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

81–90 of 246 posts

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

#81

Post by phs318u »

panick21_ wrote: post #72
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…

One of the reasons why I favor nuclear is quite simple. And its not new technology. In fact, nuclear is the only green energy that ever has actually reliably powered an industrial nation. France did it in 70/80 with technology not more advanced then what is available in the 60s. They have not only proven that nuclear can do it, but also that nuclear scales amazingly well. There really is no technical question what so…

Wake me up when the nuclear industry starts calling for the repeal of the Price-Anderson Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

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

#83

Post by AtlasBarfed »

panick21_ wrote: post #72
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…

One of the reasons why I favor nuclear is quite simple. And its not new technology. In fact, nuclear is the only green energy that ever has actually reliably powered an industrial nation. France did it in 70/80 with technology not more advanced then what is available in the 60s. They have not only proven that nuclear can do it, but also that nuclear scales amazingly well. There really is no technical question what so…

I was a major LFTR/MSR supporter.

But the emerging economics of solar/wind prevent any non-subsidized nuclear from being viable.

Look at the solar/wind curves for the last decade. Yes, it is unlikely solar and wind will continue such a breakneck pace of improvement, but it doesn't matter. The point is that almost everyone will agree that solar and wind have not reached peak technology and economies of scale, and certainly battery storage has not either with forthcoming sodium ion and other approaches.

No existing nuclear design can compete. Natural gas turbine is being passed by unsubsidized wind/solar right now per LCOE charts. Other/new nuclear designs are (let's be honest) 10 years at a minimum before they come online. What price is being targeted by such a nuclear project?

I believe these new designs should be researched (and liquid fuel thorium research should be allowed too) and so should fusion.

I also believe that existing nuclear should probably be kept around for now for baseload and to keep the nuclear industry viable for the future.

Hopefully in 10-20 years solar/wind will stabilize, and then modular MSR/Thorium reactors can have their day.

I would love to be proven wrong, but essentially any nuclear plant has to look at the current wind/solar price, and target half of that (inflation adjusted) as a target competitive price. It's possible that won't be enough though.

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

#84

Post by ncmncm »

ocrow wrote: post #21
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?

On the design page they describe this as a molten salt reactor with dissolved nuclear fuel. One of the principle difficulties designing this type of reactor is the choice of materials used to conduct the liquid fuel, which is very hot, caustic, and radioactive. Steel and aluminum are out, as they are both chemically reactive at those temperatures. Other materials such as nickel alloys or certain ceramics may be possi…

A quibble, pipe embrittlement is not mainly from transmutation, but from atoms knocked out of place in the crystal structure.

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

#85

Post by sofixa »

ncmncm wrote: post #64
xyzzyz wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

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

About batteries, that's no longer true - lithium, nickel and cobalt prices have exploded in recent months. Furthermore they're impractical ( you need massive space, and then you have a giant fire hazard) and most importantly, needed elsewhere. EV adoption is already stifled by lack of sufficient supply of batteries, and heavy duty vehicles are let to be electrified. Replacing all cars, buses, trucks, etc. ( and apparently trains in the US because they can't be bothered to electrify like normal countries) with EV versions will require a lot of batteries. And of course they have a limited lifecycle, and need to be replaced. And speaking of lifecycle, a nuclear reactor has 2-3 times ( at least) the life of a solar panel or wind turbine.

About hydrogen, green hydrogen in any quantities is only theoretical at the moment.

IMHO the best way forward is to hedge bets and do everything - build nuclear power plants ( and ffs don't close existing ones that can continue to operate to replace them with gas "temporarily" like the dimwits in Belgium are doing), expand renewables, invest in different potential solutions for storage. Fuel cells will probably have a part to play in transportation too, e.g. in aviation. However getting rid of the only low-CO2 baseload power source we have is shortsighted.

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

#86

Post by godelski »

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…

> 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

Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1].

I'm not sure why comments (for and against nuclear/renewables) with energy ignore this factor. Wind, hydro, and solar aren't homogeneously distributed around the globe (let alone the US) nor through time. The conversations always devolve into "why do we need nuclear when there's so much sun" vs "baseloads."

The truth is that you should be using whichever resource best matches your environment. If you can get away without nuclear, that's totally cool. If you can't, then nuclear is a far better option than coal or gas. That's about it, and I'm tired of pretending it isn't. Pro nuclear is supposed to mean that nuclear tech is on the table. It shouldn't mean "nuclear for everything" or "nuclear everywhere." Just use whatever works in your area and gives you the cheapest and most reliable power (under the constraint of zero operating emissions). Anything else is typically not meaningful discourse unless we're willing to dig way deep into the nuances and everyone involved has a decent amount of expertise on the subject (I'm guessing most of us don't). There's so many constraints that go into power systems (reliability, land usage, access, population density, resource access, diversification, etc) that are never discussed in these forums I just don't think we can meaningfully discuss except at the high abstract level and mostly appeal to experts. Which as far as I'm aware most experts say "nuclear is better than coal and gas. Let's do as much as we can with hydro, wind, and solar, and if that's not enough nuclear is the next best option."

[0] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/solar/where-solar-is-fou...

[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/wind/where-wind-power-is...

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

#87

Post by eurasiantiger »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #43
slowmovintarget wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 g…

Also note that coal power plants release many times more radiation in the environment than nuclear power does.

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

#88

Post by cinntaile »

tlb wrote: post #79
ncmncm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please don't claim disinformation unless there's evidence of intentional deception, which doesn't appear to the case here. Instead, try to add to the discussion. For example, your claim raises the question of why many existing solar farms were built in deserts. Did something change since they were built?

They turn unproductive, cheap land into something more valuable. A second advantage is that it helps combat desertification. A downside is that the temperatures reduce the efficiency of the panels so you need to mitigate that.

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

#90

Post by ncmncm »

panick21_ wrote: post #51
spockz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 soc…

Indonesia will, like everywhere else, end up relying on overwhelmingly cheaper renewables. Nukes will turn out to be a very expensive detour. We can only hope, for the sake of these put-upon people, that they abandon the nukes before they spend too much on them.

Storage and distribution of synthethic liquid fuels such as ammonia will probably be best adapted to Indonesian needs.

Post reply on HN