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

Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

antipope.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 269 posts

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#111

Post by isolli »

Spooky23 wrote: post #86
bocytron wrote: post #21

French power grid agency RTE made a report[0] forecasting 2050 France energy mix, and because of loss of knowledge and increased security measures, even with strong political will, France won't be able to maintain its 70% nuclear power electricity share. Most nuclear-intensive scenario in this report is max 50% nuclear energy. [0] https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2021-12/Futurs-Ene... in french

It’s funny when I read the Foundation novels, it seemed silly to me that people could lose track of technology and fall backwards. Then you read something like this and realize Asimov had a point!

On this topic, I recommend watching this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#112

Post by a-dub »

tda wrote: post #97

I bet the Fukushima backup power system would have fit this explanation perfectly: > in addition to the grid connection, there are four twelve megawatt diesel generator stations spaced around each corner of the plant -- each with two generators, any one of which is able to provide operating power to keep the reactor's safety systems working. Unfortunately for Fukushima, all generators were flooded by a single Tsunami…

whatever did happen to pebble bed and all the other emerging nuclear technologies from 20 years ago that were supposed to move the bar into passive fail-safe territory and eliminate the waste problem through spent fuel reprocessing?

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#113

Post by dimitrios1 »

tda wrote: post #107
konschubert wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your risk assessment, but I have to say that given the choice between a climate apocalypse and a nuclear power buildout, I would choose the latter.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

This is my issue with the debate between Nuclear proponents and Renewable proponents (most of whom seem to be nuclear detractors): They usually compare what is possible in a future state with renewables to what is currently possible with Nuclear technology from decades ago.

I want people to start imagining what innovation in Nuclear can look like again. If you want to compare current state to current state, then neither are going to move the needle enough. But let's imagine what can be possible, especially if we poured in the same tax dollars and incentives to Nuclear as we are with renewables. We don't have to imagine that we will be decommissioning the same honking reactors from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Let's imagine what's possible with next-gen plants.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#114

Post by zokier »

dekhn wrote: post #78
le-mark wrote: post #6

Always a treat to read something by Charles Stross. Seems like Accelerando was required reading for the previous generation, is it still? I was not familiar with the UK advanced gas cooled reactors, which use CO2 to cool the core and transfer heat to the steam. From the name it seems to be gas and not supercritical CO2 although I may have that wrong. Power generation is the one topic that makes thermodynamics crystal…

I was very disappointed when I finally learned how a nuclear power plant worked because I assumed there was some really cool way to turn nuclear energy into electricity (apparently this is still challenging to do at power plant scale).

RTGs are even more hilariously stupid simple. They are literally just lump of radioactive material that is slowly decaying by itself and heating a thermocouple, producing electricity. No moving parts, no complicated reactor chambers and systems, no nothing.

edit: fissile -> radioactive

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#115

Post by tablespoon »

Spooky23 wrote: post #86
bocytron wrote: post #21

French power grid agency RTE made a report[0] forecasting 2050 France energy mix, and because of loss of knowledge and increased security measures, even with strong political will, France won't be able to maintain its 70% nuclear power electricity share. Most nuclear-intensive scenario in this report is max 50% nuclear energy. [0] https://assets.rte-france.com/prod/public/2021-12/Futurs-Ene... in french

It’s funny when I read the Foundation novels, it seemed silly to me that people could lose track of technology and fall backwards. Then you read something like this and realize Asimov had a point!

> It’s funny when I read the Foundation novels, it seemed silly to me that people could lose track of technology and fall backwards.

> Then you read something like this and realize Asimov had a point!

And also wildly over-optimistic (as is typical for SF). In the books, I think it took something like 10,000 years to loose the technical knowledge. I bet we could do it in 100.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#116

Post by soperj »

a-dub wrote: post #112
tda wrote: post #97

I bet the Fukushima backup power system would have fit this explanation perfectly: > in addition to the grid connection, there are four twelve megawatt diesel generator stations spaced around each corner of the plant -- each with two generators, any one of which is able to provide operating power to keep the reactor's safety systems working. Unfortunately for Fukushima, all generators were flooded by a single Tsunami…

whatever did happen to pebble bed and all the other emerging nuclear technologies from 20 years ago that were supposed to move the bar into passive fail-safe territory and eliminate the waste problem through spent fuel reprocessing?

passive fail-safe already existed 20 years ago. CANDU Reactor is exactly that. Doesn't even need enriched uranium.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#117

Post by inglor_cz »

thehappypm wrote: post #50
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #41

Meanwhile, in China: https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Demonstration-HT...

210 MW? That’s rather small, no?

Wouldn't more small reactors be better for management of power production? If one of 20 needs maintenance, you still have the other 19 to supply consumers with electricity.

While if you need to power down a huge reactor for maintenance, its backup must be of the same huge capacity.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#118

Post by otagekki »

tda wrote: post #107
konschubert wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your risk assessment, but I have to say that given the choice between a climate apocalypse and a nuclear power buildout, I would choose the latter.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

The introduction of this video is a good support to the parent comment above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62ASvupr8Zg

It's a massive logistics challenge and it would require an unprecedented level of cooperation between Saharan nations and given how unstable the region is as of current... I'm afraid it's not happening for another 30-50 years, when climate change will probably corner these countries or their rich neighbors living further north. That being said, Australia is a better candidate to this due to it being a single country and a very stable one at that...

Once Australia proves the concept, Africans can follow suit, and we'll build solar arrays over the oceans, and then we'll become a type 1 civilization.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#119

Post by koide »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #113
tda wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If only it was a conscious choice... I fear significant climate has happened already, and even if we stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow will continue for a long time to come. Putting up a few km2 of solar in e.g. the Sahara now is surely less effort than decommissioning dozens of nuclear plants in 50 years.

This is my issue with the debate between Nuclear proponents and Renewable proponents (most of whom seem to be nuclear detractors): They usually compare what is possible in a future state with renewables to what is currently possible with Nuclear technology from decades ago. I want people to start imagining what innovation in Nuclear can look like again. If you want to compare current state to current state, then neit…

I think your assessment of what is currently possible with nuclear technology is somewhat skewed. The time from start to plan to put in production of an old technology nuclear plant is seven years on average (which honestly sounds optimistic). Whereas utility scale solar can be deployed in half the time (which will likely be reduced because most of that time is permits and other legal requirements.)

All this is current tech for both. And honestly, solar panel and energy storage technology improvements are already coming down the pipeline whereas the next-gen nuclear has been "almost ready" for decades.

Re: Nothing like this will be built again (2002)

#120

Post by tablespoon »

jltsiren wrote: post #73
topynate wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would contradict "even if she wanted to, France couldn't". If she wanted to, France could make nuclear engineering a highly-paid profession with strong job security. It would just cost more money.

It's impossible to make binding long-term promises in a democracy. Voters are allowed to change their minds, and the risk that they do that and completely destroy nuclear engineering as a career option is always present. Something like software engineering is a much safer career option, because the risk that your country will categorically ban it is pretty low. And because it doesn't tie you to a small number of poss…

> It's impossible to make binding long-term promises in a democracy. Voters are allowed to change their minds, and the risk that they do that and completely destroy nuclear engineering as a career option is always present.

That's true of any political system, the problem with democracy is more that it's invariably fickle. A dictator may also be fickle, but there's a least a chance he has a long term vision with a late payoff that he pursues for a his lifetime.

Post reply on HN