The New Atomic Age We Need • Hacker News Board

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#11

Post by masklinn » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:35 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #2

The key problem in my mind is the failure of project management in building reactors. If they said it was going to take 2 years and 1 billion dollars and it stretched out to 3 years and $1.5 billion that is one thing. Back in the 1970s it was more like 2 years stretches to 9 years and $15 billion and you could blame union workers who never did nuclear work before, the no nukes, high interest rates, etc. The industry…

Nuclear plants are also central points of failures, the plant itself needn't even fail, just the electrical distribution from it and you lose 1~6GW.

If they pan out, Small Modular Reactors (30MW~300MW range) seem like they could solve many of the issues with existing "large" nuke plants: the sealed core can be built on largeish assembly lines (similar to airliners in size) then floated, flown or driven to site, more units would mean more opportunities for automation and economies of scale instead the more pharaonic and necessarily more unique existing systems.

This would be further boosted by the inherent flexibility of SMR: they can be kept mobile (for emergencies, temporary setting, interim power, etc…) e.g. Rosatom's Akademik Lomonosov barge, which should have a total capacity of 300MWt/70MWe.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#12

Post by TheLogothete » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:37 PM UTC

cft wrote: post #3

I am afraid that the real goal of at least 50% of climate change activists is not clean energy, but the disruption of current elite and wealth redistribution by taxation vs value creation. It is because of these 50% the realistic proposals like Peter's will not fly politically.

In my country, green organizations, including the local branch of WWF are nothing more than extortion artists. They rally young, impressionable people by spreading FUD. They block ski lift projects and drum the media on all sorts of nonsense and broker their power to influence current political agenda or for money (when they run out). Most were created by ex-intelligence slightly before or after The Wall fell. It's disgusting.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#13

Post by pilom » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:39 PM UTC

T-A wrote: post #8

> We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in. Is this really true? In Lazard's 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it's becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2]. [1] http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-ene... [2] http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/us-energy-…

The problem is scale. Here is a really good analysis of renewable resources in the UK: http://www.withouthotair.com/

Conclusion: The UK doesn't receive enough sunlight or have enough wind/waves/tidal pools/land to grow food, power cars (of any kind) and meet other energy needs. The UK can never get all of their energy carbon free without nuclear or importing power. The US is in a better place because of solar in the Southwest but we still don't have the technology/infrastructure to transport all of that power.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#14

Post by jkot » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:41 PM UTC

Coal plan produces more radioactivity than nuclear plant. There are radioactive elements in coal and they get released in smoke into atmosphere.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#15

Post by Shivetya » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

T-A wrote: post #8

> We already know that today’s energy sources cannot sustain a future we want to live in. Is this really true? In Lazard's 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear [1]. Costs have fallen so much that it's becoming hard to justify continued subsidies [2]. [1] http://energyinnovation.org/2015/02/07/levelized-cost-of-ene... [2] http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/us-energy-…

neither are base line power. Storage solutions, as in batteries, do not make me think that the hazards of such large scale deployments of lithium based solutions to be better than more advanced reactor designs we don't use for political reasons.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#16

Post by etaty » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:42 PM UTC

I like how Thiel writes his sentences about safety, to avoid saying anything wrong. I invite him to spend the rest of his life in Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Personally nuclear energy is dangerous because when it goes wrong the result is really bad.

And the source of error is infinite, human, software, design, terrorists, war, civil plane, drone ...

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#17

Post by 7952 » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:45 PM UTC

cft wrote: post #3

I am afraid that the real goal of at least 50% of climate change activists is not clean energy, but the disruption of current elite and wealth redistribution by taxation vs value creation. It is because of these 50% the realistic proposals like Peter's will not fly politically.

You are probably right, although there is at least a grain of sense in it.

A lot of environmental issues are also social issues. This is fairly obvious in subsidence farming communities where environmental damage is caused by and directly effects normal peoples lives. In developed economies it is just easier to ignore the human factors in environmental damage and focus on the technical aspects of this. The activists are right to consider the social factors, but are certainly ham fisted and rely on the wrong metaphors.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#18

Post by 11thEarlOfMar » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:46 PM UTC

YC has two nuclear start ups: Helion and UPower. How are they doing? What is their path to prominence?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#19

Post by danbruc » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:46 PM UTC

Why not simply outlaw nonrenewable energy sources over ten years or so? Problem solved.

EDIT: Would someone care to point out why that is not an valid option? Lack of technological viability? Lack of energy storage technology or capacity? Ideological resentment against a political over an economical driving force for the change?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#20

Post by namespace » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

I think that recent initiative by YC under sam to invest in startups that may herald breakthroughs in sustainable fission is a great start. This should lead to a healthy competition which so far has been missing since it used to be a government only venture for a long time.