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

211–220 of 237 posts

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

#211

Post by zaroth »

chipsa wrote: post #77
zaroth wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a story about a new nuke plant in Georgia [1] which they seem like they are regretting building. It's a $25 billion project which is several years late now. [2] They are building two new generators which should each produce 1,215 MW of power. So that's ~$10 million per MW. Solar by comparison is about $1 million per MW, although a 1,215 MW solar installation would cover about 10 sq km. I have to assume that s…

You also have to factor in the capacity factor. Sun isn't shining steadily all the time. You have night-time, notably, but also clouds and fog and smog. Capacity factor is very much location dependant, but all the places with good capacity factors are where people don't want to live either. It can be as low as 12% [0], so divide your $/MW by the capacity factor to ascertain the true cost: something like $8 million/MW…

Thank you for that. I didn’t realize that was a fake headline grabbing number. It makes no sense to me that the headline numbers are not actual 24/7/365 average generating capacity and rather peak capacity, since it can be calculating quite accurately in the long run.

The numbers make a lot more sense with that. As I was typing it it didn’t seem right.

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

#212

Post by Krasnol »

gambiting wrote: post #209
Krasnol wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, when I saw that, I couldn't edit anymore. My argument was also not aimed at the depth but at the unreflected "just dig a hole and hide it there" idea which reminds me of the dumping of nuclear waste into the sea.

Well, the clear difference is that stuff dumped into the sea will make it to the surface sooner or later. Containers will eventually leak and the dangerous materials will get into water, which then will carry it all over the world. Waste dumped into a 6km deep borehole is not coming out ever. I've made another comment above with a link to the wiki article about project deep borehole - where exactly this was researche…

But at least we know were it was or came from and that pretty soon. Hiding the stuff in a deep hole and probably be forgotten before it becomes safe is just irresponsible. I would even prefer that you keep it in one of the dumps on the surface in case we do come up with an economical way to reprocess or "zapp" it in 10, 50, 100 years. At least we know where it is.

I won't even touch geological issues that may come up. A few decades ago we wouldn't know that we would be able to cause earthquakes because we're shooting chemicals into the ground. Who knows what will be in 100 years or in 200?

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

#213

Post by gambiting »

Krasnol wrote: post #212
gambiting wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the clear difference is that stuff dumped into the sea will make it to the surface sooner or later. Containers will eventually leak and the dangerous materials will get into water, which then will carry it all over the world. Waste dumped into a 6km deep borehole is not coming out ever. I've made another comment above with a link to the wiki article about project deep borehole - where exactly this was researche…

But at least we know were it was or came from and that pretty soon. Hiding the stuff in a deep hole and probably be forgotten before it becomes safe is just irresponsible. I would even prefer that you keep it in one of the dumps on the surface in case we do come up with an economical way to reprocess or "zapp" it in 10, 50, 100 years. At least we know where it is. I won't even touch geological issues that may come up…

I mean, if there is a geological process that can bring stuff up from 6km depth then we're all dead anyway - the layer of impermeable rock above it is not called that for no reason. And with the half life of some of the elements in the waste as long as 100k years yes, it's ideal if it's buried and forgotten where no one can get to it. Irresponsible is storing this stuff on the surface - if the civilization collapses and no one is there to look after these containers they pose mortal danger to anyone finding them even in thousands of years. But no one is in danger from stuff quarter of the way from the Earth's mantle.

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

#214

Post by Krasnol »

gambiting wrote: post #213
Krasnol wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But at least we know were it was or came from and that pretty soon. Hiding the stuff in a deep hole and probably be forgotten before it becomes safe is just irresponsible. I would even prefer that you keep it in one of the dumps on the surface in case we do come up with an economical way to reprocess or "zapp" it in 10, 50, 100 years. At least we know where it is. I won't even touch geological issues that may come up…

I mean, if there is a geological process that can bring stuff up from 6km depth then we're all dead anyway - the layer of impermeable rock above it is not called that for no reason. And with the half life of some of the elements in the waste as long as 100k years yes, it's ideal if it's buried and forgotten where no one can get to it. Irresponsible is storing this stuff on the surface - if the civilization collapses…

The irony here is that you already propose to disturb this layer. Even though the technology is pretty new. Despite that you already not only want to penetrate this layer, you want to drop radioactive waste in there.

Btw what about Countries like Japan. They can't do that for obvious reasons. Will the US take this waste? I mean, they will keep producing it. And what about the next country that comes along. I'm sure they can pay good because it won't be every country that can afford this procedure. What about the former soviet republics (currently already used as dump by France for example)? They can't afford that. Will the US take that too or will they pay for it? Maybe the EU because they are closer and are more afraid?

And yes I agree with you that it's irresponsible to store that on the surface. It's even more irresponsible to produce even more of it. But hiding it away in the hope that some later generation in the future will still remember where it is and not touch it, not do anything to the terrain around it or dig it up to misuse it is not only naive, it lacks imagination. You should read more SciFi. It teaches you to think in time frames that are relevant here. Looking back at our own short history may help also.

