Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 371 posts

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#41

Post by Trombone12 »

zokier wrote: post #21
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…

> The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. > Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. To uninitiated like me the chart…

> Like in computing all electricity just becomes waste heat

I mean, not all of the IT sector is ad-tech you know; for example, many would argue that the systems durably recording how much money you own provide a useful service.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#42

Post by Matumio »

audunw wrote: post #24
bullen wrote: post #17

Maybe, but the heat added to earth has to be radiated away from earth. We have never added energy from matter at this scale before. Same for fusion.

I was surprised to learn how significant the heat added from thermal power plants can be for global warming. Without technological improvements a massive scale up of nuclear energy would probably be a bad idea. There are panels that can radiate heat directly to space though. So it has made me wonder if the nuclear power plants of the future could use such panels to radiate their heat directly to space. Essentially th…

Seriously? Everything on earth's surface is radiating thermal energy into space. In such a massive amount that you'll feel a distinct temperature drop in a cloudless night. If you want to radiate more heat into space (at a global level), you'd have to start by removing the clouds, or the greenhouse gasses.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#43

Post by tomrod »

_n_b_ wrote: post #38
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…

> Nuclear has a useful role to play. But it is in decline. In the US, absolute nuclear generation has been relatively stagnant over the last 10 years as plant shutdowns have been compensated by uprating other plants[1]. About 2.2 GW are coming online via the Vogtle 3 & 4 units, more updates are coming, and the Palisades unit may restart… so I think you’ll see that number creep up a bit. Existing nuclear is economical…

That's great news!

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#44

Post by uoaei »

meghan_rain wrote: post #40
eaasen wrote: post #30

[flagged]

> operation of these facilities will require teams of people recruited, evaluated, and compensated by merit, not metrics of “diversity”, “equity”, or “inclusion” Indeed a gem. Or do you want a nuclear power plant in your neighbourhood managed by people who happen to be the pet-minority-du-jour on Twitter?

[flagged]

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#45

Post by rainworld »

refurb wrote: post #33
bullen wrote: post #17

Maybe, but the heat added to earth has to be radiated away from earth. We have never added energy from matter at this scale before. Same for fusion.

Global energy production in 2019: 617 x 10^18 J Global energy from the sun per day : 430 x 10^18 J

Indeed we are 2–3 orders of magnitude away from the point where our energy output itself non-negligibly, globally heats the earth. And if we kept growing, an incandescent Earth would not be too far off. There are hard limits.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#46

Post by brazzy »

roenxi wrote: post #15
gmerc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely a nuclear accident will affect 600x more people than a plane crash…

It'll kill a lot less people than a plane crash.

It could very, very easily kill a thousand times more.

That we haven't seen anything like a worst case scenario for a unclear accident does not mean those are impossible.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#47

Post by baybal2 »

HPsquared wrote: post #27
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…

That chart overemphasizes waste heat. 1 MJ of heat at 50°C is a lot less valuable than 1 MJ of electricity. They are not interchangable. The 1 MJ of electricity could pump much more than 1 MJ of low-grade heat, and it would take a lot of low-grade heat to generate 1 MJ of electrical energy. The parameter of interest is exergy. That is, usable energy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exergy

And important note that relatively modern coal and gas powerplants are more thermally efficient than nuclear.

Nuclear is ran in between 250C-350C, which is rather inefficient, and requires very big turbines.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#49

Post by IggleSniggle »

zokier wrote: post #21
jillesvangurp wrote: post #12

The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. Important to note that the image is…

> The article has a great flow chart in it that highlights rejected energy and energy services and where the rejected energy comes from. energy here spans the spectrum of electricity generation, heating, industrial usage, transport, etc. > Basically more than two thirds of the energy is lost to heat, friction, noise, transmission losses, etc. Most of the losses are coal, gas, and oil. To uninitiated like me the chart…

"Lost" means spent towards nobody's useful purpose. Nobody used the output in any way. In transportation, you used your car to get from point A to point B. You don't care about the heat or noise or whatever that you generated. That energy was "lost." If somebody harvested that same energy directly from your vehicle for some purpose, like making fried eggs on your engine block, then the portion used to fry your egg would no longer be "lost"

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#50

Post by brazzy »

meghan_rain wrote: post #40
eaasen wrote: post #30

[flagged]

> operation of these facilities will require teams of people recruited, evaluated, and compensated by merit, not metrics of “diversity”, “equity”, or “inclusion” Indeed a gem. Or do you want a nuclear power plant in your neighbourhood managed by people who happen to be the pet-minority-du-jour on Twitter?

[flagged]
Post reply on HN