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

191–200 of 269 posts

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

#191

Post by Reason077 »

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…

> ”if we poured in the same tax dollars and incentives to Nuclear as we are with renewables.”

We do. Modern nuclear plants (for example, Hinkley Point C in the UK) receive enormous subsidies. Far more than renewables projects (eg: offshore wind farms) get on a per-MWh-generated basis.

Or to put it another way, each $/£/€ invested in renewables generates a lot more clean energy more quickly than if that some money goes into nuclear.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be funding nuclear research and trying new things, but for now it’s hard to justify building new nuclear plants when better alternatives with better economics/ROI are available.

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

#192

Post by ncmncm »

_dain_ wrote: post #99
margalabargala wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is inconceivable that any such project will ever produce enough value to pay for the absurd level of capital investment and operational costs just to make them operate at all In and of itself that may be correct, but they could provide valuable stepping stones to future systems that are much cheaper, simpler, and more efficient, which could not exist without first creating these large expensive projects. The val…

Prime example of sunk-cost rationalization. When has such a gargantuan expenditure of time and resources ever produced the promised second-order benefits that outweigh the lack of first-order benefits? Neutron fission was discovered in 1938, ten years later we'd flattened two cities with it, and ten years after that we had working, profitable power stations. Theory to useful first-order application to useful second-o…

Not even for physicists, mostly.

It is welfare for the otherwise mostly military contractors who get contracts for construction. It would be overwhelmingly cheaper to just pay the physicists, even if we supported tem times as many.

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

#193

Post by ncmncm »

mlindner wrote: post #92
ncmncm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not Tokamak fusion. That is a dead end. ITER steals the funding that might otherwise have got aneutronic FRC fusion working by now.

Correction: But not low-magnetic field Tokamak. High magnetic field Tokamak are a lot smaller and could fit on a large spacecraft. They're room sized, not skyscraper sized.

Anything involving neutron capture is a dead end, for spacecraft especially.

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

#194

Post by acidburnNSA »

voz_ wrote: post #188
acidburnNSA wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DISCLAIMER: I am a nuclear expert who got into nuclear to help fight climate change. > if only because the upper bound potential for damage is so much higher. Chernobyl was a nuclear excursion that blew the roof wide open and shot fuel out into the air. Air rushed in and ignited a nearly inextinguishable graphite fire that propelled the nuclear fuel high into the atmosphere. There was no containment structure around…

Thanks for the resources. > I am a nuclear expert who got into nuclear to help fight climate change. I think that is very noble. I am thinking of eventually moving my career to solar or wind for the same motivations. Chernobyl was partially contained, it could have gone far, far worse. IIRC only 1 of 4 reactors exploded? I suppose hypotheticals are not extremely useful, but what is the hypothetical upper bound on the…

The hypothetical upper bound of a reactor accident is that 1 radioactive atom gets inhaled by each creature on Earth and the decay of that atom causes a fatal cancer and every living thing dies.

There are ~equally unlikely life-ending upper bounds of all energy sources. For example, you could have world-ending wars and famines from solar and wind if a superlarge volcano largely blocks out the sun for a few years. Or they could lead to world-ending land wars over sunny and windy areas.

Today, in reality, we have clear and present and known dangers like fossil and biofuel that are currently killing millions and also causing climate change. These things make 84% of our primary energy as a world today. Shifting away from these things to the things low on the ourworldindata graphic above (low carbon, low risk) is a net benefit. Worrying about exceedingly unlikely worst cases is not necessarily productive or useful. Considering them is well and good, sure. But IMHO one must dismiss them quickly based on 60 years of operational experience.

In other words, if someone is currently attacking you and you can pepper spray them, it's probably better to do so than to worry about whether or not the pepper will cause the house to combust.

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

#195

Post by _dain_ »

hkt wrote: post #139
_dain_ wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prime example of sunk-cost rationalization. When has such a gargantuan expenditure of time and resources ever produced the promised second-order benefits that outweigh the lack of first-order benefits? Neutron fission was discovered in 1938, ten years later we'd flattened two cities with it, and ten years after that we had working, profitable power stations. Theory to useful first-order application to useful second-o…

> When has such a gargantuan expenditure of time and resources ever produced the promised second-order benefits that outweigh the lack of first-order benefits? Pretty much all space programmes prior to the commercialisation of space. We're only at the start of that, too: today imaging satellites and internet connections, tomorrow potentially heavy industry, solar power generation and mineral extraction. Who knows wha…

>Pretty much all space programmes prior to the commercialisation of space. We're only at the start of that, too: today imaging satellites and internet connections, tomorrow potentially heavy industry, solar power generation and mineral extraction. Who knows what else.

