The New Atomic Age We Need • Hacker News Board

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#61

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#62

Post by ommunist » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

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.

And this is from Gritskevitch http://www.padrak.com/vesperman/HMD_Presentation.ppt

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#63

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:23 PM UTC

[deleted]

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#64

Post by jkot » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:24 PM UTC

bro-stick wrote: post #31

jkot wrote: post #14

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

This old one again. As someone who's actually worked in the nuclear energy industry, it's a common but wrong refrain... diffusion of petrochem radioactivity is much less of a liability than the very real, concentrated dangers of radioisotopes, even factoring in all of the other many negatives of coal.

Negative externalities?

It would be great to concentrate all pollution from ocean, land and air into single place. And I do not mean CO2.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#65

Post by jpdus » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:25 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-…

This! In my opinion Thiel does not think far enough and doesn't talk about the real question: Is fission even (economically) competitive? In my opinion (and from what I've read on this subject), it is not and won't be in the foreseeable future.

I will quote myself [1]:

>People always forget about indirect costs when talking about cheap nuclear energy (risk factors aside). Nobody has ever built a profitable nuclear power plant without substantial government subsidies (way higher than for all renewable energy sources). Operators need government help for security, fuel supply, waste handling and much more. There is no insurance company on earth which will cover a nuclear power plant without state guarantees (ask yourself: Wouldn't a profit oriented insurance company cover these risks, of these were really as low and controllable as people say here?).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10143081

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#66

Post by ommunist » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:28 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #15

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.

HMD vortex generator is so disruptive tech for existing energy market that Gritskevitch was offered to abandon his schematics for a lump sum in the late 90-ies. Fortunately his ideas met understanding of Al Gore and inventor now works in the US. But I hear no news about his US based dynamos. upd: Oleg died. This is great loss for humanity. His son has know how and is looking for 10M investment http://www.padrak.com/vesperman/HMD_Presentation.ppt

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#67

Post by chillingeffect » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:30 PM UTC

incepted wrote: post #21

squozzer wrote: post #6

Forgive my skepticism, but Mr. Thiel did not offer to live near a reactor. For someone with his obvious intelligence, his oversight could not have been accidental. Does he fear the radiation or the decline in property value? When a robber baron like Dale Carnegie wanted people to believe in his steel bridges, he staked his life and reputation and walked across the damned bridge. Another major risk not mentioned by Mr…

> 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?

yes. Go solar and wind. England can trade something for clean energy.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#68

Post by draaglom » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:32 PM UTC

chaz72 wrote: post #10

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.

Wait, what? Why do you think climate change is about wealth redistribution? Aren't you concerned at how much it will cost to protect all the cities on our coastlines if climate change is right? That's sure going to redistribute some wealth if we do nothing.

While the overall issue is not about redistribution in the traditional sense, the battle lines often are.

On the one hand you have capitalist-optimists like Thiel who basically focus on increasing energy output from non-carbon sources (which tends to mean: nuclear). The effect is to maintain the status quo (everyone can keep on using energy without worrying about depleting a public good).

On the other hand you have the left focusing mainly on limiting / reducing carbon emissions. That is - in my opinion - an inherently redistributive project: when you allocate carbon emission allowances, you're effectively allocating production allowances.

Edit: specifically, it's redistributive on a country level: poorer countries would quite like to have a big carbon budget to burn while their economies grow.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#69

Post by pdkl95 » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:46 PM UTC

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…

Fusion will change everything if we can actually make it work for our general power generation needs. Unfortunately, it's one of those technologies that is always going to arrive "soon".

I fully support investment in fusion research (and pure-research in general), but the reality is we can't wait for technologies that are still technically vaporware. Solar and wind are in the same situation. I expect we will be able to make much more efficient solar generation technologies and find a way to store power at the TWh scale. When we have reached those goals, we can re-evaluate, but right now waiting means choosing to use more coal/oil/gas.

> ... solar ... reducing demand for coal/oil/gas ...

Unfortunately, that's not always the case when solar ends up using a "natural gas backup" to solve the reliability problem.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#70

Post by nova22033 » Sat, Nov 28, 2015, 5:48 PM UTC

In 1949 the federal government built a test facility at Idaho National Laboratory to study and evaluate new nuclear reactor designs. We owe our nuclear power industry to the foresight of those New Dealers, and we need their openness to innovation again today.

Thiel is a self-described conservative libertarian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Thiel#Political_activiti...