Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

scanalyst.fourmilab.ch

131–140 of 371 posts

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#131

After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor. Even less a breeder. It is like saying we have infinite fossil fuels because we can use renewables to create it from water and air. The interesting part of the conversation is the efficient allocation of money and people. In that conversation nuclear power never materialized.

The French managed to. I guess they have super-human engineering prowess.

The trick is that they keep building the same obsolete US-based design instead of re-inventing the entire thing from scratch for each plant.

Imagine how much more accessible computers would be if you could just copy the operating system from one "printed" circuit board to another, instead of hand-wiring all the transistors, then hand coding process scheduling and I/O.

The French did this totally unprecedented novel thing where they manufacture more than one identical part at a time in a line of assembly stations, and the parts of the plants are interchangeable. I doubt such things transfer to other countries or industries though.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#132

Expensive though.

I would recommend reading the article. The paper they discussing projects .003 USD per kilowatt hour.

The minute someone builds one and has the receipts and waste disposal set up, I am all ears. Really.

But every generation of nuclear plant has promised "power too cheap to meter". The last 3 generations all failed to deliver (and have been ruinously expensive). Gen 4 isn't expected to start commercial operations until 2035 I think?

This is my key objection to nuclear: I feel it cannot even be assessed because people insist on talking in theory. And with tech as complex and power dense etc as this tech, theory is never even close to reality.

I am open to some of the SME concepts (mass manufacturing, large numbers of small units) because they seem to deal with at least some of the economic issues nuclear has.

But I cant help feeling nuclear fission is as far from an economically viable, reproducible, sustainable product as fusion is.

I actually think that being small, simple, short term, politically unimportant with commodity parts is to other renewables (wind, solar etc) what reliability is for nuclear.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#133
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't that a safety thing? To shutdown a natural gas plant you just close some valves feeding the facility, or at worse introduce something into the combustion path that halts combustion. Nuclear fission obviously can be moderated, but not in such a sharp and safe manner.

I think you're confusing a few concepts here.

Thermal-spectrum (slow neutron) nuclear reactors are much easier to control than fast reactors because they have much slower reaction times. But this isn't particularly relevant because thermal-spectrum supercritical water reactors are possible; supercritical water reactor doesn't implies fast reactor. Let's put fast reactors aside.

In thermal-spectrum reactors, the moderator is not in itself a safety feature. The moderator is necessary to slow the neutrons down into the thermal-spectrum. Thermal-spectrum neutrons are far more likely to be absorbed by the fuel than fast neutrons, so if you lose the moderator the reaction stops (and decay heat continues...) Fast reactors don't use a moderator and don't need one because they use a higher grade of fuel which can sustain a chain reaction with fast neutrons, not needing thermal neutrons.

In some thermal-spectrum reactors (particularly BWRs and PWRs), the moderator plays double duty as a coolant. In these reactors the moderator is a safety feature insofar as it's the coolant, not because it's a moderator. In other kinds of thermal-spectrum reactors, the coolant and moderator may be different; for instance RBMKs use graphite as the moderator and water as the coolant. Modern CANDU reactors use heavy water as a moderator (which is less efficient as a moderator, but captures fewer neutrons and therefore allows for a lower grade of fuel), but this moderator is unpressurized in the calandria and remains cool; the water in the coolant loop is hot, pressurized, and doesn't provide sufficient moderation to keep the reaction going. If you drained the moderator but kept the coolant loop running, the reactor would stop. If you kept the moderator but drained the coolant loop, it would eventually melt down (probably after the water in the calandria boils off). The coolant is what removes heat from the reactor and the moderator is what slows the neutrons so they're more likely to cause fission.

tl;dr: The moderator increases reactivity. Coolant removes heat.

In principle you could make a thermal-spectrum supercritical water reactor using any of these, but the research is aimed towards making a supercritical reactor with the PWR or CANDU designs. The reason supercritical water reactors aren't used yet is because metallurgy isn't up to the task. Supercritical water is already used in traditional power plants, but those don't have to deal with neutron radiation which structurally degrades anything it runs into (some alloys/materials more than others.) Finding alloys which can hold up to both supercritical water and neutron radiation is the major hurdle to clear.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#134
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Well according to the two graphgs for 2018 and 2019, nuclear declined a bit in the US. Not surprising because there were some plant closures and not a whole lot of plant openings. And nothing is on track to be added any time soon. Maybe one or two plants. New nuclear is a bit like an oil tanker (pun intended, sorry): just very slow to ramp up new capacity. This boom you are talking about is so far not adding up to a…

