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

101–110 of 211 posts

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#101

Post by pjscott »

jensen123 wrote: post #85

He does not mention bombs. I'm certainly no expert here, but I think I read in the book An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore a long time ago, that if you have the ability to build a nuclear power plant, then building a bomb is not very hard. I'm not terribly keen on living in a world where most of the countries in Africa, the Middle East etc. are able to build nuclear bombs.

Having nuclear reactors doesn't mean your country can build them. For most countries it would almost certainly be cheaper to just import them from whoever offers you the best deal. Countries with nuclear reactor export industries include China, Russia, France, and South Korea, so there's some decent competition here.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#102

Post by masklinn »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #84
masklinn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a great deal of engineering/economic appeal to factory made modular reactors, but the weak point is you'd need a cultural shift for people to not be freaked out about having lots of small reactors everywhere.

On the one hand yes, on the other hand you don't need prime estate locations (coastal and riverside) to cool down SMRs and they're way less noticeable than hectares of nuke plants, so to an extent your can put them everywhere yet not in anyone's backyard.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#103

Post by ommunist »

jessaustin wrote: post #97
ommunist wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For some reason this reminded me of Anton and Ivan Vanko. Hopefully Tony Stark will stop fomenting regional conflict and just let Ivan get to work. b^)

In this particular case Tony lured Ivan to US, swamped his efforts, Ivan being not familiar with fund raising and PR, hoped that brilliance of his invention will shine through any sh#t. It did not.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#104

Post by pilom »

Retric wrote: post #60
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…

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+% eff…

Later on on page 44 he changes the assumptions based on 50% efficient farms growing plant matter for biomass. Even if you had 50% efficient panels and you covered 200m^2 per person with them (there are only about 900 m^2 per person that are not covered with farm land or roads), you'd only get about 32KW/person/day which is less than what the energy used for transportation alone (40kw/person/day).

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#105

Post by Michael_s45543 »

Its funny how we have to fall for these fake hackers all the time before we either give up or find the real one. I wont allow others fall for the fakes i did, paid several times with no results till my sister in law found out and opened up to me she has a private investigator which i later found out was a hacker Scott Edwards greyhatcreator001@gmail.com. He brought life back to me, did the Whats app hack, Facebook, emails and even some things i shouldn't mention here, am talking of bank transfers and credit cards. Basically all i needed although his fee was on the high side but who cares, i'll rather pay well for the right thing than lose to cheats. i don't think its right to give his cell out like that but if you tell him you are from Michael he will definitely respond as he is a busy man so he selects who to respond to. Michael is the key to get his fast response or he might just read your mail and not reply. I hope my friends here get their problems solved either by the help of Scott or a real one not fake

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#106

Post by ams6110 »

jessaustin wrote: post #89
nova22033 wrote: post #70

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...

My grandfather died with multiple cancers plus pulmonary fibrosis caused by multiple exposures he received while working in DoE facilities in the early-mid 1950s. In those facilities there were basically no safety procedures. Safe nuclear power was not a goal; more nuclear weapons was the goal. It's no surprise that TFA exaggerates the "foresight" of the damned "New Dealers". They were just like Thiel is, looking to…

I'm sorry for your grandfather but what does that have to do with anything happening today? You think safety standards and understanding of risks are still the same today as in the 1950s?

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#107

Post by chaz72 »

draaglom wrote: post #68
chaz72 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Was it a "redistribution of wealth" when paint makers were told "hey, stop making paints with lead in them, people are getting hurt"?

If it was, was that a bad thing? I would argue it was sure inconvenient for paint companies but a net gain to society. Perhaps some level of funding should be given to these companies as we take their rights away - and perhaps not, depending on how foreseeable and expensive their issues were - but the fact is, sometimes we as a society need to force them to make changes.

To my mind, it's not redistribution because the point is not to take their income away, the point is that it's time to stop. Yes, that will have an effect on their income. Not doing it will have a much higher dollar cost, and the company won't pay it directly but the country sure will.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#108

Post by thebmax »

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-…

These cost comparisons don't take into account reliability. Power is almost useless if it's not reliable. A large part of your monthly bill goes towards reliablility and transport of power, not just the power itself.

A 100% wind or solar grid would require an equal amount of backup gas or coal power in order to provide reliability which essentially doubles these cost estimates. Even now most wind and solar is considered a novelty to most grid operators because you can't take it into account for long term planning. In some cases (like Denmark or Quebec) there exists ample alternatives available for when the wind stops blowing but most jurisdictions don't have this.

Considering how smart people in Silicon Valley are the level of ignorance around renewable energy and the'why don't we all use solar panels' mindset is crazy.

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#109

Post by ricw »

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…

This argument is one massive false assumption. Renewable energy sources are becoming cheaper and are already cheaper than coal and nuclear. Cheap means they will become pervasive and replace the majority of existing sources. There is technically no reason we couldn't do it [3], rather "the key roadblocks are: climate change denial, the fossil fuels lobby, political inaction, unsustainable energy consumption, outdated energy infrastructure, and financial constraints".

It's only a question of time until renewables will kill fossil fuels. If only we'd stop subsidising fossil fuels [2].

The report you're quoting is itself highly questionable. Just as an example, wind speed averages are based on Cambridge, which isn't anywhere near the coast where wind turbines should live. Anything from a comprehensive report. Furthermore, he compares the energy to a random amount of energy (50% of energy consumed by cars). The report itself seems a little bit of warm air.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_transition_in_Germany [2] http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/fossil-fuels/in-2... [3] http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v301/n5/ful...

Re: The New Atomic Age We Need

#110

Post by jessaustin »

ams6110 wrote: post #106
jessaustin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My grandfather died with multiple cancers plus pulmonary fibrosis caused by multiple exposures he received while working in DoE facilities in the early-mid 1950s. In those facilities there were basically no safety procedures. Safe nuclear power was not a goal; more nuclear weapons was the goal. It's no surprise that TFA exaggerates the "foresight" of the damned "New Dealers". They were just like Thiel is, looking to…

I'm sorry for your grandfather but what does that have to do with anything happening today? You think safety standards and understanding of risks are still the same today as in the 1950s?

Perhaps it's a small point, but I wished to counter TFA's false claim that "nuclear New Dealers" possessed any admirable sort of foresight. Do you think the publicly-stated level of safety standards is less exaggerated today than it was back then?
Post reply on HN