Ultra Safe Nuclear • Hacker News Board

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#61

Post by adrianN » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:03 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #50

adrianN wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expensive bit about nuclear is not the fuel. It's making sure that the fuel stays where it is supposed to be. A different design might change the cost of that dramatically.

Not really. It's rather expensive (billions of dollars) to setup a nuclear plant in the first place, even before a single fuel rod shows up. Meanwhile solar is so cheap and easy that you can install panels on your roof yourself.

I agree that traditional nuclear makes little economic sense. But I disagree that this is inherent to nuclear power, because there might be a different reactor design that doesn't cost billions of dollars to set up. We just haven't found it yet.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#62

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #34

nimish wrote: post #18

Safety is no longer the reason Nuclear is not worth it. The sun is a giant, free nuclear fusion plant in the sky. We can capture 1/5th of its output per square meter. For free! The wind -- caused by solar heating -- also generates free power. The cost of harvesting it is now so low, and will always continue to decline as any technology will, that any fuel-based generation mechanism is going to be rendered uneconomic…

> Investing in any such generator needs to be for other reasons like land scarcity. Yeah, there's no upper limit on energy usage. In several decades, mark my words, we will have a solar panel related deforestation problem.

There is actually an apparent upper limit on energy usage once countries reach a certain level of development. See for example [1] and [2]. Total energy consumption in Western countries has been level or dropping for years as devices that use energy become more efficient.

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39092

[2] https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/opinion/eu-at-risk-o...

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#63

Post by evgen » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

dangerface wrote: post #58

V6HBGNQHU wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Land usage is a big factor. Most people are interested in solar because they care about the environment so taken up vast swathes of land for all the solar panels, destroying habits, is counter productive. Another downside of solar or wind is that it is intermittent and thus will require massive battery systems or alternative conventional power plants to provide energy the rest of the time.

If you are short on space for your solar panels put them on your roof, problem solved. There are cheaper better ways of storing electricity like water stores, and this is what they use not batteries, they have never used batteries thats just a Tesla thing.

> put them on your roof, problem solved.

This is why solar kills more people every year than nuclear, and your hydro storage and batteries are not even a drop in the ocean compared to total load or daily capacity of even a small grid.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#64

Post by aqme28 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

detritus wrote: post #44

dangerface wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (solar, wind, etc) has such a strong tailwind. Do they? I love renewables but for some reason the masses still just don't think you can get enough energy out of sky farts and hippy sun rays. The fact that ALL energy in our solar system comes from the sun is irrelevant the sun just doesn't feel very powerful. The public knows that nuclear is super powerful. > how do you convince a public that has seen Chernobyl, Thr…

> The fact that ALL energy in our solar system comes from the sun is irrelevant Except human-made nuclear fission energy on Earth, somewhat ironically, given the thread.

And geothermal.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#65

Post by TheOtherHobbes » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:06 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #7

xibalba wrote: post #3

Assuming nuclear truly can be ultra safe, how do you convince a public that has seen Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima to get on board? Particularly when the "competition" (solar, wind, etc) has such a strong tailwind.

Deaths per joule are the lowest out of any major fuel source except for maybe wind, which is debatable depending on your assumptions about the future.

That's deaths per joule so far. How would nuclear compete if far more renewables were installed, producing far more joules?

How about clean-up costs? Estimates for Fukushima vary from $76bn to $660bn depending who you ask.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/clearing-the-radi...

How about general carelessness?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-weapons-s...

This is not unusual for the nuke industry, both civil and military.

Which is the problem. This is primarily a managerial issue, not a technological one. And the quality of executive and managerial decision-making of all kinds across the entire industry is nowhere near the standard required for future confidence. Especially given increasing risks from extreme climate change events.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#66

Post by mdorazio » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

steeve wrote: post #43

xibalba wrote: post #3

Assuming nuclear truly can be ultra safe, how do you convince a public that has seen Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima to get on board? Particularly when the "competition" (solar, wind, etc) has such a strong tailwind.

How many deaths for Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima? Would that number change your mind?

How many people with increased cancer rates from solar? Stop quoting deaths from nuclear accidents - the harm from nuclear incidents goes far beyond killing people outright.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#67

Post by dangerface » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

detritus wrote: post #44

dangerface wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (solar, wind, etc) has such a strong tailwind. Do they? I love renewables but for some reason the masses still just don't think you can get enough energy out of sky farts and hippy sun rays. The fact that ALL energy in our solar system comes from the sun is irrelevant the sun just doesn't feel very powerful. The public knows that nuclear is super powerful. > how do you convince a public that has seen Chernobyl, Thr…

> The fact that ALL energy in our solar system comes from the sun is irrelevant Except human-made nuclear fission energy on Earth, somewhat ironically, given the thread.

The fuel burned in those reactors comes from the sun and the reactor releases it.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#68

Post by shireboy » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

grawprog wrote: post #8

So why has nuclear waste become a thing that's not mentioned anymore? It was a pretty big thing in the 90's, now it seems to get brushed under the rug for all this 'safe' nuclear power marketing. It's mot just meltdowns and containment breaches that are a problem with nuclear power. None of the renewable alternatives produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored and dealt with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad…

Counterpoint: why is environmental impact of solar+batteries often not mentioned? Lithium, silicon tetrachloride, hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acid isn't exactly nice to produce or put into rivers. My 2c: have an "all of the above" approach towards research, dispassionately understand pros and cons and big-picture complexity, instead of retreating to tribes that ignore the complexity.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#69

Post by dangerface » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

aqme28 wrote: post #64

detritus wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that ALL energy in our solar system comes from the sun is irrelevant Except human-made nuclear fission energy on Earth, somewhat ironically, given the thread.

And geothermal.

ahhh you got me thats the only other source of energy in our solar system but thats the exception that proves the rule.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#70

Post by evgen » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

ceilingcorner wrote: post #60

I find it a little odd that a site called Hacker News is so bullish on nuclear power. Could there be anything less hacker than a centralized, exclusively government owned and operated source of power? No thanks. I’d rather put more resources into solar, wind, and other sources of power that don’t depend on the government to not explode and irradiate the immediate area for hundreds of years.

I think the site is bullish on nuclear power because it is overwhelmingly populated by reasonably educated people who are capable of performing risk analysis and understand cost/benefit tradeoffs. If you are looking for a herd of scared sheep who will parrot back whatever propaganda is being pushed by Greenpeace today I think you will have better luck over at Reddit.