ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power • Hacker News Board

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#41

Post by hedora » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:02 PM UTC

powcontech wrote: post #14

waynecochran wrote: post #9

The fundamental flaw with wind power. Prosperous economies require reliable energy when needed, so power generation must be dispatchable on demand. Intermittent wind and solar source generators can temporarily supply low-cost electric power to the grid, but with a capacity factor of about 30%. This has created demand for redundant natural gas turbine generators to provide “back up” power when there is no wind or sun.…

While dams certainly store energy I wonder how many actually have flexibility to change their output by 80% of rated capacity or more on the same timescales that wind and solar output can vary. I imagine there are a lot of environmental restrictions to keep the river flowing, avoid dewatering habitat for fish and otherwise impacting the ecosystem, and also supplying water to downstream users like farms and cities. Ca…

As I understand it, some hydro plants have a second, smaller reservoir downhill from the dam. It absorbs water from surge production, and even allows the water to be pumped back uphill.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#42

Post by barathr » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:04 PM UTC

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology.

Ironically, with concentrated solar, going lower tech, even at the expense of efficiency, might decrease costs because the materials would amount to cheap mirrors/collectors and steel pipes. Saul Griffith's classic talk highlighted that there's probably no meaningful manufacturing limit to building concentrated solar with existing industrial infrastructure:

https://longnow.org/seminars/02009/jan/16/climate-change-rec...

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#43

Post by NumberWangMan » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:10 PM UTC

slowmovintarget wrote: post #35

riffic wrote: post #5

this reads like a too good to be true pitch, so I have to ask, what's the catch? edit: these are breeder reactors? aren't there still waste and other concerns here?

There are definitely waste concerns. There are a number of other problems, though most have to do with getting up and running. Thorium is a by-product of rare-earth mineral mining. It is still radioactive, and it is also subject to all the regulatory red tape of handling any kind of radioactive material. Rare-earth mineral mining is extraordinarily destructive to the environment. When you read about rare-earth minera…

Would it be fair to say that it's not a problem that has really been solved because it's a relatively small and non urgent problem? The spent fuel isn't dangerous while it just sits there, and there isn't that much of it. My understanding is that most spent fuel just gets stored on site, because it's the easiest way. I guess my point is that having to deal with storing solid, static nuclear fuel seems like a pretty good problem to have, compared to having to somehow capture the billions of tons of CO2 that we've put into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels for power.

And I'm not sure about the relative environmental impact, but it's important to note that this thorium and uranium mining would be competing with coal mining.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#44

Post by ncmncm » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

More nuke promotion.

It doesn't matter how you spin nukes, they will always end up costing way, way more than renewables + storage. Diverting capital to nukes slows our response to global climatic catastrophe, perhaps enriching a few at the expense of the whole world.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#45

Post by spockz » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:18 PM UTC

panick21_ wrote: post #28

spockz wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With a sufficiently high base load provided by renewables the short demand spikes can be served with plants with quicker reaction times like gas plants. With sufficiently high install base of wind and solar power the base can be high enough and the excess stored or things like aluminium plants retooled to use excess energy.

So poor countries must massively over-invest in renewables and when renewables are high they have absurdly to much energy they can't do anything with leading to negative prices. And then the need to build storage to capture some of that energy and also peaker plants to cover that. Given those countries are barley able to but up coal plants right now, and are massively lacking in the power infrastructure to wildly dis…

Why focus on poor countries? Exactly for the reasons you mention I see only developed countries do this.

For the aluminium processing type plants issue, it appears steel plants and other heavy industry here in the Netherlands are investing in their own power/heat storage capabilities. Exactly so that they can operate on their own terms instead of the net having to develop a generic power storing solution.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#46

Post by gameswithgo » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:19 PM UTC

barathr wrote: post #42

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. Ironically, with concentrated solar…

No post body was provided.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#47

Post by panick21_ » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:20 PM UTC

ethbr0 wrote: post #37

panick21_ wrote: post #31

I think making a molten salt reactor work would be amazing. Doing so in a 3rd world country would be even better but it happening is really hard to see. I think more likely one of the companies working in Canada will get there first. Canada is the only international regulator of high standing who has a real strong program of trying to get such reactors actually certified. The US has woken up out of their deep, deep s…

Apparently the International Atomic Energy Agency spends ~10% of its budget on creating and sharing safety standards [0]. Unfortunately, its safety model flows through "and then allow nations to create their own standards." Ceding standards / regulation to an international-level organization for advanced reactors that meet some criteria (e.g. proliferation-resistant, under a certain power, fail-safe, minimal worst-ca…

What is the worst thing of all, the US, the one country who could actually maybe lead something like that maybe has the worst possible regulatory standard.

The US literally hard coded PWR reactor standards into the regulatory framework. Doing anything else is essentially impossible outside a few niches. That is why a number of companies re-located to Canada.

In the US you basically need to give them a design (100+ million investment), lots of money (nobody knows how much) and an unspecified amount of time (great to tell an investor) and then they will tell you what you need to do so they would consider licensing the design. And then you would actually have to go threw that licensing process.

And people are wondering why there are no GenIV designs.

You can't even do a prove of concept reactor for less money to prove the design. SpaceX basically does that with NASA, they show tests rather then doing more paperwork. You can do a university style research reactor but that really not enough to prototype a serious commercial reactor. To do a prototype you would have to go threw the full process above, that is why most reactor companies go from design directly to product.

The Western world should have been a nuclear society since the 80s.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#48

Post by gameswithgo » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #44

More nuke promotion. It doesn't matter how you spin nukes, they will always end up costing way, way more than renewables + storage. Diverting capital to nukes slows our response to global climatic catastrophe, perhaps enriching a few at the expense of the whole world.

No post body was provided.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#49

Post by joss82 » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:21 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #44

More nuke promotion. It doesn't matter how you spin nukes, they will always end up costing way, way more than renewables + storage. Diverting capital to nukes slows our response to global climatic catastrophe, perhaps enriching a few at the expense of the whole world.

Citation very much needed here. This is nuke bashing.

Re: ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

#50

Post by jupp0r » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 8:27 PM UTC

barathr wrote: post #42

I understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. Ironically, with concentrated solar…

To answer your question: the sun doesn’t shine at night, that’s why we can’t do solar only (without enough energy storage to get us through the night).