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

61–70 of 237 posts

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

#61

Post by hairytrog »

nl wrote: post #47

Your periodic reminder that - despite the propaganda campaign run by nuclear advocates to make it seem like being anti-nuclear is to be anti-science - nuclear power remains massively expensive and even less safe than people think. Here's the most comprehensive peer-reviewed survey around: We summarize the results of a recent statistical analysis of 216 nuclear energy accidents and incidents (events). The dataset is t…

Kind of agree. There's been 4 catasrpohpic reactor meltdowns and there are ~400 reactors. That's a 1% failure rate. That's really bad. That's the status quo, which does not mandate continued low safety and lack of economic advantage. That's why there is R&D. Today what you say is true - great. Tomorrow, who knows. High energy density and human ingenuity could make genIV a reality.

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

#62

Post by gridlockd »

jayd16 wrote: post #60
gridlockd wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that people who are anti-nuclear are often also anti-coal and anti-fossil-fuel and anti-everything-that-actually-sustains-current-human-level-of-development. For those people, it has to be "clean renewables", with the speculation being that technology will fix all the issues with it. That ignores that maybe technology can also fix the issues with nuclear - and more readily so.

This is really not compelling. If you can't provide any more compelling evidence for nuclear vs clean energy improvements, why not gamble on the currently safer/cleaner bet?

My impression is that nuclear works right now and that the risk is overblown, relative to all the other risks we incur.

Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) and they aren't necessarily cleaner, considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes.

Of course it's not an either-or, renewables can make more sense in some places and not so much in others.

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

#63

Post by MertsA »

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…

>Thorium [...] can't be used to produce weapons-grade Plutonium

Sure it can. Thorium breeder reactors do not burn Thorium as Thorium is not fissile. Thorium is fertile and a blanket of Thorium is used to generate fissile Uranium. It's pretty straightforward to introduce U-238 into the U-233 from the Thorium. Then at that point it's no different than breeding Plutonium in a traditional reactor.

The difference is that Plutonium is an unavoidable waste product for traditional reactors but you don't need to produce it operating a Thorium molten salt reactor.

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

#65

Post by a1e2c3 »

“A radionuclide is an atom that has excess nuclear energy, making it unstable.”

This seemed like a vague definition, didn’t sit well with my memory of high school chemistry and physics. Turns out it’s the first sentence on Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide

Someone at Bloomberg got a little lazy.

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

#66

Post by jayd16 »

gridlockd wrote: post #62
jayd16 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is really not compelling. If you can't provide any more compelling evidence for nuclear vs clean energy improvements, why not gamble on the currently safer/cleaner bet?

My impression is that nuclear works right now and that the risk is overblown, relative to all the other risks we incur. Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) and they aren't necessarily cleaner , considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes. Of course it's not an either-or, renewables can make more sense in some places and not so much in others.

>and that the risk is overblown

I like nuclear but c'mon. Its clear that its not at an acceptable level of safety. Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away.

>Renewables are not working right now (see Germany)

What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe.

> considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes.

Is this not true of nuclear power?

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

#67

Post by kyberias »

hairytrog wrote: post #61
nl wrote: post #47

Your periodic reminder that - despite the propaganda campaign run by nuclear advocates to make it seem like being anti-nuclear is to be anti-science - nuclear power remains massively expensive and even less safe than people think. Here's the most comprehensive peer-reviewed survey around: We summarize the results of a recent statistical analysis of 216 nuclear energy accidents and incidents (events). The dataset is t…

Kind of agree. There's been 4 catasrpohpic reactor meltdowns and there are ~400 reactors. That's a 1% failure rate. That's really bad. That's the status quo, which does not mandate continued low safety and lack of economic advantage. That's why there is R&D. Today what you say is true - great. Tomorrow, who knows. High energy density and human ingenuity could make genIV a reality.

What were the meltdowns?

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

#68

Post by kyberias »

jayd16 wrote: post #66
gridlockd wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is that nuclear works right now and that the risk is overblown, relative to all the other risks we incur. Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) and they aren't necessarily cleaner , considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processes. Of course it's not an either-or, renewables can make more sense in some places and not so much in others.

>and that the risk is overblown I like nuclear but c'mon. Its clear that its not at an acceptable level of safety. Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away. >Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe. > considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processe…

Fukushima was caused by an earthquake that directly caused much more damage than the reactor blowing up.

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

#69

Post by carlosdp »

hairytrog wrote: post #59

Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap - both for energy and uncommon element feedstock. Just like shale used to be "garbage" until the tech to make it useful was developed, spent fuel will be seen as waste until we can make it useful. Letting this very manageable amount of waste sit in repositories until we get our shit together is utterly…

Don't even centralize it all in one facility, just store it on-site.

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

#70

Post by jayd16 »

kyberias wrote: post #68
jayd16 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>and that the risk is overblown I like nuclear but c'mon. Its clear that its not at an acceptable level of safety. Large scale disasters like Fukushima can't be hand waived away. >Renewables are not working right now (see Germany) What am I supposed to see from Germany? They're the largest electricity exporter in Europe. > considering that all this infrastructure needs to be produced with ordinary industrial processe…

Fukushima was caused by an earthquake that directly caused much more damage than the reactor blowing up.

Whats your point exactly? Earthquakes and other natural disasters will continue to happen. Until catastrophic failure can be eliminated or the scope of the damage can be reduced, nuclear power will not be considered safe. Saying "ok that happened but it won't happen again" is simply not acceptable.
Post reply on HN