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

#215

Post by Krasnol »

petre wrote: post #210
Krasnol wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

> And if the US wants to deliver cheaper LPG, why shouldn't we buy it? Because it requires building a terminal in Hamburg or another Baltic port and a distribution pipeline. It's easier to keep buying from Russia. What you do not understand is how energy is being produced/sold. Supply has to meet demand at all times, otherwise energy is sold at a discount or lost. Pure end of the year statistics don't mean much.

We're doing both at the moment and what you don't understand is that if you have more then one source for the product you want and the producers really really want to sell it, you are in a better position then being depended on one source. Something that will surely be a risk with Russia being Russia. The new regulations the EU will probably slam onto the project will also add to the good outcome. And all this for a technology that in the end will be and probably already is a bridge and backup between the old and new energy sources.

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

#216

Post by anoncake »

c1sc0 wrote: post #56
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.

Both Fukushima & Chernobyl would have been essentially non-issues if built further away from population centers. I know this is Sim City logic: but my answer to that would be: quite a lot!

The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone covers 2,600km². It's irregularly shaped so it's unlikely you can predict which area will actually be irradiated, so a nuclear power plant in fact endangers an even larger area. Good luck finding a place in Europe, let alone Japan, that is far enough from population centers.

Also consider that NPPs need cooling water so they are often located near rivers. As are population centers.

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

#217

Post by TeMPOraL »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #110
acidburnNSA wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear plants in the USA are closing early specifically because electricity revenue dropped below what was expected (and needed) to pay for operation and maintenance costs. Revenue dropped specifically because fracked natural gas became very cheap and undercut the price in deregulated markets. The idea that nuclear plants are net energy negative is very inaccurate. A 1 GWe plant runs for 60 years releases roughly 20…

> There are lots of highly trained operators working 4 shifts. There are complex regulations, and safety upgrades after 9/11 and Fukushima. Comment of mine about utility scale solar. Those plants don't require a lot of specialized skills to keep running. And they're fundamentally redundant. There aren't oopies that take them offline for 18 months.

They also don't work for base load unless backed by energy storage tech that doesn't really exist yet.

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

#218

Post by TeMPOraL »

mimixco wrote: post #157
acidburnNSA wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Carbon-free" is a standard industry lie. Wrong. Here is an IPCC meta-analysis reference from a consensus of scientists showing that it's very low, 12 gCO2-eq/kWh, on par with wind. Solar is 40. Natural gas is 490 [1]. See Table A.III.2 | Emissions of selected electricity supply technologies. Think about it. There is 2,000,000x more energy in a kg of uranium than in a kg of coal or gas or oil or lithium. A single t…

You don't get to claim "carbon free" when the uranium cycle uses heavy equipment (dozers, loaders, trucks, trains, etc) that use fossil fuels. So please stop spreading that falsehood.

That's a ridiculous nitpick. GP just quoted you that nuclear has the carbon footprint comparable with wind power, and also most of that is completely incidental. All heavy equipment could be in principle electrified. It isn't because of various reasons, but then the same equipment is used for manufacturing and transporting everything in every other type of power source.

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

#219

Post by Gibbon1 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #217
Gibbon1 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are lots of highly trained operators working 4 shifts. There are complex regulations, and safety upgrades after 9/11 and Fukushima. Comment of mine about utility scale solar. Those plants don't require a lot of specialized skills to keep running. And they're fundamentally redundant. There aren't oopies that take them offline for 18 months.

They also don't work for base load unless backed by energy storage tech that doesn't really exist yet.

A lot of base load demand is driven by industrial customers balance sheet economics tho. They use power at night because it's subsidized by peek demand.

For instance my dad managed wind tunnels. They typically ran in the late evening at the whim of the power companies schedule. Because that's when PG&E had the extra capacity. Otherwise there was no technical reason they needed to run at night.

So if the pricing structure for electricity means power is very expensive at night, a lot of current customers will just switch. Which will reduce the demand. In this case economics 101 gives the right answer.

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

#220

Post by TeMPOraL »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #219
TeMPOraL wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also don't work for base load unless backed by energy storage tech that doesn't really exist yet.

A lot of base load demand is driven by industrial customers balance sheet economics tho. They use power at night because it's subsidized by peek demand. For instance my dad managed wind tunnels. They typically ran in the late evening at the whim of the power companies schedule. Because that's when PG&E had the extra capacity. Otherwise there was no technical reason they needed to run at night. So if the pricing struc…

From what I understand, this is still scheduling in blocks of hours. One problem with solar & wind is that their variability happens on the scale of minutes. If you use them for base load, you'll be randomly losing or gaining large amounts of power output - much faster than industrial loads could switch. It would be unrealistic to try and plan around it, and supply/demand won't help here - even if you're selling sudden solar surplus at negative prices, there won't be enough buyers ready. For this to work, we need much more energy storage. Then there're seasonal variation; the industry your dad worked in probably wouldn't be happy if they were told they can't run wind tunnels in winter because there isn't enough power in the grid.
Post reply on HN