Zapping Nuclear Waste in Minutes Is Nobel Winner’s Holy Grail Quest • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by tlocke » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:07 AM UTC

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…

A big problem with nuclear is expense. The figures from France are misleading because the state and the power companies are deeply entangled financially. A clearer view is possible in the UK because they have market system, and subsidies tend to be more transparent. The message from the UK is that nuclear power is not financially viable, and no nuclear power stations would be built without government subsidy. The subsidy required is far greater than that required by renewables. See https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/nov/22/hinkley-poin...

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

#112

Post by petre » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #97

petre wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bet or a gamble. It's always a mix. Renewables other than geothermal and solar-thermal + molten salts cannot currently provide base load power. They have something like 0.2..0.5 capacity factor, meaning that 50 to 80% of the operational lifetimes of the power generation facilities are spent idling. Those two that can provide base load power that are very location specific (volcanic area or desert). So rath…

Hydro can also provide base-load. Especially when used as storage for overproducing intermittent renewables. It is still highly location specific though. Might there be value in efficient energy transport using high voltage DC? There is probably a lot less fluctuation in power supply and usage if you sum up over larger areas (especially east-west, as you average out time-of-day effects)

Everything else apart from solar is generating AC. You'd need expensive converters and more expensive switching equipment with arc supression in order to transport DC. HVDC is mainly used for underwater cables because it's more efficient to transport DC than AC by cable. We'd probably benefit by interconnecting these cables coming from offshore wind farms and imports with parallel land based HVDC infrastucture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

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

#113

Post by Gibbon1 » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:18 AM UTC

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.

San Onofre didn't shut down because of protests. It shut down because the replacement steam generators failed.

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

#114

Post by dagw » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:22 AM UTC

Tepix wrote: post #101

ovi256 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An infinity of them, as there are very few deaths attributable to Fukushima, whereas the coal generation plants spew pollution and radionuclides into the atmosphere which result in definitely attributable deaths.

I hope noone believes the official number of deaths from nuclear power plant accidents.

So multiply them 5. The argument vs coal still holds.

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

#115

Post by gambiting » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:27 AM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #103

gambiting wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just don't get the problem, like at all. Dig a 5-6km deep shaft(we already have the technology for that depth, no issues), put the waste at the bottom. Keep drilling shafts until all waste is burried. That's far below the depth of any water sources, and unless you bury it near a tectonic fault, it's not making its way back through geological processes for eons. Like, can someone explain to me why we're not already…

I can't explain you that but just the fact that nobody is doing it might give you the idea that this is probably something you shouldn't do.

As others have pointed out, most issues are political, not technical. There are already places which would be perfect(deep mine shafts surrounded by salt deposits, so they are literally impenetrable as salt is self-sealing) but the countries/states they are in object to keeping the waste as some sort of ideological issue.

What I want to know is whether there is a technical issue with what I am suggesting.

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

#116

Post by marcus_holmes » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:33 AM UTC

tlocke wrote: post #111

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…

A big problem with nuclear is expense. The figures from France are misleading because the state and the power companies are deeply entangled financially. A clearer view is possible in the UK because they have market system, and subsidies tend to be more transparent. The message from the UK is that nuclear power is not financially viable, and no nuclear power stations would be built without government subsidy. The sub…

does that take into account that the designs for nuclear reactors are optimised not for economic production of electricity, but for plutonium output for nuclear weapons programs?

Not a coincidence that nuclear power plants have been mostly built during the cold war. Or that nuclear power is inextricably linked with nuclear weapons in the minds of defence people (see Iran).

However, there's no actual need for this, and a pacifist nuclear power program could be very economically viable. But there wouldn't be any government subsidies for it, of course, because it would be useless militarily.

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

#117

Post by gambiting » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:34 AM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #70

kyberias wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but people saying they don't want nuclear power in Germany "because of Fukishima" is absurd. No power plant is Germany is at a risk of tsunami or a major earthquake.

Should Japan be building nuclear power plants in areas which are at risk of both? Probably not. Should that be stopping countries like Germany fro building them? Also not. The same standard doesn't have to apply everywhere.

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

#118

Post by dagw » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #104

kyberias wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were the meltdowns?

Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl. Are three.

yea, not sure how to get to 4. Either you stop at 3 or you expand your scope to include contained meltdowns and meltdowns at small scale experimental and military facilities, in which case you end up around 7-20 depending on how serious a meltdown has to be to be included.

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

#119

Post by Krasnol » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

gambiting wrote: post #115

Krasnol wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't explain you that but just the fact that nobody is doing it might give you the idea that this is probably something you shouldn't do.

As others have pointed out, most issues are political, not technical. There are already places which would be perfect(deep mine shafts surrounded by salt deposits, so they are literally impenetrable as salt is self-sealing) but the countries/states they are in object to keeping the waste as some sort of ideological issue. What I want to know is whether there is a technical issue with what I am suggesting.

You just literally proposed to dig a 5-6m deep hole and assumed that would be enough...not even salt mines are enough. See Germany where there is suddenly groundwater seeking into a salt mine full of radioactive waste. A salt mine that was considered safe once. Now they are looking for years now to find a new safe spot and Germany stopped producing new waste. Still they have those problems. Tax payers are paying for this search. They'll also pay for the retrieval and they are paying for pumping out of the water.

There are many issues there obviously. This is not some easy thing you try to dig in there. It'll be there for a very long time.

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

#120

Post by rocqua » Mon, May 13, 2019, 9:50 AM UTC

petre wrote: post #112

rocqua wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydro can also provide base-load. Especially when used as storage for overproducing intermittent renewables. It is still highly location specific though. Might there be value in efficient energy transport using high voltage DC? There is probably a lot less fluctuation in power supply and usage if you sum up over larger areas (especially east-west, as you average out time-of-day effects)

Everything else apart from solar is generating AC. You'd need expensive converters and more expensive switching equipment with arc supression in order to transport DC. HVDC is mainly used for underwater cables because it's more efficient to transport DC than AC by cable. We'd probably benefit by interconnecting these cables coming from offshore wind farms and imports with parallel land based HVDC infrastucture. https…

I was thinking of cables like NorNed for moving surplusses around. Especially if such a cable runs east-west and can ease some of the temporal effects due to both people's living pattern, and solar intensity.