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

Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 237 posts

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#11

Post by mimixco »

graeme wrote: post #10
mimixco wrote: post #8

Nuclear energy has its advocates—it spews little by way of emissions and is produced relatively cheaply. Nuclear is anything but cheap. It's a net negative energy source, meaning the the electricity costs more to produce than it can be sold for. This is why the industry requires massive subsidies to stay alive. (If I recall correctly, the last round of subsidy in the US was over $50 billion.) Nuclear power also requi…

Got a source? I'd read the EROI of nuclear is quite high.

The simplest source is the closure of many existing nuclear plants and the cancellation of all but one which we're planned for the US.

It's not well known that the industry requires billions in government subsidies to even exist today. If taxpayers are footing the bill, that tells you that selling electricity isn't paying its own way.

Fewer people still know that nuclear plants are uninsurable, for somewhat obvious reasons. Government insurance for nuclear accidents is another huge subsidy that shows the industry isn't viable on its own.

For more info, see Helen Caldicott's excellent book, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#12

Post by arcticbull »

mimixco wrote: post #8

Nuclear energy has its advocates—it spews little by way of emissions and is produced relatively cheaply. Nuclear is anything but cheap. It's a net negative energy source, meaning the the electricity costs more to produce than it can be sold for. This is why the industry requires massive subsidies to stay alive. (If I recall correctly, the last round of subsidy in the US was over $50 billion.) Nuclear power also requi…

This is true not of nuclear energy in general but -- if what you're saying is true -- of the Uranium cycle commonly in use today. To my knowledge, it was originally selected because it can support production of weapons-grade Plutonium. I'd wager, at the time, the power generation (and economics) was more of a side-effect.

I'm personally more interested in seeing Thorium reactors re-visited, as Thorium is much more prevalent in the earth, can't be used to produce weapons-grade Plutonium, is much safer, more stable, yields fissile products with much shorter half-lives, and so on. That's not to say there aren't challenges but I think this would be something worth investing in. [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#13

Post by arcticbull »

mimixco wrote: post #11
graeme wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a source? I'd read the EROI of nuclear is quite high.

The simplest source is the closure of many existing nuclear plants and the cancellation of all but one which we're planned for the US. It's not well known that the industry requires billions in government subsidies to even exist today. If taxpayers are footing the bill, that tells you that selling electricity isn't paying its own way. Fewer people still know that nuclear plants are uninsurable, for somewhat obvious r…

It's as likely they were cancelled due to negative public sentiment towards nuclear energy. We're going to need some sources.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#14

Post by mimixco »

arcticbull wrote: post #12
mimixco wrote: post #8

Nuclear energy has its advocates—it spews little by way of emissions and is produced relatively cheaply. Nuclear is anything but cheap. It's a net negative energy source, meaning the the electricity costs more to produce than it can be sold for. This is why the industry requires massive subsidies to stay alive. (If I recall correctly, the last round of subsidy in the US was over $50 billion.) Nuclear power also requi…

This is true not of nuclear energy in general but -- if what you're saying is true -- of the Uranium cycle commonly in use today. To my knowledge, it was originally selected because it can support production of weapons-grade Plutonium. I'd wager, at the time, the power generation (and economics) was more of a side-effect. I'm personally more interested in seeing Thorium reactors re-visited, as Thorium is much more pr…

Since there is no working thorium reactor at scale, it would be more accurate to say that it is true today and some people hope that we could escape the uranium cycle with thorium. So far, no one has.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#15

Post by mimixco »

arcticbull wrote: post #13
mimixco wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simplest source is the closure of many existing nuclear plants and the cancellation of all but one which we're planned for the US. It's not well known that the industry requires billions in government subsidies to even exist today. If taxpayers are footing the bill, that tells you that selling electricity isn't paying its own way. Fewer people still know that nuclear plants are uninsurable, for somewhat obvious r…

It's as likely they were cancelled due to negative public sentiment towards nuclear energy. We're going to need some sources.

Google is your friend! Only one nuke plant in the US was shut down over protests (San Onofre) and that took 20 years.

The press releases from plant owners who closed or cancelled their plans all cite negative economics as the reason.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#16

Post by arcticbull »

mimixco wrote: post #14
arcticbull wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true not of nuclear energy in general but -- if what you're saying is true -- of the Uranium cycle commonly in use today. To my knowledge, it was originally selected because it can support production of weapons-grade Plutonium. I'd wager, at the time, the power generation (and economics) was more of a side-effect. I'm personally more interested in seeing Thorium reactors re-visited, as Thorium is much more pr…

Since there is no working thorium reactor at scale, it would be more accurate to say that it is true today and some people hope that we could escape the uranium cycle with thorium. So far, no one has.

I'm saying that "nuclear power" != "uranium cycle power" and that if we continue to couple the two, nobody ever will. It's on us, if we think there is opportunity, to advocate for better technology options where possible. Casually linking the two is part of why we don't have use at scale.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#17

Post by arcticbull »

mimixco wrote: post #15
arcticbull wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's as likely they were cancelled due to negative public sentiment towards nuclear energy. We're going to need some sources.

Google is your friend! Only one nuke plant in the US was shut down over protests (San Onofre) and that took 20 years. The press releases from plant owners who closed or cancelled their plans all cite negative economics as the reason.

Generally on HN, unlike other comment zones on the Internet, it's on people making claims to back them up with sources. Ideally if you have something controversial or interesting you provide links and resources, so we can all learn, instead of farming out the work of backing up your opinion to each reader.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#18

Post by acidburnNSA »

mschuster91 wrote: post #7
mises wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only by Western civilization? China is the largest polluter; India is third. The West may not be blameless, but it is not solely the fault thereof. What is your better idea, now that the time for prevention has passed?

Yeah but most nuclear waste came from the US, UK, France and Russia. As for a better idea, molten salt/thorium reactors, they can eat at least the highly dangerous/ultra long half life stuff.

Fast neutron reactors can. Most thorium MSRs are slow neutron reactors and struggle to transmute significant used nuclear fuel.

Re: Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest

#19

Post by adventured »

mschuster91 wrote: post #7
mises wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only by Western civilization? China is the largest polluter; India is third. The West may not be blameless, but it is not solely the fault thereof. What is your better idea, now that the time for prevention has passed?

Yeah but most nuclear waste came from the US, UK, France and Russia. As for a better idea, molten salt/thorium reactors, they can eat at least the highly dangerous/ultra long half life stuff.

> Yeah but most nuclear waste came from the US, UK, France and Russia.

That's merely a short question of time. China will end up #1 on that list. The US only has 98 nuclear reactors in total. The UK has a mere 15. China already has 45 operating, with more than a dozen under construction. In less than 15 years they'll surpass the US figure. Nuclear power will be used by more nations in the future, rather than fewer. It rather emphasizes the importance to all nations of waste disposal breakthroughs.

Post reply on HN