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

ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power

thorconpower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 246 posts

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

#51

Post by panick21_ »

spockz wrote: post #45
panick21_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because no amount of changing the power mix in Europe will prevent climate change.

Indonesia is gigantic has a huge population and will have a massive amount energy needs. If not nuclear this will be coal. And those plants have 50 year lifetime at least.

The reality is that climate change will be decided in India, Indonesia and China more then anywhere else. If they can actually adopt nuclear and be a pro nuclear society they have the potential to have game changing impact.

Indonesia in particular has gigantic amount of people living at the cost. So an approach where you do centralized building and then ship the plants to the population makes a lot of sense. And Indonesia by itself is big enough that its actually worth building such a model. They will need 100s of GWs of reactors if they want to reach Western standards of power consumption.

> investing in their own power/heat storage capabilities

Yes and that costs a lot of money. Europe is also in a Europe wide power net with lots of nuclear, coal and renewables. Doing that in such a system is much more doable then in Indonesia.

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

#52

Post by panick21_ »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #40
panick21_ wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its incredibly hard to build a nuclear reactor and its even more hard to get anybody to allow you to build one. And arguably even harder for somebody to give you the money to do either. Its not a breeder, they are going for the simplest possible design as far as I remember and that means its gone a burner.

As far as it being harder to let anyone allow you to build one, and to get the money -- they've already got a thing going with the government of Indonesia. It's been in the works for years, and it seems like things are still progressing[1] fine. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azzp0i0BnQ8 [video]

Yes, I know. I wrote about it my other comment. You can find full presentations that they are giving to different officials.

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

#53

Post by ncmncm »

megaman821 wrote: post #39

Next generation nuclear or fusion would be amazing, but looking how things stand today, I would bet on cheap and reliable grid-storage batteries coming first. Pairing renewables with cheap batteries solves energy for 80% of the world. Things like sodium-ion batteries look like they are getting close production, and don't contain hard-to-acquire materials.

Batteries are the most expensive storage alternative. They have advantages for load-leveling, but beyond a few minutes or, in smaller grids, hours, other media will turn out better. Bigger utilities will prefer pumped hydro for short-term storage, anywhere it is practical.

Synthetic chemical fuels -- hydrogen and ammonia -- are compelling for longer-term storage, despite their currently low round-trip efficiency. These can be synthesized and then shipped where needed, and may be produced continually even after local tankage is full, to be sold on as fuel, industrial feedstock, and fertilizer, generating revenue. Then, there is no downside to massive overbuilding of generating capacity: all capacity generates revenue, up to market saturation.

Places slower to build out renewables will find these new fuels much cheaper than oil and natural gas, and will easily convert to burning them.

Their round-trip efficiency will only ever increase, with continual progress in catalysis, eventually favoring fuel cells over reuse of existing turbines.

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

#54

Post by worik »

"Most people will automatically scoff at the claim that a nuclear power plant should cost less to build than a coal plant. It is received wisdom that nuclear plants are outrageously expensive. And most recent nuclear projects confirm that belief. But why"

Because of the potential of catastrophic failure. Duh!

That and these people are not counting the discounted cost, over 200,000 years, of storing their long term waste and maintaining the site.

Nuclear power looks cheap if you completely discount the future - and you are unethical enough to make future generations pay for current consumption. (Ditto coal)

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

#56

Post by scythe »

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…

>when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done

Consider West Virginia. (Just for example.) The Senator from there, buoyed by local public opinion, has been an obstacle to climate policy. A look at the state's economy will quickly debunk the idea that coal mining revenues alone drive this opposition.

Instead, West Virginia, like other places where opposition to reform holds fast, has a large manufacturing sector predicated on the ready availability of cheap electricity. Herein lies the real dependence on coal. The mountainous topography makes the widespread deployment of solar panels infeasible, and the cloudy weather and high latitude aren't helping. Wind faces a similar issue. There are no deserts nearby.

Nuclear power is attractive not only because it can support a transition to renewable energy[1], but because it can also be deployed readily to mitigate the economic fallout of carbon emissions reduction. And if the last ten years of political upheaval haven't demonstrated the importance of paying attention to the downsides when championing a policy that works well on average, well, I don't know what will.

1: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/...

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

#57

Post by ncmncm »

jupp0r wrote: post #50
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).

We will build out storage, and transmission lines, to "get us through the night".

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

#58

Post by mcbishop »

megaman821 wrote: post #39

Next generation nuclear or fusion would be amazing, but looking how things stand today, I would bet on cheap and reliable grid-storage batteries coming first. Pairing renewables with cheap batteries solves energy for 80% of the world. Things like sodium-ion batteries look like they are getting close production, and don't contain hard-to-acquire materials.

Iron-air batteries are another potential low-cost option for long-duration storage (e.g. https://formenergy.com/technology/)

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

#59

Post by xyzzyz »

ncmncm wrote: post #57
jupp0r wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

We will build out storage, and transmission lines, to "get us through the night".

Now do the math on how much storage would be needed, and how much would it cost, then show your work. Investors have done exactly that, which is why large scale storage is not happening yet.

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

#60

Post by Sebb767 »

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…

> 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.

Solar is dependent on the time of day (as the sister comments pointed out) and also on weather. Plus, you need to get the energy from the desert to wherever it's needed - this is non-trivial for densely populated areas far from the equator. You also need to maintain the solar panels; sand can be quite bad for their efficiency. Lastly, the areas that do have the space and solar power might be politically unstable, which makes the massive investments needed to get this going quite risky.

Real engineering has a good video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o

Post reply on HN