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

181–190 of 246 posts

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

#181

Post by _ph_ »

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…

I think the term "mountain" is a bit strong wrt. West Virginia, but the terrain structure could make it actually a big winner with the change to renewables. As others have pointed out, it is not impeding the use of solar, but it gives something even better: cheap storage. If you have hills, pumped storage is difficult to beat and there are enough flat regions in the west of West Virgina and of course Kentucky, so that there should be plenty of solar to store. That would give WV a good chance to have around the clock electricity just based on solar only - and of course, there is always wind too.

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

#182

Post by conradev »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #180
godelski wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 conversati…

> Because not every location has high solar irradiance[0] nor wind density[1]. Isn't that solvable with HVDC links? I agree with GP at this point it is mostly a budget, political will, manufacturing problem.

It sure is solvable with HVDC links, but upgrading infrastructure isn’t free. That cost would need to be included when comparing it against nuclear

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

#183

Post by orthecreedence »

adrianN wrote: post #164
panick21_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The world uses about 556.63 exajoules per year. Say your nuclear reactor produces 3GW. That's more than 5000 reactors to power the world. You can probably safely cut that in half because electricity is a better source of energy for transportation and heating that fossil fuels, but still. Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades?

> Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades?

Humans can do some cool things when we decide to. And scaling solar isn't as easy as it sounds. What's the cost, in energy and fossil fuels, to mine the materials, build and ship not just the panels but also the massive batteries required for solar? Not to mention having to constantly replace them?

That's something I don't really see solar advocates addressing: if we have to burn every last gallon of oil to build our marvelous solar and battery arrays, then the planet is screwed anyway. Nuclear has much higher energy density. The problem is our economic system isn't accounting for energy output vs input...it uses prices, which are incredibly useless in this particular instance because prices do not internalize costs. Price and cost have significantly diverged, so you can't look at "what's cheaper in price" and assume that it's the optimal outcome.

Why not attack from all angles? Build solar, but also crank out as many nuclear reactors as humanly possible.

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

#184

Post by rdevsrex »

godelski wrote: post #94
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.

Disinformation: spreading false information while knowing the information is false. Misinformation: spreading false information while believing the false information. We should be mindful how we use these terms. I believe that the parent to your comment fully believes what they are saying. If you wish to act in good faith just provide a few sources or comments to counter their claims and move on. Consider the context…

I hate the word misinformation. That assumes a God like external judge of what is an isn't true.

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

#185

Post by ncmncm »

ohgodplsno wrote: post #175
ncmncm wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way to miss the point. San Francisco does not occupy much of the Earth's surface, or even of the continental US. This battery farm, spread out between all the towns in the US, would not even be noticed.

You're missing your own point. It lasts for a single day. A project using up pretty much all of Earth's currently usable lithium resources, for a single day of storage. It's worthless.

Then it is a good thing not much of the storage built will use lithium.

You are really reaching. It wears badly.

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

#186

Post by adrianN »

orthecreedence wrote: post #183
adrianN wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world uses about 556.63 exajoules per year. Say your nuclear reactor produces 3GW. That's more than 5000 reactors to power the world. You can probably safely cut that in half because electricity is a better source of energy for transportation and heating that fossil fuels, but still. Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades?

> Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades? Humans can do some cool things when we decide to. And scaling solar isn't as easy as it sounds. What's the cost, in energy and fossil fuels, to mine the materials, build and ship not just the panels but also the massive batteries required for solar? Not to mention having to constantly replace them? That…

I don't know how much more material you need for solar panels and wind turbines compared to nuclear reactors (there's a lot of concrete in a nuclear reactor too). But as you build more renewables the amount of fossil fuels you need for manufacturing goes down. It would of course be nice if externalities were better reflected in prices.

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

#187

Post by panick21_ »

adrianN wrote: post #164
panick21_ wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The world uses about 556.63 exajoules per year. Say your nuclear reactor produces 3GW. That's more than 5000 reactors to power the world. You can probably safely cut that in half because electricity is a better source of energy for transportation and heating that fossil fuels, but still. Do you think we can scale reactor production sufficiently to build thousands of reactors in two or three decades?

Yes.

5000 reactors is not actually that much. Think about how many planes we produce.

Imagine 5 Gigafactory each producing 100s reactor cores every year. That not really hard to imagine is it? Those would more likely be 500MW. So you need a few 10000+.

The rest of a nuclear plant without water cooling is none nuclear and building a concrete hole, and a concrete bunker a whole bunch of electronics, pipes and the same turbine used for gas plants.

And we have tons of thorium all over the place for basically free in every country.

Look at fast France managed to make their nuclear, and that was with 60s technology.

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

#188

Post by danans »

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-...

That graph actually shows the levelized cost of solar+storage capacity at $165-296/kWh-year

The levelized cost of solar + storage according to Lazards is even less: $85-158/MWh.

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

#189

Post by chriswarbo »

truffdog wrote: post #161
vorpalhex wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can always store energy by pushing rocks uphill.

Gravity is an incredibly feeble force; storing large amounts of energy this way requires a lot of rocks and a lot of land.

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

#190

Post by chriswarbo »

vorpalhex wrote: post #156
KennyBlanken wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Grid storage has different constraints than, e.g. electric vehicles; in particular, size and weight is less important since they aren't moving. This makes it viable to use battery tech which is less efficient, but cheaper/safer/etc. For example, flow batteries or iron/air batteries.
Post reply on HN