Ultra Safe Nuclear • Hacker News Board

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#251

Post by wrsh07 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:21 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #240

ajross wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

So, why did so many countries/companies originally build nuclear reactors, if the economics inherently don’t make sense? Has something changed?

Yes we have more stringent safety requirements on nuclear, driving up costs

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#252

Post by ajross » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #240

ajross wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

So, why did so many countries/companies originally build nuclear reactors, if the economics inherently don’t make sense? Has something changed?

To make bombs. And what's changed now is we have enough bombs.

Seriously, even the reactors that aren't expressly breeding fuel were designed with an eye to the technology and as part of programs in the 50's-70's to build out expertise in this critical technology area of national security.

Countries wanted bombs. To make bombs you need a nuclear industry. Ergo, everyone who wanted bombs built civilian reactors, without exception.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#253

Post by GuB-42 » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:26 PM UTC

redm wrote: post #5

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.

1) I don't think its a zero sum game, nuclear doesn't preclude solar or wind. In-fact, thats how it's working now. Competition will drive improvements and optimization. 2) Accidents do happen with technology and the repercussions of nuclear accidents are serious. That doesn't mean we shouldn't re-think the technology and how it can be applied in a better or safer way, including cold fusion.

> I don't think its a zero sum game, nuclear doesn't preclude solar or wind.

That's what I'd like to think, but it doesn't seem to be a good match.

Nuclear plants want constant power output, they are ideal for base load. Solar and wind production vary during the day, and they don't always meet demand. That problem is called the "duck curve": too much is produced during the day and too little just after sunset. That's the reason why the best plants to complement solar and wind are those that can vary their output on demand. And unfortunately, that's typically coal (see Germany). Hydro would be ideal but its capacity depends is limited by the terrain.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#254

Post by ajross » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #241

ajross wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

Two questions: (1) Night time. (2) Quiet time. Of course there are batteries! But factoring them in seems to increase the cost significantly. Power lines and cross-continent smart grids are fine, too — but also not free to build and operate. So a self-contained unit that does not depend on weather, does not need refueling, and includes its own energy accumulator has some appeal.

Right. So show me the balance sheet where building out reactors makes sense. Because as of right now it clearly doesn't, and the proof is that no one is building reactors but everyone is building windmills.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#255

Post by caditinpiscinam » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

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…

> Safety is no longer the reason Nuclear is not worth it

Why "no longer"? I did some reading on Fukushima the other week (I think it was an anniversary of the accident?) and was surprised to learn that multiple studies predicted the disaster years before it happened, only to be ignored. Even as engineering advances, if people keep choosing to take shortcuts and ignore glaring concerns, does it really matter? Is there a reason to believe that nuclear (or the energy industry in general) is acting more prudently than in the past?

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#256

Post by nine_k » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:31 PM UTC

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #240

ajross wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

So, why did so many countries/companies originally build nuclear reactors, if the economics inherently don’t make sense? Has something changed?

Producing plutonium, I suppose.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#257

Post by thomasfromcdnjs » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:33 PM UTC

Countries that go nuclear will have an advantage in the 21st century.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#258

Post by littlestymaar » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:33 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #237

hairytrog wrote: post #156

Two interesting things to see here, of many. They are really planning the sites to be temporary compared to the solar/wind/ and other industrial power plants that have little or no plan for returning their sites to the original virgin soil. And two, they seem to use a molten salt loop like in concentrated solar to meet variable demand without changing the power level of the reactor, which you can't really do because…

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

> the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost

But most of the time, the “cost” of renewable is undefined, because you simply can't use it: you need the grid to compensate for the intermittent generation. No battery won't be enough unless you are in a really specific situation:

- hydroelectric source available, in which case, it's a no-brainer, but most of those sites are already exploited (hydroelectric power was historically the first to come).

- if tpu want to go for solar power, you need tropical or subtropical area, where you have the same amount of sun during the whole year. Otherwise you either need to have batteries able to sustain the whole winter, or dimension your system for winter (which dramatically increases the cost and you end up with a lot of unused power during summertimes).

- for wind power, you need a regularly windy area (the top of a hill, the middle of the sea) and batteries because the world best wind power sites still don't produce every days (storms means shutdown for instance).

If you don't have the perfect spot for one of those, the batteries aren't even a solution[1], because you'd need something like two to four weeks of power in terms of storage…

Or, you could go for a mix between fossil fuel and renewable, which is why the oil and gas industry is making a big push towards renewables …

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#259

Post by littlestymaar » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:37 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #254

nine_k wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two questions: (1) Night time. (2) Quiet time. Of course there are batteries! But factoring them in seems to increase the cost significantly. Power lines and cross-continent smart grids are fine, too — but also not free to build and operate. So a self-contained unit that does not depend on weather, does not need refueling, and includes its own energy accumulator has some appeal.

Right. So show me the balance sheet where building out reactors makes sense. Because as of right now it clearly doesn't, and the proof is that no one is building reactors but everyone is building windmills.

Everyone is building heavily subsidized windmill. And nobody is building reactors[1] mostly because it's really unpopular (which it pretty much deserves IMHO after decades of shady practices) but it's not a matter of technical merit (and it's never the case).

[1] except those who do, China leading the pack.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#260

Post by rtkwe » Thu, Sep 17, 2020, 11:38 PM UTC

rtx wrote: post #190

lmilcin wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, exactly. Even though it is costly to deal with, per kilogram, there is very little of it when compared to amount of energy produced. An atomic plant might use couple dozen tonnes of fuel which is peanuts compared to the amount of waste from coal power plant. There are no technical problems with storage that we can't solve. The biggest problem is that nobody wants it around.

There is no problem at all. Even a nuclear disaster is less harmful than the pollution we currently releasing in the atmosphere.

Singular or irregular events are easier to comprehend and be afraid of than something like pollution that's somewhat invisible and happening everywhere.