Why nuclear energy is our best option at the moment • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by neltnerb » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 7:57 PM UTC

InclinedPlane wrote: post #347

jpgvm wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly this. Specifically you should read the findings of the MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) at ORNL. Wikipedia has a relatively laymans explanation of the state of the Hastelloy-N when the experiment concluded.[1] It's worth mentioning Hastelloy-N isn't that expensive all things considered. It would probably come out to a small percentage of the reactors total cost factoring in R&D expenditure etc. [1] https…

Additionally, while using a lot of Hastelloy-N would be expensive, in the context of a full reactor it's a modest expense. Especially when you compare it against the extremely enormous forgings and gigantic reinforced concrete structures that traditional lightwater reactors use. Overall you end up with a much smaller and much safer reactor. And one that can burn existing high-level transuranic waste as well. It's suc…

Well, thanks for the citation. I'm now much more confused about why this is what I was told in class by an expert in the field. Maybe he meant specifically the difficulty of finding a steel up to the challenge, it was a decade ago so some fidelity may have been lost!

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

#392

Post by beefman » Fri, Nov 06, 2015, 10:41 PM UTC

iaw wrote: post #389

beefman wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a good chance you can see one at your local university or shipyard. The post to which you're replying doesn't use the terms "proven" or "commercial", so let's not move the goalpost. Then we can talk about YC-funded startup UPower, Fluor-owned corporation NuPower, etc. Studying engineering is also a good way to reduce reliance on examples.

I was unable to find any data on the 'NuPower' technology; could you provide links? What I found on UPower indicated that it's a nuclear thermal battery, I love that technology but they aren't legal and wont be because of widespread concerns about terrorism and radioactive contamination. Also, my educational background is in engineering and I have worked on determining whether it's financially feasible to build power…

NuScale Power, sorry (mobile typo). UPower are making a reactor but some sources have incorrectly called it a battery. There are no laws in the U.S. (or any nation I'm aware of) that make small reactors or nuclear batteries illegal. My only argument so far is "Nothing about nuclear fission requires startup capital to be large", which is trivially true.

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

#393

Post by thomasahle » Tue, Nov 10, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

adventured wrote: post #207

thomasahle wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently, most nuclear power plants even produce less energy than if their area was instead covered by solar panels. Says Musk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-n6xJOFbvA

That's not even close to being true. Ivanpah has the capability of producing about 400 MW. It produces no energy at night, and doesn't max out the rest of the time. It rests on 4,000 acres of land. [1] The Palo Verde nuclear plant can produce 3,939 MW from three reactors (currently operating at 3,875 MW). It's located on 4,000 acres of land. It can actually generate 3,875 MW, and can do it all day long if necessary.…

I guess you'd have to count the Palo Verde 10 mile inner emergency zone (200,000 acres). Then you'd be down to 0.02MW/acre, well below Ivanpah's 0.1MW/acre. That's a bit unfair though, since that area does have a small population, so it's not entirely cut off.