Those had *direct* benefits at the time, immediately: satellites of all kinds, classified military stuff, and the dickwaving pleasure of putting a man on the moon before the Soviets.

The comparison to space would make sense if we spent billions of dollars building a single large rocket starting in 1950, finally launched it in 1975, with a payload of nothing but styrofoam. Then tried to justify it by saying that by 1990 we'll have something useful.

Even then, the space programme was a decadent swamp of pork-barrel spending and vanity project scams like the Space Shuttle and the SLS. I severely doubt that the benefit to humanity outweighed the money spent and lives lost on that crap.

The problem with saying "the benefits just take a really long time to come about" is that it's completely unfalsifiable, at least within the lifetimes of the people who profit from the funding today. They can just dangle that "second-order benefits" carrot in front of the rest of us suckers until they retire.

https://scottlocklin.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/spotting-vapor...

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

#196

Post by wolfram74 »

BlueTemplar wrote: post #143
wolfram74 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact fission is classified as green /might/ impact fusion's future classification, but who knows. I was listening to a podcast and a disillusioned engineer said "environmentalists favorite nuclear power plant is always one that doesn't exist, as soon as it's ready to be built it's ready to be protested". Probably an instance of many groups under one label acting disparately, but I get the sentiment :/

I don't see why - assuming that we actually manage to make power-positive fusion, there's no question that it would be much "greener" than nuclear fission, without the need to deal with spent fuel and without the accident contamination risks.

DT fusion releases the majority of it's energy (14 out of 17 MeV) as neutron's, there will be radioactive waste to deal with, and it will rapidly be considered an unacceptable risk compared to coal and natural gas, because reasons that will seem perfectly rational to people at the time.

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

#197

Post by njarboe »

One can hope that the complexity, size, potential hazards, and expense of getting power from nuclear reactions can be greatly reduced in the future. Like Charles Babbage's difference engines [1] that were replaced by a whole new way of doing calculations with electronics, I don't think there is any first principle reason small and safe nuclear powers sources couldn't exist. The big problem in discovering/inventing them is the regulations and public fear around radioactive materials. Radioactivity is dangerous but so are a lot of technologies when they first were discovered. Steam power, chemical explosives, oil refining, etc. No one can really tinker around nuclear materials, try new things, and iterate quickly. The US could really help jump start new nuclear tech if they would designate an isolated location where the rules and regulations around handling radioactive material was greatly relaxed. The former test site in Nevada might be a good place.

Fully informed consent for the people working there with each lab spaced out to confine any unexpected high exposures to the people working on their own experiments. A certain portion of the population desires doing dangerous and risky things. Look at all the extreme sports these days. It would be great to create a way to allow them to take dangerous risks that are deeply meaningful, intellectually challenging, potentially financially lucrative, and productive for society at large.

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

#198

Post by prionassembly »

cstross wrote: post #95
nottorp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accelerando is geek bait. His best work is the Laundry series which he's still working on. Disclaimer: no idea what his opinion of his work is.

My opinion? I began writing the stories that turned into Accelerando in 1998, largely to keep myself from having a work-induced nervous breakdown during the dot-com bubble. I finished it in 2003/04. It's journeyman work, and I like to think I'm both a better writer and a deeper/broader thinker than I was back then: it's no masterpiece, and I'm a little embarrassed by its staying power among the folks here.

"Accelerando" is an awesome name, and it came on the scene just as the "exponential pace!" thing was going on in the zeitgeist.

I feel like you want to move beyond being the "Accelerando guy". You have my best wishes on that.

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

#199

Post by cesarb »

hkt wrote: post #146
pfdietz wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar panels do not require rare earth materials.

Wind turbines do though - neodynium, if memory serves.

Do they require neodynium permanent magnets? AFAIK, there are generators (including big generators at hydroelectric power plants) which use electromagnets instead. The same applies to electric motors; there are some which use permanent magnets, and some (induction motors) which don't.
Post reply on HN