Activists who embrace nuclear power • Hacker News Board

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#111

Post by undefined1 » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #97

undefined1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much of that is due to regulations or other overhead or inefficiencies? e.g., "China Tariffs Blocked Bill Gates’ Plan for Safe Nuclear Power" https://futurism.com/trump-china-tariffs-bill-gates-nuclear-... also, SpaceX managed to make reusable rockets, I just have to imagine we could make nuclear energy feasible if we approached it from first principles and took a hard look at the entire process.

I always ask: what regulation would you change? Nobody in the nuclear industry has suggestions for what is unnecessary, as far as I can tell. And as Texas showed us last week, without regulations, profit motive alone is not enough to maintain proper equipment. The nuclear plant that tripped off could have made months worth of profit in less than a day. Yet they did not do simple weatherization preparations that they…

it's an open question.

but obviously there's no such thing as perfect regulation. it's imperfect, just as with everything else. so you have to ask the question.

regulations are often good and necessary, but they also often outlive their purpose and we end up with stagnation and regulatory capture from large corporations, where startups can't compete. or in the case of nuclear, even a Bill Gates' backed company has a hard time being able to build.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#112

Post by einpoklum » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:35 PM UTC

ssijak wrote: post #46

Now that launching stuff into orbit is getting much cheaper, is there any reasonable calculation to just ship nuclear waste into orbit? Or even further away (crashing it into Sun would be ideal but too expensive I guess)

NIMBY on steroids: Not on my back-yard planet :-)

Luckily for you there aren't other sentients in the Sol system.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#113

Post by afterburner » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:37 PM UTC

hntrader wrote: post #106

afterburner wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, what the hell are you talking about. These are bad faith arguments. Moving goalposts, redefining everything. What a joke.

I'll put aside your rudeness (I assume you think this is a status contest, or maybe you've just misunderstood my intentions) and try to explain again. Solar being cheaper than nuclear makes it a foregone conclusion for daytime electricity supply. However the direct comparison you were making in the first paragraph of your original post between nuclear price and solar price is nonsensical because they're not in direct…

Let me get this straight. You think every time I mention solar, I mean solar without storage? Lol have fun arguing with yourself.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#114

Post by airhead969 » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:39 PM UTC

undefined1 wrote: post #107

airhead969 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gimme a break. Don't pull the Reagan/Bush/libertarian "all regs are bad" line. It's tired. The NRC knows their job, have excellent people, and are good at it. It's like questioning whether we need the NTSB or not.

you're setting up and attacking a strawman. didn't say all regs are bad. obviously you have to identify which regulations are good and which are not, or those no longer necessary, and find a balance so you don't quash innovation. like the example I gave with Bill Gates nuclear project.

Oh so now some nuclear industry regulations are "bad." Then who knows better than NRC engineers and scientists, legitimately aiming to ensure the industry doesn't die from mass-casualty events, public harm, or unworkable costs?

Maybe before throwing shade on something you know nothing about, it's often best to not prove that you're speaking from your tail end. ; )

EDIT: You made a bunch of edits. No, you in particular and no one else have to state which regs are bad if you're making this presumption. "Innovation" and the stability of risk management are often at cross-purposes; don't upset what works and is standardized for consumerist novelty in a fucking nuclear reactor.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#115

Post by ortusdux » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #8

Articles like this miss the main point and instead focus on culture war material. There are plenty of sites that would happily accept more nuclear being built, but all other forms of energy have undercut the cost of nuclear. It's no longer cost competitive, and places like China that adopt a "let's try everything and see what works best" approach have heavily pulled back on nuclear. The issues aren't safety, waste, a…

I've done a fair amount of research into molten salt reactors, and if we can solve the containment issue they should be very cost effective. The molten salts are extremely corrosive, which cuts their lifespan down to ~5 years. Newer designs should reach 10 years and there is extensive research into designing systems that will last 20+ years.

