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

211–220 of 246 posts

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

#211

Post by ncmncm »

MertsA wrote: post #194
ncmncm wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's just not the case. Pumped hydro is fundamentally limited in scope. It might be fairly cost effective but you only have a small amount of suitable sites, it can never scale up by many orders of magnitude to support the energy storage needed to enable meeting all energy demands with solar, wind, and hydro. That leaves the only proven energy storage method of grid scale electric batteries which again are only a t…

The number of sites suitable for pumped hydro is overwhelmingly more that is always assumed. In particular, you do not need an existing dam, a watershed, or even a mountain. But pumped hydro's main appeal is that it is very cheap to operate, in places it is easiest to build.

Ammonia electro-synthesis and air liquification are both mature tech, and just need to be built out. Hydrogen, similarly. Tankage for all of these is cheap, and power can be released via existing gas furnaces. Building out takes time.

Chemical storage has the massive advantage that it may be shipped from the tropics to anywhere it is needed, anytime it is needed, just like oil and LNG is today. That is where the majority of energy will be banked, because there is always demand for the same chemicals as industrial feedstock, so an always ready market to sell excess production into.

Batteries are the most expensive storage. You won't make much progress understanding power by thinking only about batteries. But anyway batteries are not dependent on lithium; iron-air batteries are cheap and iron is plentiful.

Nukes have no place in this future. Their power costs way too much to win a bid, almost all the time, but they need to win all the time to service their crushing debt load. And, it takes many years before any power at all comes out. So, they will predictably default on their debts; and thus not be built at all.

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

#212

Post by conradev »

pydry wrote: post #193
conradev wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Nuclear power still costs more. It's clean and consistent but almost absurdly expensive compared to solar, wind, pumped storage, batteries and interconnectors.

The entire point of ThorCon is to try to make nuclear more cost effective. If their numbers are to be believed, from their website:

> The shipyard estimate supports our estimates that ThorCon power plants can be mass produced by shipyards at costs of $800/kW to $1000/kW

$1000/kW, or $1/W, is roughly the cost of utility-scale solar these days (SEIA reported $0.89/W for Q1 2021)

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

#213

Post by teucris »

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…

I wonder if some combination solar and mechanical storage, e.g. pumped storage hydropower could be engineered to outperform nuclear. PSH is pretty inefficient, but solar is getting cheaper and cheaper…

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

#214

Post by laurencerowe »

pydry wrote: post #191
chriswarbo wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Powe... Pushing water uphill is relatively cheap and ~80% efficient. We can build more 2x nuclear power station equivalent "batteries" like fengning fairly easily.

Are there many sites with appropriate geology to build any substantial number of pumped storage stations?

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

#215

Post by JohnHaugeland »

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"

Every attempt to do this in human history has failed, bar none.

There is a reason they build an LNG plant next to every solar plant they build.

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

#216

Post by JohnHaugeland »

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…

The person you're reacting to was correct. They're reacting to someone who is spreading information they well know to be false.

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

#217

Post by JohnHaugeland »

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?

At any time that someone with no personal knowledge takes a contrarian position of fact, this has been achieved.

It's long past time to try to protect the world's energy anti-vaxxers.

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

#218

Post by pydry »

laurencerowe wrote: post #214
pydry wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fengning_Pumped_Storage_Powe... Pushing water uphill is relatively cheap and ~80% efficient. We can build more 2x nuclear power station equivalent "batteries" like fengning fairly easily.

Are there many sites with appropriate geology to build any substantial number of pumped storage stations?

Cant find it now but there was a study i remember seeing that suggested that there were 100x as many as needed.

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

#219

Post by nonplus »

bscphil wrote: post #157
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…

I've personally visited the X-10 reactor at Oak Ridge (built in the forties). So in the above, nuclear is not 'technology' until it's producing power for customers?

I'm sure the intent of their statement is salt/SMR/other exotic designs that the NRC has not greenlit (and, I think I'm ok NOT greenlighting designs that don't account for 50 - 80 years of maintenance/operation/risk)

I don't think technology and invention (or discovery for that matter) are synonymous. There has been progress in nuclear technology, even if it's so far non viable.

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

#220

Post by godelski »

_ph_ wrote: post #179
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…

While there certainly are local differences, with the exception of Alaska basically no part of the US is infeasible for solar. As the prices for panels fall, the region of economic usage extends northwards. Germany does very well with solar and the southmost regions start at 48 degrees north.

I literally link maps that show how some areas in the US have a harder time and would require substantially more build out. These same areas have nonhomogeneous sun distribution throughout the year too, with pretty drastic differences. If you require an extra 20-30% more panels, other options become more attractive. If you have longer winters with ever increasing snow storms, other options look better. If you are in a population dense area, something with a small footprint is attractive and with a trade-off. You don't want long power lines that would get cut and shut down your whole city. Nuclear's problem is it's price. But a few factors or trade-offs can make it competitive. Including just a $10/ton carbon tax.

Again, I'm not sure why were arguing as if it's renewables vs nuclear. You use whatever is best for your area and matches your needs. All I'm arguing is that nuclear can be advantageous in _some_ situations. (If you think nuclear for everything, or even solar for everything, your ideas about energy are very naive).

Post reply on HN