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

Ultra Safe Nuclear

usnc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 536 posts

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#221

Post by ncallaway »

hairytrog wrote: post #189
simonebrunozzi wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which you can't really do because of Xenon poisoning Can you clarify this part? You mean that channging the power level of the reactor would cause Xenon poisoning?

I highly recommend HBO's Chernobyl. Explains a lot this stuff. Basically, as a nuclear reactor operates, it is turning the Uranium into lots of other stuff. One component of this other stuff is Xenon-135, which absorbs neutrons and basically gets in the way of nuclear reactions. This is not an issue if you keep the reactor on because there are enough neutrons to keep things going and overcome the Xenon absorption. Bu…

Scott Manley made a more condensed form of the explanation of the nuclear physics involved here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d3rzFTrLg (~21 minutes). It's an excellent explanation of the processes.

The HBO show is also an excellent drama and worth a watch.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#222

Post by socialdemocrat »

V6HBGNQHU wrote: post #55
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…

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.

Land usage is not as big problem as it seems. E.g. wind turbines must be spaced out far from each other but most of the land between them is perfectly usable for farming and animals.

As for solar. For an average western country 50m2 of solar panels on top of each household covers all electricity needs of a country.

Obviously this power is not delivered exactly when you want it but it is to give some perspective on the space required.

And you don’t need massive batteries. Many countries are building pumped hydro to store power.

You can use biomass, geothermal power. MMR and SMR reactors with molten salt thermal storage as a way of storing energy.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#223

Post by socialdemocrat »

rtx wrote: post #185
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.

Thanks for bringing up these two points. I have heard people saying lets put solar plats in deserts. They don't realize the deserts also have an Ecosystem.

The analysis I have seen suggest the dessert would be better off with solar cells. It will cool the ground improving life conditions.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#224

Post by sbierwagen »

cbmuser wrote: post #213
merb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. How long does it need to be kept safe? 2. How to find a storage facility that can keep it safe that long? 3. How to ensure that a facility does not contamine other stuff in X years? 4. if it is recycable why does nobody do it? 5. if it is so easy to store it safe, why does not country have a TRUE final depot? yeah coal is bad, but why compare it to coal in the first place when we want to reduce such things anyway?…

4. The Russians and the French do it, the US is still researching: > https://www.rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news/the-first-serial... > https://www.orano.group/en/nuclear-expertise/from-exploratio... > https://www.anl.gov/article/nuclear-fuel-recycling-could-off...

Japan also does fuel reprocessing. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...

Which is why they have a substantial stockpile of (reactor grade) plutonium. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/07/31/national/japans...

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#225

Post by aaronblohowiak »

loeg wrote: post #145
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…

> So why has nuclear waste become a thing that's not mentioned anymore? 1. Waste is mentioned every time one of these articles hits HN. 2. Waste is not and was never a real problem. Right now our strategy for radioactive coal waste is to aerosolize it and dump it into the atmosphere . Burying a few dirty cans in the ground has only ever been a barrier due to FUD.

In some places they use coal ash on the road for traction during snowy conditions >.<

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#226

Post by socialdemocrat »

evgen wrote: post #63
dangerface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is such a ridiculous and disingenuous argument. The numbers are minuscule compared to fossil fuels it is replacing. You make it sound like solar power is dangerous. That is total BS.

And nuclear numbers are totally unreliable so this is just an apples to orange comparison anyway.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#227

Post by socialdemocrat »

evgen wrote: post #113
dangerface wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wha? Becuase stuff falls off your roof and kills them? How does that compare to tiles falling off your roof and killing people? This doesn't sound like a real thing. Hydro storage is quite literaly a drop in the ocean, get it.

No, because people installing solar routinely fall and die. Because of the low power density of renewables like wind and solar you need a lot of installation sites and constant maintenance of same, which means a lot of opportunities for people to have fatal accidents. Nuclear has the lowest death rate per joule of energy provided of any available power source.

That must be one of the most desperate arguments I’ve seen in favor of nuclear power.

You might as well argue agains people having roofs because more people have accidents laying roof tiles.

You got to have a roof and you might as well put in something like Tesla solar tiles which serve as both solar cells and roof tiles.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#228

Post by throwaway522274 »

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.

Because the "hacker" in "hacker" news stands for "I copypaste javascript from stack overflow".

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#229

Post by socialdemocrat »

shakezula wrote: post #122
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…

Nuclear is the only way we’re going to be able to get ahead of climate change. Renewables do not have the energy density required at this point. In the 70s? Sure, we might have been able to get ahead of it. At this point, we’re going to need nuclear whether we like it or not. Nuclear is the only option that will provide enough power to both scrub out existing carbon from the atmosphere and reduce our output of carbon…

50m2 Solar on the roof top of every household would power An average western country. That is not a lot. And that is is an upper band as we have wind power, biomass, hydro power geothermal and many other sources of clean energy.

Offshore wind is getting really cheap and offers vast amount of unused space.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#230

Post by socialdemocrat »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #33
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…

The glaring problem (pun intended) with solar and wind is that the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow and we don't have a good way to store energy for those sunless and windless intervals.

A Tesla model 3 can power a regular house for around 4 days. It comes with bidirectional charging and so does plenty of other modern EVs. Tesla is soon coming with their million miles battery which makes this even more feasible.

You charge the car to the max while the sun shines and drain it when the sun does not shine.

Post reply on HN