Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

energyrealityproject.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 393 posts

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#81

Post by DanBC »

zbyte64 wrote: post #76
DanBC wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be happy for it all to be in my backyard. I don't know how small those Toshiba[1] mini reactors are, but I'd happily have one of those in my garden if it fits. Or any modern design right next door to me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba_4S

Was curious how long the reactor is designed to last, seems the answer is 30 years: https://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-...

Yep, I think I'd still have one. I think the UK learnt a few lessons from the mess of Sellafield. The clean up associated with that is pretty harsh.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-26124803

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-21298117

etc etc.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#82

Post by sjwright »

coddingtonbear wrote: post #16
skybrian wrote: post #5

I skimmed, but I think this is missing the value of the land that people won't be able to use in case of an accident. A semi-permanent mass evacuation isn't cheap.

Well, we're definitely making the whole planet unusable just by producing energy the way we are today.

Unusable by some species of life in their present habitable zones. Climate change is going to seriously screw around with humanity in unpredictable ways. But don't worry about the planet. Earth will be just fine.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#83

Post by PolLambert »

mbil wrote: post #19

I don't know anything about nuclear energy, but a friend who works in nuclear tech told me that the reason thorium as an energy source hasn't been embraced is because its byproduct can be used for weapons. That doesn't look to be exactly accurate (based on a few minutes of googling), but there might be some truth to it. http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-w...

The reverse is actually true. Nobody uses Thorium since you can't make bombs out of them. Thorium is very unsuited to weaponize since one of the byproducts of the fuel process (U-232) decays in to a hard gamma-emitter. This not only makes the material dangerous to handle, it will also wreak havoc with bomb electronics, will require heavy shielding and be very easy to detect.

Due to its unsuitability for bombs, the militaries of the world (in the '50s) didn't invest into researching Thorium. Industrial inertia (and sunk costs) and Uranium being good enough lead us to where we are today.

It is 'technically' possible to make a U-233 bomb but the effort required is so far above U-235 bombs that for any nation able to do the former, it's much easier and cheaper to do the latter.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#84

Post by mtgx »

It seems to me that the recent few articles on fusion have inspired a lot of people - who now seem to be thinking "hey you know what would be great? If we moved back to fission reactors!"

I'm not talking about people writing these articles. I'm sure there's one appearing on the Web every week. I'm talking about people who are suddenly upvoting these articles.

But to me that doesn't make any sense. Fusion, I get. It's something like 10x more efficient than fission, and it's not radioactive or as dangerous as fission. But just because I support having more companies and research into fusion, does not mean that I would support fission reactors.

Despite this article, solar power is still the most practical way of getting renewable energy in the next 20 years. Thinking about building new fission reactors is like getting excited about some "breakthrough gas-powered engine that uses 50% less fuel", when everyone is already thinking about getting an EV for their next car.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#85

Post by vonmoltke »

merpnderp wrote: post #61
peckrob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

The same scale as Chernobyl? Chernobyl irradiated whole countries and caused thousands of deaths. Fukushima isn't even within a couple of magnitudes of irradiation.

There were only 31 direct deaths, and it did not "irradiate" whole countries except in the most technical sense of the word.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#86

Post by blumkvist »

Nuclear energy is very expensive when adjusted for building the plant. Companies building those plants know this and their usual tactic is to severely underbudget, knowing that a government cannot refuse to pay because it is committed. The Olkiluoto plant in Finland was estimated at €3bn before start and at the most recent revision the estimation was €9bn with a 10 year delay. The plant is not yet operational and I expect there will be even further delays. Don't drink the nuclear cool aid.

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#87

Post by garyclarke27 »

ksenzee wrote: post #22
garyclarke27 wrote: post #18

1 cm3 of water weighs a lot more than 1 gram ?? From a quick skim through, many of his calcs seem to be based on this i.e. major error.

The weight of one cubic centimeter of water is in fact one gram. By definition.

Yes it is sorry and thanks, I knew that 1 ml = 1 but I did not check out my incorrect instinct re volume. I was thinking of 5 grams to a teaspoon, intuitively 5 cc seems to me, much bigger than 1 small teaspoon. Still surprising to me though, how 5 grapes can fit on a teaspoon ?

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#88

Post by peckrob »

merpnderp wrote: post #61
peckrob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

The same scale as Chernobyl? Chernobyl irradiated whole countries and caused thousands of deaths. Fukushima isn't even within a couple of magnitudes of irradiation.

They are both considered Level 7 events by the IAEA [0], the highest level. I imagine it's a bit like the difference between category 5 hurricanes. Some are bigger and more destructive than others, but that's where the scale tops out.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#89

Post by pjc50 »

Alupis wrote: post #50
peckrob wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all others were near incidents (Three Mile Island, Japan, etc...). I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." It's considered on the same scale as Chernobyl [1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...

> I would hardly call Fukushima [0] a "near incident." I called it a "near incident" because there was no meltdown, and the issue was resolved without having to permanently evacuate any area around the plant. Essentially they got it under control, and given the circumstances it took to get the plant into that situation in the first place, I'd say it's a flagship example of how far Nuclear safety has come. Today Japan…

permanently evacuate any area around the plant

This is simply false; there is an area which remains evacuated. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3263714/Destroyed-ma...

Re: Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment

#90

Post by iaw »

lumberjack wrote: post #62

The article looks at the cost of energy over the lifetime of the nuclear power plant. There is no argument that energy generated through fission is very cheap when looked at that way. However that totally ignores the enormous startup costs. The great thing about wind and solar is that you don't have to build a whole farm. You can start small and keep adding as you come across more capital. In any case I don't see why…

The startup capital required for nuclear fission is so immense that it doesn't make sense from an economic time-value perspective. The problem with most renewables (excl. thermal and hydro) is that they are incapable of meeting 100% of electricity demands by their nature without better storage technology.

The economics are pushing towards renewables but I feel that nuclear makes more sense for our society in the near-term (we need to get away from coal and other fossil fuels).

Post reply on HN