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

Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

whatisnuclear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 182 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#51

Post by daneel_w »

jagermo wrote: post #21
daneel_w wrote: post #16

In Europe everyone knows that. Even the craziest of our "greens" who insist on complete domestic decommissioning know it. The reason a few European countries are shutting their nuclear power plants down isn't because they think they are unsustainable, but because they fear they may be targeted and attacked. They currently view them as the combination of a sitting duck and a powder keg.

Plus, you know, storing the waste for thousands of years without a good place to do so. Payed for by the public.

What do you mean "without a good place to do so"? Many European countries have had dedicated facilities for this for decades, some of which even manage hosting agreements for storing other European countries' spent fuel. You say this as if you think spent fuel rods are just being tossed with other metal scrap.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#52

Post by p_l »

hannob wrote: post #39
blendergeek wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1) there are no working thorium reactors This will likely soon change. > 2) breeder reactors are hazardous France seems to use them safely. > 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist It will once we use breeder reactors. The reason seawater extraction doesn't exist is that it isn't economical. With breeder reactors, the calculus would change. > 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use en…

> This will likely soon change. It's almost like nuclear fusion, just with much smaller numbers. Thorium reactors are always just a few years away - since the late 1980s.

No, they were a thing in 1950s-1960s. Things moved in other directions, especially with how USA pretty much stopped approving any design other than LWR and PWR variants where Thorium fuel cycle didn't offer much (there were non-molten salt thorium reactors)

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#53

Post by Vox_Leone »

dr_orpheus wrote: post #13

"However, billion-year sustainability does require advances in seawater uranium extraction..." This seems like a HUGE understatement. The calculations for the billion-year sustainability basically assume we have extracted every single bit of uranium from seawater. We have demonstrated extracting uranium from seawater [0] using plastic fibers with a compound that attracts the uranium+oxygen ions. But this would basica…

Anyway, mankind doesn't have 5Gy. In a mere 500My the sun`s output should make the planet uninhabitable. Even so, it's enough time for us to have two more pangeas.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#54

Post by bryanlarsen »

fsflover wrote: post #30
jagermo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, you know, storing the waste for thousands of years without a good place to do so. Payed for by the public.

So you care about a thousand-year problem but forget about the 50-year problem (climate change).

50 year problem? Climate change is an 8 year problem. That's the main reason that nuclear is infeasible, we can't do it in 8 years. We should have started building 100s of nuclear reactors 20 years ago. Doing it now is too late. Wind & solar + batteries can be built much quicker.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#55

Post by BitwiseFool »

avmich wrote: post #40
xyzzyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have good places to do so, it’s just they never are good enough to antinuclear activists.

When antinuclear activists constitute 90% of the population, the other people start to be called differently :( . Despite attempts on HN to help me, I still don't see a good way to deal with nuclear waste, which would be well explained.

Why not store the waste in Pripyat? Chernobyl already has dedicated personnel and monitoring equipment for radiation control. The area is off limits to settlement and it's not like there are NIMBY concerns. Nuclear plants already store their waste on-site, which means the footprint of the waste is small. The exclusion zone is large.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#56

Post by p_l »

api wrote: post #31
throwaway5752 wrote: post #6

1) there are no working thorium reactors 2) breeder reactors are hazardous 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use enormous amounts of energy not reflected in this. The depressing truth is this shows that current uranium oxide reserves and nuclear tech could supply global energy needs for only 6 years.

(1) is like the old argument against reusable rocket boosters: there are none, so it's not possible. The US ran a thorium reactor decades ago experimentally. The "if it hasn't flown it can't fly" mentality that Elon cited in aerospace is actually pervasive across Western thought in regard to larger scale or more challenging capital intensive physical (as opposed to information) technologies. (Elon is not superhuman.…

2) Thorium molten salts are heavy on fluoride, so... ;)

Thing is, we don't need to use either in breeder reactors - SVBR is a proof, although Bismuth production is a problem - but that's what pure lead version is for.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#57

Post by andbberger »

mekkkkkk wrote: post #33
zeryx wrote: post #9

It's incredibly frusturating that this isn't part of the public discourse, where are the pro-nuclear candidates? Which parties are pro-nuclear?

Ever since Chernobyl nuclear power has been voter kryptonite. Trying to explain how all these fancy terms changes the equations won't do anything for those who recoil just by mentioning the term. Nuclear had its run and we blew it. Literally.

There have been plenty of environmental disasters caused by oil production and that's still going strong. Ongoing use of coal for power production emits radiation far exceeding that of Chernobyl and that's still going strong.

Is it really political kryptonite or is that the oil lobby owns all of the politicians

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#58

Post by jcfrei »

avmich wrote: post #40
xyzzyz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have good places to do so, it’s just they never are good enough to antinuclear activists.

When antinuclear activists constitute 90% of the population, the other people start to be called differently :( . Despite attempts on HN to help me, I still don't see a good way to deal with nuclear waste, which would be well explained.

It's all well explained - at this point you don't want to understand the solution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

I've cited this quote before: "Despite a long-standing agreement among many experts that geological disposal can be safe, technologically feasible and environmentally sound, a large part of the general public in many countries remains skeptical as result of anti-nuclear campaigns and lack of knowledge."

It's unfortunately the case that large parts of the public (in some countries at least) prefer banning a reliable and sustainable energy source rather than risking that some guy in 10'000 years gets cancer because he recklessly trespassed into an old fuel depot.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#59

Post by p_l »

karaterobot wrote: post #37
daneel_w wrote: post #16

In Europe everyone knows that. Even the craziest of our "greens" who insist on complete domestic decommissioning know it. The reason a few European countries are shutting their nuclear power plants down isn't because they think they are unsustainable, but because they fear they may be targeted and attacked. They currently view them as the combination of a sitting duck and a powder keg.

Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal, Denmark and Austria recently issued a statement objecting to nuclear being classified as an environmentally sustainable source of power. But, that statement was being issued by an EU commision. So, it sounds to me like Europe is not a bloc on this issue. Source: https://www.dw.com/en/eu-states-split-on-classifying-nuclear...

German greens are doing a lot to push against it, indeed.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#60

Post by dahart »

Robotbeat wrote: post #17
throwaway5752 wrote: post #6

1) there are no working thorium reactors 2) breeder reactors are hazardous 3) uranium seawater extraction doesn't exist 4) if uranium seawater extraction were made to work it would use enormous amounts of energy not reflected in this. The depressing truth is this shows that current uranium oxide reserves and nuclear tech could supply global energy needs for only 6 years.

1) Untrue https://sg.news.yahoo.com/china-hopes-play-leading-role-2203... 2) Not in any way that is irreducible. 3) wrong. https://www.machinedesign.com/materials/article/21836993/ura... “Oh, that’s just proof of concept.” Yes, and even 5 grams is enough to disprove your claim it doesn’t exist. Reality is we won’t need it for an extremely long time, so why would anyone do more than proof of concept? 4) still on-net e…

Your news article link appears to state that China hopes to build a thorium reactor. It doesn’t seem say one is up and running, does it, or did I miss something?
Post reply on HN