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

231–240 of 246 posts

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

#231

Post by powcontech »

noselasd wrote: post #93
powcontech wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While dams certainly store energy I wonder how many actually have flexibility to change their output by 80% of rated capacity or more on the same timescales that wind and solar output can vary. I imagine there are a lot of environmental restrictions to keep the river flowing, avoid dewatering habitat for fish and otherwise impacting the ecosystem, and also supplying water to downstream users like farms and cities. Ca…

you can switch turbines on and off , leading water to a turbine or a bypass in minutes

You can, but I wonder do the operating conditions of the river actually allow it for a great number of plants? Or are they hemmed in by needing to always have a certain flow in the river plus/minus 10%.

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

#232

Post by AtlasBarfed »

panick21_ wrote: post #109
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cert…

Maybe with lots of investment and buy in we can do that in the West. However for emerging economies like India, Indonesia and many others I still think reliable nuclear power close to population centers is a far better plan. The actual investment required to get a modern MSR style (doesn't have to be thorium) is not actually that much. I would at least like to see nuclear get an actual shot at it. But I agree that af…

Emerging economies? You means ones that have crappy grids?

Wind/Solar + battery is a dream power combination for the third world. No reliance on a substandard perpetually underinvested grid, corrupt companies, corrupt/oppressive central governments.

Starlink as well should be a HUGE boon to the third world. Again, buy dish, plug it in, pay money, get internet. I can see remote third world villages with solar/wind/battery + starlinks + a couple 5g towers and BAM, that is a modern power and communications infrastructure that scales from 1 to 1000 people.

Rooftop solar is a sneaky liberating technology from a government/politics standpoint, in the sense it empowers individuals (literally and figuaratively) without the government imposing corruption, and generally speaking has minimal/no impacts on your neighbors and surroundings.

I know MSR / LFTR is designed to avoid weapons-grade isotope chains in its breeding so are somewhat proliferation safe, but it's still a breeder reactor, I'm sure smart nuclear physicists could figure out how to make plutonium in them.

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

#233

Post by ncmncm »

yodelshady wrote: post #197
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.

He's not missing it at all. I've seen the investment pitches. Nobody is seriously considering it for a reason, it's a terrible, terrible, idea. Covering intermittent sources is pretty much 100% public sector's responsibility, everywhere.

Yes, and it is done with resources in place, not in San Francisco.

And, for resources in place, whether so impractical as lithium batteries, or as practical as pumped hydro, iron-air batteries, banked hydrogen, or transmission lines reaching operating generation elsewhere, the space required is in no way prohibitive.

Which was the point.

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

#234

Post by natmaka »

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…

In France the 'nuclear success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewable sources must replace it. In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 7.9% of the gridpower in 2019).

The sole reactor currently in building phase (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 11 years behind schedule, it will cost at least 19.4 billion € (initial budget: 3.7 billion ).

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

#235

Post by _ph_ »

godelski wrote: post #220
_ph_ wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't deny that there are huge local variations in solar performance across the US. My point is: in most places it is economically feasible. As most places are still much better than Germany in that respect and it works well here. If in some places it makes more sense to invest e.g. in wind or water, that might be. But even in those, it is picking up low-hanging fruit to put solar cells on suitable rooftops for example. As they are going to produce energy for cheap.

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

#236

Post by lambdadmitry »

_ph_ wrote: post #235
godelski wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't deny that there are huge local variations in solar performance across the US. My point is: in most places it is economically feasible. As most places are still much better than Germany in that respect and it works well here. If in some places it makes more sense to invest e.g. in wind or water, that might be. But even in those, it is picking up low-hanging fruit to put solar cells on suitable rooftops for exa…

It's quite ironic that you chose Germany as an example right when they got into hot water over their massive gas dependency on Russia. Compare and contrast with France with their sizeable nuclear fleet.

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

#237

Post by jupp0r »

ncmncm wrote: post #227
jupp0r wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they? Why haven’t they already? It looks like they are supplementing peak capacity right now with gas plants dynamically reacting to varying demand with storage being oders of magnitude too small.

Do you understand the difference between already built-out storage, and preparing to build out storage? If you want to compare like against like, the number of ThorCon reactors deployed is exactly zero (0). Storage is not already built out because it is still obviously better to spend the money building out generating capacity, and will be until its share is much larger. In particular, before storage can be useful, y…

The business model for storage is leveraging the difference in prices at different times (of the day mostly). There is already quite a price difference on energy markets and negative prices happen regularly around the world.

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

#238

Post by noduerme »

ncmncm wrote: post #160
noduerme wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I feel like "casualty" is a lot worse. I think they need a better marketing department. I'd suggest "meltsicle" or "atomic boo-boo".

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

#239

Post by _ph_ »

lambdadmitry wrote: post #236
_ph_ wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't deny that there are huge local variations in solar performance across the US. My point is: in most places it is economically feasible. As most places are still much better than Germany in that respect and it works well here. If in some places it makes more sense to invest e.g. in wind or water, that might be. But even in those, it is picking up low-hanging fruit to put solar cells on suitable rooftops for exa…

It's quite ironic that you chose Germany as an example right when they got into hot water over their massive gas dependency on Russia. Compare and contrast with France with their sizeable nuclear fleet.

Nothing ironic about it, one has little to do with the other. My statement is, that solar energy is economic all over Germany. There are of course local variations in productivity, but all over Germany it produces electricity at costs which are very competitive. But also there is a very apparent gradient across Germany, solar is more productive in the south and consequentially more popular there, wind in the more windy regions. Still both are used across the whole country because they work best in a mix.

German energy politics is an entirely different matter. And actually the main complaint about it is: the switch to renewables wasn't done quickly enough. Nuclear always was the smaller part of energy production in Germany, so even if no power plant had been shut down, the question would still stand: where would 80% of the energy come from. Relying on fossil fuels for that is definitely wrong, even more so, if you tie yourself to one very problematic supplier.

And please look into all the huge problems France currently faces about their energy production before cheering for them! The good side is, the largest part of the energy mix is nuclear, so it is low in carbon production. That is the good news. The bad news is, that the energy crisis in central Europe was basically started by several nuclear power plants in France being taken off the grid at the same time as the need for emergency repairs appeared. Electricity in France currently is quite expensive, often more so than in Germany. Long term France has the problem that the nuclear fleet is aging. A lot of reactors are only operating because their life span has been extended. Currently there are no realistic concepts of replacing them, so France needs to hurry to expand their renewables considerably, which so far they haven't been doing.

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

#240

Post by [deleted] »

Sebb767 wrote: post #230
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Feel free to show me in what way my comment was false, I'd be very happy if I'm wrong and desert solar is a viable solution.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN