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

141–150 of 237 posts

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

#141

Post by threeseed »

08-15 wrote: post #127
Tepix wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Spent nuclear fuel, sometimes called waste, is actually a resource that next generation reactors will be able to tap That's just hope. How convenient not having to deal with the mess! To me, it sounds like a religion. The same argument could be applied to rising CO2 levels. Just let future generations figure it out. What could go wrong?

It's more than hope, it's engineering. Future generations don't need to figure anything out, because the last two generations already did. The Integral Fast Reactor was a reality in 1994, including a reprocessing scheme and inherent safety, when congress cut its funding. It's not my favorite reactor. My favorite, the molten chloride fast reactor, was theoretically investigated in 1972, including its potential for tra…

It's not politics that is preventing nuclear. It's cost.

Renewable is simply a cheaper, easier form of energy. And it gets cheaper every single day.

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

#142

Post by gwright »

threeseed wrote: post #141
08-15 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more than hope, it's engineering. Future generations don't need to figure anything out, because the last two generations already did. The Integral Fast Reactor was a reality in 1994, including a reprocessing scheme and inherent safety, when congress cut its funding. It's not my favorite reactor. My favorite, the molten chloride fast reactor, was theoretically investigated in 1972, including its potential for tra…

It's not politics that is preventing nuclear. It's cost. Renewable is simply a cheaper, easier form of energy. And it gets cheaper every single day.

In your analysis, have you included the required base-load generation systems required when renewables aren't generating (night time, no wind) or the required storage systems (which actually don't exist) to time shift the energy supply?

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

#143

Post by literallycancer »

bildung wrote: post #86
roenxi wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France's power is cheap by European standard [0]. So there isn't an economic issue. Going by order-of-magnitude of input materials, if it is an environmental nightmare it is still going to be better than the mining process for raw materials going in to solar panels and whatever else. AFAIK they all use rare earths that get mined in China and refined with some horrible process. Pure volumes of solar panels suggest the…

> France's power is cheap by European standard [0]. Because France heavily subsidized its nuclear infrastructure. They also have a big problem right now because most plants are old and have to be decomissioned, and building new plants is not economical.[0] Energy from nuclear power plants is pretty expensive sans subsidies, not just in France. Just as an example of the live cycle costs: An old plant in my country is…

Renewable sources are too expensive without subsidies too. So, how do we make people use solar? I know, let's make everything else more expensive: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/images/b/...

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

#144

Post by dmurray »

gambiting wrote: post #102
Krasnol wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every nuclear waste producing country has so much space. Actually most don't.

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…

The deepest mine in the world is 4km deep. There are only a dozen or so more than 2km deep. Going down 5-6km may be possible, but definitely not with "no issues".

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

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

#146

Post by jabl »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #134
Consultant32452 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many Fukushimas will we (society) accept every 150 years in order to stop climate change? That's really the only question that matters.

This attitude is what's keeping these old and less safe reactor designs running in the first place.

All things considered, particularly climate change, probably better to keep those old designs running rather than replacing them with fossil or bio fuels.

Once you have a 100% fossil/bio-free grid, you can replace those pesky nuclear plants with hamster wheel power for all I care.

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

#147

Post by jabl »

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.

Are you claiming there's a vast global conspiracy hiding the real numbers? Please...

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

#148

Post by jabl »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #116
tlocke wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, an…

> 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?

I'm sure it doesn't, because it's patently false.

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

#149

Post by threeseed »

gwright wrote: post #142
threeseed wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not politics that is preventing nuclear. It's cost. Renewable is simply a cheaper, easier form of energy. And it gets cheaper every single day.

In your analysis, have you included the required base-load generation systems required when renewables aren't generating (night time, no wind) or the required storage systems (which actually don't exist) to time shift the energy supply?

Actually the storage systems do exist. There are batteries, hydro etc.

And many of the bids for power projects are including batteries as well.

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

#150

Post by erentz »

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…

And no one ever talks about how we’ll handle solar waste. Has it changed and is no longer a problem going forward? Last I looked into it a few years back it was shaping up to be a very serious and toxic problem. They were very difficult to recycle, and full of lead, cadmium, and other nasty things. Something needs to be done with them but everyone was pretending they’re completely clean and safe.
Post reply on HN