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

61–70 of 182 posts

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#61

Post by api »

p_l wrote: post #56
api wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

Fluoride is better behaved when it's paired with a good BFF as it is in a salt. Free fluoride should invoke the "run away!" clip from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#62

Post by karaterobot »

rootsudo wrote: post #4

It's amazing how gasoline itself was only used from 1892 to current time. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/gasoline/history-of-gaso... So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years." That's so cool, and puts alot of conversation about environmentalism into prospective.

> So imagine 150 years of gasoline usage help lead the world to be green and change to an energy source for "4 billion years."

I'm interpreting this sentence as meaning "think about how we've far we've come in 150 years: from inventing gasoline, to being in a position to consider an environmentally sustainable energy source on the time scale of 4 billion years".

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#63

Post by p_l »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #54
fsflover wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And still won't work in 8 year timescale because of their intermittence and that batteries are a bit like fusion.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#64

Post by dodobirdlord »

cedilla wrote: post #27

Nuclear energy is sustainable only with technology we don't have yet. All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades. And the sea water plan relies on technology that has been shown to be theoretically possible but not yet shown to be remotely feasible. At the proposed scale of kilotons per year, this would require filtering hu…

Nuclear energy is already sustainable with technology we have, breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing. They have been built since the 60s, some are still in operation, and more are under construction in India and China, where there is still an appetite for nuclear power.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#65

Post by Tepix »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #45
cedilla wrote: post #27

Nuclear energy is sustainable only with technology we don't have yet. All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades. And the sea water plan relies on technology that has been shown to be theoretically possible but not yet shown to be remotely feasible. At the proposed scale of kilotons per year, this would require filtering hu…

>"But the problem nuclear is that either way, it's far too late." Sadly I see no other viable alternative. Wind and Solar are seemingly clean but require a ton of resources, have a massive footprint, and just don't scale with on-demand needs during bad weather. >"All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades." No risk of accid…

What's the massive footprint you talk about? If we put enough solar panels to provide electricity for all humans into the Sahara desert, it only covers a small area.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#66

Post by drclau »

rich_sasha wrote: post #50
cedilla wrote: post #27

Nuclear energy is sustainable only with technology we don't have yet. All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades. And the sea water plan relies on technology that has been shown to be theoretically possible but not yet shown to be remotely feasible. At the proposed scale of kilotons per year, this would require filtering hu…

> All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades. So, like storage for renewables? Seems to me, we're not concerned on R&D budgets, so we should pursue all relevant methods of decarbonisation, of which nuclear is a very promising one.

> we're not concerned on R&D budgets

Just curious, why do you think so? I do think this should be the case, but I just don't see it happening.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#67

Post by Zigurd »

This is a rehash of breeder reactor talking points that are decades old. Some, like seawater extraction have always been pie in the sky. Breeder technologies have a track record. That track record is why new breeder reactors are not being built under any political or regulatory system.

It is no coincidence that nuclear reactor PR has ramped up during the COP conference. It's last call.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#68

Post by throwaway5752 »

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…

I have followed the nuclear for more than 3 decades and invested in junior E&P for more than a decade. Everyone, understandably, hopes for something to drop in and save us from the situation we're in with the climate and energy intensity. Nuclear will be a part of it, but everything I said in my post was true like it or not. Plans for a thorium reactor do not amount to a commercial thorium reactor. Also, 5 grams is useless and I do discount it - the seawater extraction tech is trivial, but doing it at scale and positive net energy is not.

Everything I said can change. But let's not fool ourselves about the current state of tech. Part of the frustration is the "fake it til you make it" culture in tech being a terrible fit for nuclear, which requires thinking in centuries for site placement, staffing, and waste management.

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#69

Post by Tepix »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #64
cedilla wrote: post #27

Nuclear energy is sustainable only with technology we don't have yet. All the affordable reactor designs with no risk of accidents or proliferation are just 10 years away like they have been for four decades. And the sea water plan relies on technology that has been shown to be theoretically possible but not yet shown to be remotely feasible. At the proposed scale of kilotons per year, this would require filtering hu…

Nuclear energy is already sustainable with technology we have, breeder reactors and fuel reprocessing. They have been built since the 60s, some are still in operation, and more are under construction in India and China, where there is still an appetite for nuclear power.

We have this stuff on paper.

Stuff tends not to work out in practise. It costs more, it's unreliable etc.

If this were a solved problem why is there so much nuclear waste that has not been bred and reprocessed?

Re: Nuclear energy is long-term sustainable

#70

Post by p_l »

dvh wrote: post #49

Right now, today, small village can take $30k from their budget and build small solar plant in their backyard in month or two, and then scale it up next year, and the next year. No multi-decade committees and multinational efforts needed. Nuclear will never be cheaper, solar is practically infinitely scalable. Time for nuclear was in the 80s, now that we have better options, we should pool all our resources into sola…

And that power will be uncontrollable, annoying on the grid (demand and supply must be in sync otherwise !FUN! happens), and costs of storage that make for fully renewable grid quickly eclipse costs of the more expensive nuclear options.
Post reply on HN