got paid for their acting.

This is potentially very exciting, but companies have also talked about producing cheap and sustainable aviation fuel from algae for at least 15 years. They talk about scaling up from "several tonnes" of algae 2 or 3 years from now. It seems a very long way from being a replacement for anything yet, let alone plastic.

We should all be desperate for this to work on a massive scale. Congratulations to the researchers who have made the first steps.

Reminder: this subreddit is meant to be a place free of excessive cynicism, negativity and bitterness. Toxic attitudes are not welcome here.

All Negative comments will be removed and will possibly result in a ban.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

You rather world nuclear news then? Or how about Reuters. Or nuclear engineering international.

That ieefa source is literally just reporting what NuScale is now announcing as the revised price of the project.

You calling out the source rather than actually addressing the content is kind of telling. Reddit, outside of a few energy subs, has an extreme pro-nuclear bias, even when that stance conflicts with reality.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-approves-design-nuscale-small-modular-nuclear-reactor-2023-01-20/

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Further-cost-refinements-announced-for-first-US-SM

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newsnew-budget-plan-for-nuscale-project-10524935

Wow.. I did not read that correctly the first time. Reddit trying not to be rascist and r/conservative tracking don't help. Howerver;

Good on the spread of human knowledge as a whole and cheers to a growing nation. This makes me happpy.

We have Jake the lion here in Canberra, Australia.

Your IEEFA source sucks ass, just so you know. It's probably worse than fox news in terms of technical and industry credibility.

[deleted]

I read this headline and thought "where the hell is New Oregon?"

Damn did I ever have a hard time with that title.

I do like its name, the VOYGR power plant.

"Energy efficient" is an odd term here, though. Energy per area? Sure, fully agree. I never claimed that solar/wind use less land than nuclear (or coal), and almost nobody does. Number might be close if you include coal open pit mine area, but that's a garbage discussion to get into give you then need to discuss full lifecycle mining land use for everything.

I do not think the land use is at all an issue, though. Or an overly important factor, parti ularly in the US context, for choosing your generation source.

For instance, there are about 40 million acres of land in the US right now devoted to corn-ethanol production for energy. Convert that to solar, and you have 8 TWof solar capacity, enough at 18% capacity factor to cover triple the current US electricity demand. Which is sufficient to cover all current demand, all new demand created by electrifying road vehicles, and likely also all demand caused by electrifying heating. (corn ethanol currently makes up about 5% of US motor fuel, by comparison). Probably with energy to spare.

That's literally not even changing the amount of land devoted to "energy production" in the country. Just changing it from corn-ethanol to solar.

Or... Switch it all to agrivoltaics for food production, still be able to power the entire country with it (maybe not including heating), while producing enough grain on that land to also feed a couple hundred million people.

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2022/03/10/solarfood-in-ethanol-fields-could-fully-power-the-united-states/

True. Anything given enough time, effort and money can be made more efficient. That's why all this money thrown at wind and solar has improved the technology. Money they refuse to throw at nuclear. From what I hear.

It's debunking that wind and solar are more energy efficient than nuclear. It's like in Simcity when you compare coal vs wind and solar. Coal is vastly superior.