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

61–70 of 246 posts

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

#61

Post by ncmncm »

scythe wrote: post #56
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 manu…

There is, in fact, no need for desert to site solar arrays.

Reservoirs and pasture are places where siting solar is easy, and provides side benefits of higher operating efficiency and higher agricultural yield.

Resistance to renewables is nowhere technical, and always political. Disinformation is one political tool.

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

#62

Post by mdeeks »

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…

My understanding is that one of the big problems is transmission. It reduces the cost competitiveness when you have to factor in running many more high voltage transmission lines across the US. You need them to get the power from the desert to city centers that have the bulk of demand. Building transmission lines in the US is apparently very hard because there is a lot of red tape and politics and NIMBY-ism (to be fair they are ugly).

Nuclear can mostly be built near the centers of demand and reduce the need for elaborate new transmission.

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

#63

Post by Gibbon1 »

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…

> cheap mirrors/collectors and steel pipes

The funny thing happened, solar panels got close to the same cost as a curved mirror.

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

#64

Post by ncmncm »

xyzzyz wrote: post #59
ncmncm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Storage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did.

A renewable dollar is still better spent today on generating capacity, and will be for several more years, most places. Waiting, you get more storage for your money, and you then already have overcapacity to charge it from.

Until the share of renewables approaches enough to destabilize the power grid, building out renewable generating capacity displaces more carbon from entering the atmosphere, and so is a better use of capital.

At the same time, decreasing load factor of nukes and fossil plants, as they become too expensive to win bids, will drive them offline in favor of much cheaper storage methods as fast as that comes online.

The enormous industrial and export value of synthetic hydrogen and ammonia production, after local tankage is full, make them the compelling choice for long-term storage. Initially, those will be burned in gas turbines as they edge out natural gas, both locally and abroad, but improving fuel cells will finally displace turbines.

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

#65

Post by megaman821 »

mcbishop wrote: post #58
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/ )

Flow batteries look interesting, but they have moving parts. That is probably fine for large utilities who can staff people to maintain these batteries. It is probably not fine for a small solar and battery install house or village.

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

#66

Post by jupp0r »

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".

I hope we will, the problem currently is that this is not competitive compared to just burning natural gas. This is because the externalities related to global warming are not accounted for when the market determines the price of gas. Electricity will be more expensive either way and this really hasn’t sunk in yet. Were these costs accounted for, nuclear would be quite competitively priced, even with newer more modern reactors vs running the insecure ones from the 70s forever which is what we do now for the most part.

That being said, there is great potential in batteries becoming much denser and cheaper.

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

#67

Post by civilized »

mtmmtm wrote: post #34

The article quotes a very old capacity-factor for wind-energy (30%). Today it is 60-64%. https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind... Also read this report regarding new types of nuclear power (a summary is that these new versions is probably a waste of money): https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/ucs-rpt-A...

I skimmed the summary of that UCS report and it seems very thorough and balanced. I would be interested in a rebuttal if an effective one is possible.

I was especially encouraged to see that they didn't advocate the complete dismantling of nuclear, only focusing efforts on improving proven light water reactor designs.

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

#68

Post by KennyBlanken »

Sebb767 wrote: post #60
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 populat…

Which is why a lot of generating capacity is wind, not just solar.

Which is why utilities are focusing on energy storage and grid improvements like upgrading transmission lines to HVDC to make it more practical to 'ship' excess wind/solar to regions that need it.

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

#69

Post by ncmncm »

Sebb767 wrote: post #60
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 populat…

Disinformation is not welcome here

There is absolutely no need for deserts, or for single-use solar farms anywhere. Solar coexists with roofs, parking lots, reservoirs and canals, and pasture, improving each.

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

#70

Post by jhgb »

xyzzyz wrote: post #59
ncmncm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No need to do the math: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001429211...

It's ultimately inevitable.

Post reply on HN