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

#191

Post by JudgeWapner » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:21 PM UTC

borkt wrote: post #188

erentz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mention this all the time to coworkers who blindly believe solar is a perfect technology. It is really, really bad - especially the old stuff with all these REE's and extremely low efficiency. I am pretty upset that California now REQUIRES solar for new construction. It really feels we should have waited for the efficiency/cleanliness/recycling to mature a lot before that.

solar panels actively reduce CO2 emissions every day they are in use. They only pollute if they are dumped irresponsibly after their ~15 year service life. why would it be good to forego something that reduces emissions now, in order to develop recycling for something that won't be discarded until 15 years?

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

#192

Post by mbostleman » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:33 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #175

erentz wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I get 27.300 results for "solar waste" on google. 88.000.000 for "solar waste management". Literally "no one ever"...

I don't think the implication was that there is no data out there. I think it's more about the popular conversation. I have this same problem all the time when I discuss this topic with people. It's very common for people to respond quickly about nuclear with "but what about the waste". To which I typically respond "what about the solar waste". The problem is, the question is generally only applied to one side while the other side gets a pass.

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

#193

Post by mbostleman » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

erentz wrote: post #150

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.

My introduction to this was when I went to work for a solar manufacturer and had to take blood tests to measure cadmium levels.

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

#194

Post by petre » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #162

petre wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fessenheim is going to be closed down after Flamanville 3 comes online. Germany's alternatives to French nuclear power are either coal and power outage. Germany still imports more electricity from France than it exports: https://www.energy-charts.de/exchange.htm

There is so much wrong here, I'm not even sure if I should start answering to that. Why do you write this? You must be aware that it's easy to fact check. Are you desperate or really so heavy misinformed? You should have seen through you charts that the small difference can't be related to the actual amount required in Germany. Germany sells more energy elsewhere...Much more: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service…

Yes, I forgot about Russian gas. The US basically had to threaten the EU with tarrifs (hint: on vehicles, I wonder who's EU's biggest vehicle producer) if we don't import LPG from the US to reduce dependency on Russian gas. Norway, your other suppiler, isn't building any new capacity either.

Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil.

Otherwise I agree that the difference is small. Your country is probably exporting for cents at a dollar during wind peaks and importing at night when France sells surplus nuclear energy at a discount. The issue with many variable renewables in the mix is that you have to build excess transport capacity which only gets used during peaks. Not to mention that solar has 0.2 max capacity factor and wind around 0.45 - the difference between that and 1 is idling.

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

#195

Post by hairytrog » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:50 PM UTC

newnewpdro wrote: post #131

Gibbon1 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Three reactors melted down @ Fukushima Daiichi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...

correct

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

#196

Post by hairytrog » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

PopeDotNinja wrote: post #174

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…

> Please don't ruin our valuable trash. How valuable could it possibly be? I challenge you to calculate the net present value on all of that nuclear waste.

All modeling fails, because it's worthless until proven otherwise. It's future breakthroughs - JFK speech at Rice, just replace space with nuclear: " Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us."

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

#197

Post by hairytrog » Mon, May 13, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #165

Blackthorn wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spent fuel is only a part of it though. There is also tubes, piping, tools... Basically, components that are used for maintenance and are now effectively useless.

And sand from sandblasting of painted metal to remove contaminants. There are tons and tons of very slightly radioactive sand that needs a place to live.

The beach would probably be fine. Safety by dilution.

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

#198

Post by petre » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:01 PM UTC

rocqua wrote: post #120

petre wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that's what Renewable electricity superhighways in the Wikipedia link basically refers to. But it's a bit ahead of its time and there are still challenges to overcome and more renewable capacity to be built in order for HVDC ground based networks to be viable economically. I’ m sure we'll see it being built in the next 20 or 30 years.

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

#199

Post by aaronblohowiak » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #170

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.

> cheaper Renewable here are propped by subsidies even to get at the same price of nuclear-produced electricity, so I don't know how you get that.

I believe that isn’t true if you include the externalized nuclear insurance costs

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

#200

Post by Krasnol » Mon, May 13, 2019, 5:10 PM UTC

petre wrote: post #194

Krasnol wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much wrong here, I'm not even sure if I should start answering to that. Why do you write this? You must be aware that it's easy to fact check. Are you desperate or really so heavy misinformed? You should have seen through you charts that the small difference can't be related to the actual amount required in Germany. Germany sells more energy elsewhere...Much more: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/service…

Yes, I forgot about Russian gas. The US basically had to threaten the EU with tarrifs (hint: on vehicles, I wonder who's EU's biggest vehicle producer) if we don't import LPG from the US to reduce dependency on Russian gas. Norway, your other suppiler, isn't building any new capacity either. Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil. Otherwise I agree that the differenc…

> The US basically had to threaten the EU with tarrifs f we don't import LPG from the US to reduce dependency on Russian gas. Norway, your other suppiler, isn't building any new capacity either.

I don't get what you want to say with all that. Of course Norway is not expanding capacity. Why should they? Renewables are coming. Here and there. And if the US wants to deliver cheaper LPG, why shouldn't we buy it?

> Wait, your country is building coal plants in 2019? At least reconvert them to gas or oil.

You don't start building something like that the year before it's finished and no. There are no new coal plants planned. The exit from coal is planned and no the ones that have been finished last year or the year before and never been turned on will not be converted to gas or oil because nobody needs that too. How is it you don't get that? I gave you an overview over a whole years energy production in Germany. We're selling the stuff for cheap in masses.