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

51–60 of 211 posts

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#51

Post by masklinn »

lumberjack wrote: post #29

Nuclear Fission is not a plug and play solution either. Unlike other possible solutions like a breakthrough in mass energy storage, we know that fission could satisfy our needs. But it will still require some 30 years of investment to figure out the new breed of reactors and where to source the fuel from.

> Nuclear Fission is not a plug and play solution either.

That's actually the intent of SMRs. Small-ish reactor (30~300MWe) assembly plants, then ship them wherever they're needed/desired, and either bury them or keep them mobile depending on the purpose. When the fuel load is expended (10~30 years, similar to nuclear subs and ships) you just replace the whole reactor assembly, pop a new one in, and send the old one for recycling and disposal.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#52

Post by ommunist »

prodmerc wrote: post #45
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…

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

Have a look on early woRking prototypes of self-driving version for circumpolar regions http://cont.ws/post/128573

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#53

Post by macco »

I have a feeling Mr Thiel didn't cosider important facts.

Nuclear energy is highly deficient, building nuclear plants uses much more energy and concrete (bad for the environment) and you have to store nuclear waste.

I know Thiel is a long term thinker, but maybe Kaynes view is also important.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#54

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

#55

Post by guelo »

ommunist wrote: post #25
pilom wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The UK relatively recently backed full cycle of Uranium fuel production in Kazakhstan. Tony Blair became personal advisor to Nazarbayev. And I ve heard, the UK is going to build new nuclear plants. Its supply is secured and the know how will be both French and USSR (Kazakhstan). Those interested can ask themselves, what Atomic Kitten was doing in Astana in 2010?

Are you suggesting that UK is going transport electricity from Kazakhstan back to the UK? presumably via Russia? If so, that seems like a really bad plan.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#56

Post by ommunist »

prodmerc wrote: post #45
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…

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

Right now Russia builds in St. Petersburg the first small fully automatic floating nuclear power plant. Up to 70 MW output. Saves 200Kt of coal from burning for every year of its use.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#57

Post by ommunist »

guelo wrote: post #55
ommunist wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The UK relatively recently backed full cycle of Uranium fuel production in Kazakhstan. Tony Blair became personal advisor to Nazarbayev. And I ve heard, the UK is going to build new nuclear plants. Its supply is secured and the know how will be both French and USSR (Kazakhstan). Those interested can ask themselves, what Atomic Kitten was doing in Astana in 2010?

Are you suggesting that UK is going transport electricity from Kazakhstan back to the UK? presumably via Russia? If so, that seems like a really bad plan.

No, transporting U3O8 is enough. Upd: http://namrc.co.uk/intelligence/uk-new-build-plans/ 4 sites are already acquired for development on British grounds.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#58

Post by blisterpeanuts »

[deleted] wrote: post #54
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]

Even if all they do is solve some of the problems with magnetic bottles, which apparently is the primary focus of their current research, then that would be most helpful toward future implementations.

As I understand it, another problem is how to inject energy beams through the bottle to keep the reaction going -- i.e., high powered laser.

Another issue is how to contain the neutrons which bombard the physical container, rendering it dangerously radioactive after a while. Maybe the bottle prevents this? I don't know enough about it.

By comparison, solar is so much simpler, though eventually we'll probably need both paradigms. It seems silly to power residential homes from a central location when they can get most of their own power from rooftop collectors, but we'll always need central power generation for some purposes such as solar-poor regions, as well as mobile applications like sea transport and eventually space transport.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#59

Post by Simorgh »

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…

ITER (located in France) will build a fusion device to produce net energy, in the next few years - 50MW input and 500 MW output. The project has about €13 Billion investment committed.

Perhaps we're on the edge of a new energy area.

https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#60

Post by Retric »

pilom wrote: post #13
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…

BS, solar is not great in the UK, but your comparing electric generation at 2009 efficiency levels with powering cars, heating using resistance heating etc. (Heat pumps break 100% nominal efficiency by extracting heat from outside air.) It's also perfectly reasonable for the UK to continue to import significant amounts of energy in one form or another and or increase efficiency levels.

EX: We can manufacture 40+% efficient solar cells, sure there expensive, but saying the only thing possible is some lower efficiency level is clearly BS. [They use 10% as some sort of arbitrary limit on page 41.]

PS: Photovoltaic panels with 20% efficiency are already close to the theoretical limit (see this chapter’s endnotes Current, world record for concentrated solar is 46%.

Post reply on HN