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

151–160 of 246 posts

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

#151

Post by ncmncm »

NumberWangMan wrote: post #148
ncmncm wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has saved us from being saddled today with many more of these leaky ramshackle contraptions that would have cost a $billion each to take apart. I live near Indian Point, recently shuttered for leaks. I expect to be made to pay for dismantling it. I am glad I won't need to pay for several more. Money spent on nukes could have been spent bringing renewable costs down. We could have had solar and wind decades earlier…

Ok, I agree with you that the traditional Light Water Reactor design is not a great one. But I don't think that's the main thing. It sounds like our disagreement is -- you're saying that nuclear power is way too expensive, and it's great that the regulation made it economically unprofitable so that we aren't stuck with more of it. I'm saying that it has only been expensive and uncompetitive with other energy sources…

Your story might be an example more of corrupt contracting than of regulatory overreaction. Everybody involved made a tidy profit. Except us, of course.

I too am deeply concerned about the climatic future. My main worry is that not halting the temperature and ocean acidification excursions soon enough will trigger global collapse. The radically lower CO2 emission rate after would be cold comfort. I think we need to see serious progress by 2030, i.e. before new nukes could come online.

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

#152

Post by ncmncm »

DennisP wrote: post #149
ncmncm wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lazard's figures are for the cost of storage already built, not for the cost of the storage that will be built, a much lower figure.

The figure I quoted above was for thermal solar with storage. That's pretty basic tech, the storage is generally thermal as well. I don't see why the price would drop all that much. Lazard is the source that most renewables advocates point me to, to prove how uncompetitive nuclear is. If your counterargument is that future costs will be lower than today's costs, then I think it's fair to also consider the costs Thorc…

ThorCon true costs are just unknown. Storage, like solar and wind generation, costs are subject to statistical laws.

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

#153

Post by ncmncm »

scythe wrote: post #127
sofixa wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>they're impractical ( you need massive space This isn't even close to true. A lithium-ion battery can store roughly 1 megajoule per liter, which I'm going to use because it makes the math easier. (Other batteries are slightly less dense, but the correction factor is small). Total global energy consumption is around 1 exajoule per day. That's a trillion liters to store a day's worth of energy, or one billion cubic me…

Furthermore: iron is not getting more expensive. Massive iron-air battery factories are under construction now.

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

#154

Post by popcube »

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…

nuclear fusion can give us actually unlimited energy. maybe it won't work soon, but some people don't want to give ip a probably final resolution.

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

#155

Post by noduerme »

ncmncm wrote: post #144
noduerme wrote: post #100

From their Design page, under the "Overview" subheader: >> ThorCon is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump, and passively drained in the event of a casualty. Casualty? Huh?

Failure.

Is that a term of art in nuclear energy? I've just never heard the word used to refer to anything other than injury/death to a human.

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

#156

Post by vorpalhex »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #68
Sebb767 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Batteries require some pretty rare and gnarly materials and still hold only a tiny, tiny bit.

It still gets dark for about a third of the day.

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

#157

Post by bscphil »

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…

> It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology.

This is very funny. The first nuclear power plant began operation in June 1954. That same year is when Bell Labs created the first commercially viable solar cell (although I doubt it was used to generate power for any grids until long after that).

So this (implied) claim is not just wrong about the age of nuclear power, it even gets the chronology wrong in comparing it to solar.

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

#158

Post by zdragnar »

mcronce wrote: post #108
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/

In addition to not being the same as getting through the night, it's far from the same as getting through several cloudy days in a row. Energy sources that work when they want to will never replace energy sources that work when you tell them to. Lobbying against nuclear is just lobbying for coal and gas.

As someone who lives in an area that gets weeks of heavy cloud cover and little wind, it is sad to see this get voted down.

Porting electricity over HVDC from half a continent away (with several metro areas in-between soaking up supply) just seems impractical when we could have small reactors distributed around in smaller, more resilient grids.

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

#159

Post by zdragnar »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #89

8 minute is selling solar + storage for 4cents/kWh. Nuclear can't compete with that. https://www.8minute.com/solar-projects/

Is it 4 cents anywhere outside of deserts in California, such as up by the Canadian border? Nuclear can work anywhere.

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

#160

Post by ncmncm »

noduerme wrote: post #155
ncmncm wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Failure.

Is that a term of art in nuclear energy? I've just never heard the word used to refer to anything other than injury/death to a human.

Probably they are trying to stay well clear of the word "accident".
Post reply on HN