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

The New Atomic Age We Need

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 211 posts

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#41

Post by blisterpeanuts »

Where are we at with nuclear fusion? At this time, the only promising progress I know of is happening at Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks[1] where they are developing a truck-sized 100 MW [corrected from Mhz] power plant in an incremental, iterative fashion and claiming to have something operational by 2020.

As regards solar and other "clean" alternatives, there exists vast potential for reducing daytime electric grid load by throwing a few panels on residential and office rooftops. Why don't more people do it? As the cost of panels plummets, the payoff time is decreasing and ROI over time is increasing.

A whole industry of solar panel leasing has sprung up, whereby residential home owners let an installer put in the panels for free, then pay a discounted electric rate. Not exactly like going off-grid, but it does have the same effect of reducing demand for coal/oil/gas generated power.

I'm envisioning future new home developments where every house comes with solar pre-installed. No decisions to make; the cost is baked in (so to speak) and you get a home that will incur minimal electric bills.

I don't see a government role in all of these initiatives, which are market driven. People want green energy these days; it's become a fad. Almost gone are the days when homeowners associations sue a member for putting "ugly" solar panels on his roof.

1. http://www.eweek.com/news/lockheed-martin-claims-sustainable...

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#42

Post by i1568658 »

selimthegrim wrote: post #35
legulere wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the big fear of nuclear power is because we don't know how to handle catastrophic risks. With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. It's only mine workers that are affected and they have a definite risk in front of their eyes. You can rise the worker protection regulations for making this safer. You have the problem of air pollution through fine particles and sulfur. You can solve this with filter…

Why is it that Fukushima isn't an argument _for_ nuclear power, considering the plant even closer to the epicenter came through with flying colors? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant

From the article :P

>Following the tsunami two to three hundred homeless residents of the town who lost their homes to the tsunami took refuge in the Onagawa nuclear plant's gymnasium, as the reactor complex was the only safe area in the vicinity to evacuate to, with the reactor operators supplying food and blankets to the needy.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#43

Post by BurningFrog »

legulere wrote: post #30
Amorymeltzer wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, but don't discount the FUD. Much as people fear an airplane crash more than a car crash, the prospect of nuclear power is far more terrifying to most than just another coal plant. It's not enough that the coal plant is orders of magnitude more deadly, it's the perception. Even the image the NYT used will convey to many a disregard for life, pumping harmful radiation into our environment, rather than merel…

I think the big fear of nuclear power is because we don't know how to handle catastrophic risks. With coal power you will have a few dead mine workers. It's only mine workers that are affected and they have a definite risk in front of their eyes. You can rise the worker protection regulations for making this safer. You have the problem of air pollution through fine particles and sulfur. You can solve this with filter…

> while being told that nuclear is 100% safe

When were you ever told that?

I've been hearing all my life how risky and scary nuclear power is.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#44

Post by [deleted] »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #41

Where are we at with nuclear fusion? At this time, the only promising progress I know of is happening at Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks[1] where they are developing a truck-sized 100 MW [ corrected from Mhz ] power plant in an incremental, iterative fashion and claiming to have something operational by 2020. As regards solar and other "clean" alternatives, there exists vast potential for reducing daytime electric grid…

[deleted]

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#45

Post by prodmerc »

ommunist wrote: post #33
incepted wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forgive my skepticism, but Mr. Thiel did not offer to live near a reactor. Living next to a coal plant is even more dangerous than a nuclear plant, are you suggesting we should ban both plants based on these considerations?

Actually the late USSR had a technology of small fully automatic single loaded reactors for long-term supply of electric power in middle-size cities. Fully sealed unit. After use (decades) - you just cover it with a lawn. But back then the USSR had enough fuel in production. Right now the know how in Russia is lost and nuclear fuel generation is very weak. Also HMD generator by Oleg Gritckevitch was very promising. T…

You mean like the Toshiba 4S? Most countries have designs for awesome stuff (at least on paper), which is never implemented for various reasons.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#46

Post by witty_username »

wstrange wrote: post #27
etaty wrote: post #16

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 ...

Hydro Dams cause immense catastrophe when they fail. They have killed far more people than Nuclear power. According to Wikipedia, the failure of a single Dam in China caused: 26,000 dead from flooding, 145,000 dead from subsequent famine and epidemics, 11 million homeless All forms of power generation have risks and tradeoffs. We should use the best available science to evaluate those risks - not emotion and fear. Th…

The planet will survive well. We'll be screwed.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#47

Post by ommunist »

selimthegrim wrote: post #38
ommunist wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the late USSR had a technology of small fully automatic single loaded reactors for long-term supply of electric power in middle-size cities. Fully sealed unit. After use (decades) - you just cover it with a lawn. But back then the USSR had enough fuel in production. Right now the know how in Russia is lost and nuclear fuel generation is very weak. Also HMD generator by Oleg Gritckevitch was very promising. T…

What happened to it during the earthquake?

This http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US20040168716. Upd: Oleg died. His son has the know how. Armenian reactor was destroyed during the civil war. See also this http://www.padrak.com/vesperman/HMD_Presentation.ppt

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#48

Post by jacquesm »

namespace wrote: post #20

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.

I'm not convinced that YC is the vehicle through which the next major breakthrough in the field of energy generation will be conceived.

YC companies that do relatively tiny hardware projects tend to fail at a rate much higher than their software siblings and the kind of investment required to get a next generation nuclear reactor from the drawingboard to a reality is not usually associated with start-up accelerators.

I know they're funding two start-ups in this domain but I don't believe this is a path that will work out. On the other hand, I've been wrong in the past on other predictions so feel free to ignore me :)

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#49

Post by jessriedel »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #41

Where are we at with nuclear fusion? At this time, the only promising progress I know of is happening at Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks[1] where they are developing a truck-sized 100 MW [ corrected from Mhz ] power plant in an incremental, iterative fashion and claiming to have something operational by 2020. As regards solar and other "clean" alternatives, there exists vast potential for reducing daytime electric grid…

All things considered, ITER is much more likely to lead to commercial fusion.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#50

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #44
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #41

Where are we at with nuclear fusion? At this time, the only promising progress I know of is happening at Lockheed Martin's Skunkworks[1] where they are developing a truck-sized 100 MW [ corrected from Mhz ] power plant in an incremental, iterative fashion and claiming to have something operational by 2020. As regards solar and other "clean" alternatives, there exists vast potential for reducing daytime electric grid…

[deleted]

[deleted]
Post reply on HN