Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 353 posts

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#281

Post by friendlybus »

Accujack wrote: post #218
The_Double wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every country has access to a desert to deploy large scale solar. Most of the EU, Russia for instance, and those places do not want to be dependent on other countries.

It's probably also worth noting that photovoltaics have to be exposed to the sun to work... which means that they can't be protected by armor or bunkers, which means that they're terrifically vulnerable to terrorist or other attack.

Most militaries rely on oil and dirty fuel to run campaigns. There's mandatory fuel stockpiling. The event of a power station going down would be seen as an act of war and suddenly there's much bigger problems for everyone involved to worry about.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#282

Post by ZeroGravitas »

Accujack wrote: post #216
aplummer wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar power in the desert produces power 24/7 by keeping the molten sand hot overnight. It’s also always sunny

That technology is far more expensive than photovoltaic panels.... for example, the solar thermal Ivanpah project is now obsolete for that exact reason. Additionally, The storage density of molten salt is far lower than the generation capacity of a reactor.

Solar plus battery near the equator can be sized for 24/7 power with relative ease.

But no one would do that, because we don't need power at the same rate all the time. Near the equator, where most people on the planet live, our need for energy is correlated with when the sun is shining and air con is running and people are awake.

This is why solar is better even at the mythical "baseload" than nuclear is.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#283

Post by lostlogin »

xorfish wrote: post #256
chrisco255 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Sorry the Mediterranean Sea separates Europe from Sahara (as well as several countries) and you can't do this practically by any means. Europe doesn't own the Sahara.

The main problem with installing solar in the Sahara and transporting it to Europe is the political instability of the region. Laying cables across a sea or ocean is already routinely done.

We all manage with oil. The key has to be getting the resource without making the region worse, which hasn’t been the case with oil.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#284

Post by kakwa_ »

friendlybus wrote: post #278
WhompingWindows wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "probably" expensive; it's undeniably very expensive, which is why it's a non-starter in most of the world. Look at South Carolina's fiasco with nuclear...the only country doing nuclear is China, which is known for massive infrastructure spending.

France? 70% nuclear power and growing.

No,France has not built any new nuclear power plant in decades, the only one being built (flammanville 3) is a mess, and there are goals to reduce the share of nuclear to 50%.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#285

Post by manfredo »

Koshkin wrote: post #136

The natural reserve of radioactive material, like that of fossil fuel, is finite. We cannot count on it in the long run. On the other hand, we are awash with the huge amounts of the free solar energy. We just need better batteries, which is a purely technical problem.

Uranium seawater extraction makes fission fuel effectively limitless [1], on the order of billions of years of supply. If you want to get pedantic, it is limited but so is the hydrogen in the sun.

1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#286

Post by manfredo »

e12e wrote: post #130
hokkos wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In some countries maybe but in a lot of others there are days with almost no sun, batteries are not for seasonal storage.

I don't know about a lot . I live in Tromsø, Norway (69N). There aren't many populated areas this far north. And even here, solar is pretty decent for a lot of uses (Esp in combination with insulation to reduce the need for heating). We also have quite a lot of precipitation - but again, solar isn't hopeless even here. As for seasonal storage, I suspect some kind of kinetic/potential energy storage might be better th…

Over 99% of Norway's electricity is from hydroelectric plants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#287

Post by chrisco255 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #282
Accujack wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That technology is far more expensive than photovoltaic panels.... for example, the solar thermal Ivanpah project is now obsolete for that exact reason. Additionally, The storage density of molten salt is far lower than the generation capacity of a reactor.

Solar plus battery near the equator can be sized for 24/7 power with relative ease. But no one would do that, because we don't need power at the same rate all the time. Near the equator, where most people on the planet live, our need for energy is correlated with when the sun is shining and air con is running and people are awake. This is why solar is better even at the mythical "baseload" than nuclear is.

You are hand waving the complexity, cost, feasibility and trade-offs of doing this.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#288

Post by chrisco255 »

aplummer wrote: post #207
chrisco255 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar depends on weather, location and battery storage. Solar cells also require massive amounts of physical area to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant. And you can't compare a "2 gigawatt" solar installation to an equivalent nuclear installation because nuclear will produce power 24/7 at peak capacity, rain or shine. A solar plant sees a huge amount of variability and only hits peak efficienc…

Solar power in the desert produces power 24/7 by keeping the molten sand hot overnight. It’s also always sunny

I hate to break it to you but night time hits the desert as well. They don't magically escape earth's rotational spin in the desert.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#289

Post by uurrnn »

arcticbull wrote: post #255
grabbalacious wrote: post #15

>Environmentalists are divided over nuclear power, with some maintaining it is dangerous and expensive, while others say that to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 all technologies are needed. Yes, a mix of technologies. But there's more to it than that. We're going to need increasing amounts of power in the future to explore the solar system and to solve all kinds of existential problems. Energy usage is not inheren…

> ... with some maintaining it is dangerous and expensive Expensive, probably. Dangerous? Not according to the data. Lowest deaths per terawatt-hour of any energy source including solar. Yes, even if you count Chernobyl, Fukushima (where 6 folks died) and Three Mile Island (nobody died) [1] [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...

You have to understand that "Lowest deaths per terawatt-hour" is not the sole stat to look at to determine something's danger.

I think the flat amount of direct and indirect death, as well as considering the amount of people who's quality of life has diminished, but not enough to kill them.

Other energy industries have these problems too, so I have no idea how they actually compare.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#290

Post by chrisco255 »

xorfish wrote: post #256
chrisco255 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Sorry the Mediterranean Sea separates Europe from Sahara (as well as several countries) and you can't do this practically by any means. Europe doesn't own the Sahara.

The main problem with installing solar in the Sahara and transporting it to Europe is the political instability of the region. Laying cables across a sea or ocean is already routinely done.

There's communication cables laid across the sea. There's no examples I know of High Voltage transmission with enough power to operate Europe. It's not only the instability of Sahara, but laying a cable across the sea for the transmission of enough energy to power Europe would require defense of the cables. A submarine could otherwise attack the grid and take Europe offline. This is unpractical on a lot of levels and hand-waving this as a reasonable solution is silly.
Post reply on HN