They should be much cheaper to build and operate because they have several inherent safety features. They operate at one atmosphere, so you don't need expensive pressure containment systems. The fissile material is already melted, so meltdowns are basically impossible. Most designs have a drain line to a gravity fed safety containment vessel full of control rods. The drain line is actively cooled to solidify the salt, forming a plug that automatically melts during a power loss or over-temperature event.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#116

Post by glogla » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:45 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #97

undefined1 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

how much of that is due to regulations or other overhead or inefficiencies? e.g., "China Tariffs Blocked Bill Gates’ Plan for Safe Nuclear Power" https://futurism.com/trump-china-tariffs-bill-gates-nuclear-... also, SpaceX managed to make reusable rockets, I just have to imagine we could make nuclear energy feasible if we approached it from first principles and took a hard look at the entire process.

I always ask: what regulation would you change? Nobody in the nuclear industry has suggestions for what is unnecessary, as far as I can tell. And as Texas showed us last week, without regulations, profit motive alone is not enough to maintain proper equipment. The nuclear plant that tripped off could have made months worth of profit in less than a day. Yet they did not do simple weatherization preparations that they…

One common complaint is that every plant is a special snowflake that is validated, qualified and certified from scratch. Building more at once as a single project using a single plan could bring a lot of efficiency in the process.

I think that was the promise of Small Modular Reactors - you certify reactor by itself, making the plant certification much easier and faster. I'm not sure that materialised, though.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#117

Post by hntrader » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:50 PM UTC

cygx wrote: post #48

hntrader wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the point of nuclear to provide power when it's not sunny as a cheaper alternative to storage in batteries? If so then what's the purpose of comparing the cost of solar and nuclear as if they're directly competing for the same use case?

Nuclear reactors don't make sense as peaker plants, hence are not a battery replacement as such. You're correct that one should factor in the cost of storage if one wants to considers renewables as an alternative to nuclear for providing base load power.

Thanks. Any ideas how storage impacts the total cost of using only solar+wind?

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#118

Post by airhead969 » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:52 PM UTC

glogla wrote: post #116

epistasis wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always ask: what regulation would you change? Nobody in the nuclear industry has suggestions for what is unnecessary, as far as I can tell. And as Texas showed us last week, without regulations, profit motive alone is not enough to maintain proper equipment. The nuclear plant that tripped off could have made months worth of profit in less than a day. Yet they did not do simple weatherization preparations that they…

One common complaint is that every plant is a special snowflake that is validated, qualified and certified from scratch. Building more at once as a single project using a single plan could bring a lot of efficiency in the process. I think that was the promise of Small Modular Reactors - you certify reactor by itself, making the plant certification much easier and faster. I'm not sure that materialised, though.

SMRs like SSR heatpipes are interesting. The issues of decentralization of controlled nuclear sites are many. It's better to have many SMRs in one location for safety, security, and backbench of resources and talent for engineering and operations. Simply, it scales better. Giving every Tom, Jane, and Sally corporation or town an SMR is an absolutely terrible idea.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#119

Post by chihuahua » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 5:53 PM UTC

ssijak wrote: post #46

Now that launching stuff into orbit is getting much cheaper, is there any reasonable calculation to just ship nuclear waste into orbit? Or even further away (crashing it into Sun would be ideal but too expensive I guess)

Some rocket launches fail, and it would be a problem if you're constantly launching radioactive waste into space and 1% of those launches end with a crash that scatters dangerous material on the ground.

Re: Activists who embrace nuclear power

#120

Post by cygx » Sun, Feb 21, 2021, 6:00 PM UTC

hntrader wrote: post #117

cygx wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear reactors don't make sense as peaker plants, hence are not a battery replacement as such. You're correct that one should factor in the cost of storage if one wants to considers renewables as an alternative to nuclear for providing base load power.

Thanks. Any ideas how storage impacts the total cost of using only solar+wind?

Not off-hand, no. Also note that such figures will be estimates: We've yet to raise the share of renewables to levels where such costs really become significant...