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

111–120 of 246 posts

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

#111

Post by panick21_ »

ncmncm wrote: post #76
panick21_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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+ mi…

Regulation is thus far saving us from most badly ill-advised nuke projects. Some sneak through, costing ratepayers in more politically corrupt places many $billions for, in the end, scrap concrete.

Regulation prevents all technical progress for 40+ years is a good thing.

Its just mind-blowing that such a statement can be made on a site called 'Hacker News'.

Lets promote fear of technology and use regulation from preventing new technology to replace deadly dirty coal for decades and decades. What an amazing plan anti-nuclear people have been pushing for the last 50 years.

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

#112

Post by panick21_ »

ncmncm wrote: post #53
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. The…

> Bigger utilities will prefer pumped hydro for short-term storage, anywhere it is practical.

Is there any pumped hydro in flat land anywhere deployed on large scale?

> Synthetic chemical fuels -- hydrogen and ammonia -- are compelling for longer-term storage, despite their currently low round-trip efficiency.

Not really.

> Then, there is no downside to massive overbuilding of generating capacity: all capacity generates revenue, up to market saturation.

And then you need lots and lots of electrolysis that will all operate at low utility.

I would be on batteries before I would on hydrogen.

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

#113

Post by panick21_ »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #99
panick21_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. What did you mean by "gone a burner"?

I wanted to say 'its going to be a burner type reactor rather then a breeder'.

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

#114

Post by ncmncm »

Joeri wrote: post #98
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…

Unless someone can demonstrate that nuclear projects are preventing solar and wind deployments, why not do both?

Money is fungible. Each dollar spent on clean generation displaces some rate of CO2 exhaust. A dollar spent on renewables displaces much more than the same dollar spent on nukes. You cannot spend the same dollar on both.

Thus, a dollar spent on nukes instead of renewables brings climate catastrophe nearer.

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

#115

Post by DennisP »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #99
panick21_ wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. What did you mean by "gone a burner"?

In nuclear reactors a "burner" is like a conventional reactor, with uranium fuel and slow neutrons, which mainly just fission the U235 (plus a bit of plutonium that shows up). It means you're fissioning about 1% of your uranium ore.

A "breeder" can be one of two things:

1) Thorium fuel, slow neutrons. A neutron hits thorium, converts it to U233, then that fissions. Take a ton of thorium, fission all of it, get one gigawatt-year.

2) Uranium fuel, fast neutrons. The fast neutrons can fission U235, U238, plutonium, and other transuranics. Take a ton of uranium, fission all of it, get one gigawatt-year.

Compared to burners, either type of breeder only requires 1% as much fuel, produces 1% as much waste, and the waste is mostly fission products with much shorter half-lives. Encase it in glass and bury it, and it'll be back to the radioactivity of the original ore in about 300 years, with most of the radioactivity going away in the first few decades.

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

#116

Post by [deleted] »

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).

[deleted]

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

#117

Post by ncmncm »

DennisP wrote: post #102
bryanlarsen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have to do the math. Solar+storage is being sold for 4 cents / kWh. https://www.8minute.com/solar-projects/

For most projects, there's at most four hours of storage, just enough to shift peak daytime supply to peak evening demand. That's not the same as getting through the night, or having enough overcapacity to meet demand in cloudy winter weeks. Lazard puts the wholesale cost of solar PV plus four hours storage at $165 to $296/MWh: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...

Until we have more renewable generating capacity online, four hours is plenty. As the share of power generation increases, building more storage is favored. Lazard's figures are (as is proper) for existing storage, not for the much cheaper storage that will be built.

It is generally a mistake to assume people controlling billion-dollar budgets have no idea what they are doing.

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

#118

Post by panick21_ »

worik wrote: post #54

"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 wa…

> That and these people are not counting the discounted cost, over 200,000 years

This is not factually correct. In fact you can burn up the highly radioactive waste to only 200-300 years. But that fact often gets ignore by people trying to prevent all technology development so they can continue to be anti-nuclear.

And even if we stick with that crazy 200k number, there would be many solution. Deep drilling is one that will surely be available in the next 100-200 years as it has applications other then nuclear disposal.

If you have a rocket like Starship and launch it from a oil platform you can launch all the waste into deep space if you really want.

Even if you don't do want to do that, advanced laser technology also has potential reduce that in the future.

Its a problem that is not actually pressing, we can easily store waste without negative consequences for the next couple 100 years. It will hurt absolutely nobody in that time and will use basically no land and almost no resources.

In 100-200 years we will have many more options what do with it then we have now. Or they will just continue to stand around doing nothing.

Lets go to the worst possible scenario, total government collapse and anarchy. Ok, in such a situation people will have 1000x more 1000x bigger problems then a few tons of nuclear 'waste' standing around.

Not to mention that this fuel contains amazing materials that have other applications. Lets call it 'waste' because we are dumb enough not to realize its a resource. Medical isotopes, nuclear batteries and many other amazing materials are in that 'waste'.

> Because of the potential of catastrophic failure. Duh!

Coal and gas infrastructure have lead to far more death in far more catastrophic failures.

And even the worst possible failure you can come up with in the ThorCon design is hard to imagine how it could kill more then a few people.

If you disagree please explain what kind of scenario you imagine where 10000s of people could die.

> Nuclear power looks cheap if you completely discount the future

And by 'future' here you mean your overly vivid imagination?

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

#119

Post by panick21_ »

ncmncm wrote: post #90
panick21_ wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well you should have told them because they are planning to build many more coal plants.

And even the basic infrastructure of the grid that is absolutely required for renewables to be even remotely practical doesn't exist.

Wasting gigantic amounts of energy to produce chemical fuel highly inefficiently with low utility plants, and then transporting them around to then burn them up again highly inefficiently is a terrible plan to power a country of 100s of millions of people.

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

#120

Post by panick21_ »

DennisP wrote: post #115
NumberWangMan wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, ok, I misunderstood. What did you mean by "gone a burner"?

In nuclear reactors a "burner" is like a conventional reactor, with uranium fuel and slow neutrons, which mainly just fission the U235 (plus a bit of plutonium that shows up). It means you're fissioning about 1% of your uranium ore. A "breeder" can be one of two things: 1) Thorium fuel, slow neutrons. A neutron hits thorium, converts it to U233, then that fissions. Take a ton of thorium, fission all of it, get one gi…

You could have a Thorium fast breeder as well I think.

I think a thermal breeder can actually be about 10x more efficient then any uranium fast burner can achieve.

But once you do a fast breeder there is really no point in using Thorium at all. The only reason to use thorium is really thermal breeding.

Also you can have both a thermal and a fast burner I'm pretty sure.

Post reply on HN