The pressure on the NRC to lighten up a bit is immense. I suspect we might see some significant acceleration, especially with the various electrification drives, coupled with the multitude of safe nuclear designs, and a general sense that “why is this so broken?” permeating everywhere that cares.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#135
post #131

After 70 years of trying we haven't built an economic traditional nuclear reactor. Even less a breeder. It is like saying we have infinite fossil fuels because we can use renewables to create it from water and air. The interesting part of the conversation is the efficient allocation of money and people. In that conversation nuclear power never materialized.

The French managed to. I guess they have super-human engineering prowess. The trick is that they keep building the same obsolete US-based design instead of re-inventing the entire thing from scratch for each plant. Imagine how much more accessible computers would be if you could just copy the operating system from one "printed" circuit board to another, instead of hand-wiring all the transistors, then hand coding pro…

The French have discovered that they vastly underestimated end-of-life costs. And the power having been sold and used at a price that did not fund those costs, they are well and truly screwed.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#136
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you forget about externalities and politics? Because nuclear would be way cheaper with practice building reactors, economies of scale, without billions in red tape, etc. not to mention it’s the best source of base load without creating massive amounts of air pollution or battery waste

China and Russia do not build and run nuclear power plants at dramatically lower costs, despite having none of those handicaps. Edit: Hmm, actually, I find wildly diverging LCOE numbers in different locations online. Some indicate they build at half the cost from France, while others say at a similar cost. So, if anyone knows which LCOE numbers are reliable please indicate.

Russia's economy is currently heavily dependent on oil exports, so there may at least be some incentive there to suppress it. China on the other hand, had quadrupled its nuclear power generation in the past 10 years (1).

(1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2023/05/17/h...

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#137
post #90
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it matter if nuclear takes 15-20 years to build? No, it does not matter. When it's built it will help out. It matters because every dollar put into nuclear is dollar away from something else. Sure it would be great to have more resources put into nuclear power, and even more so into fusion power. But right now we are at a situation where that can not happen at the cost of things that have more immediate impact…

How about every dollar put into the social and economic fallout of large swaths of Florida and Louisiana falling underwater? That sounds like a pretty significant opportunity cost to me.

False dichotomy; nuclear currently costs about the same as the combination of PV with enough Li-Ion batteries that it kinda looks the same from a "baseload?" perspective, and Li-Ion is the most expensive of the various options currently vaguely near the right scale for storage in that kind of timeframe. From the "everything else except baseload?" perspective, PV can also be one of the cheapest power sources around.

Also, because it's a global problem, the solution has to be something that everyone wants to have, and that everyone wants everyone else to have too, which means we have to care that what powers Iran is green and also Iran will care about not triggering another airstrike from Israel fearing it's a secret atomic bomb project.

PV in particular is also useful for being a continuous roll-out, so even if it worked out at exactly the same cost/joule as nuclear and taking exactly as long to reach the same final total average power output, getting the first joules sooner displaces more of the existing CO2 emissions.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#138
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 wo…

That just seems either an impossible, or just useless measurement. I guess for industries like aluminum smelting you can say the product captures significant part of the energy put into the process, but most human activities are not like that. For example machining/casting that raw aluminum stock into some intricate product, all the energy ends up as waste because from physics point of view that intricate object does…

In your example of machining the useful energy consumed was in the kinetic energy transferred by the motor into the bit. The noise and heat and other forms of energy dissipation that didn’t go directly into machining the object were wasted or lost. If your goal is the machined part, any energy that wasn’t directly necessary or if it’s expenditure were zero and the part would have been machined identically, is considered a waste or lost energy. The “lost” doesn’t mean the rest of the energy were somehow captured or retained, but that it was captured productively towards some goal. Perhaps the term is confusing or misleading, but that’s what it’s intended meaning is.

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#139
If you have money, you can make energy. Therefore you should spend your capex on the things that will get you the most power soonest. And that is what is happening: https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-investment-2023/ove...

Nuclear is a niche category now. But nuclear technology is a fashionable investment that VC limiteds want in their portfolio. So you get articles like this that position uranium fission energy as "renewable."

Re: Nuclear fission fuel is inexhaustible (2022)

#140
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China and Russia do not build and run nuclear power plants at dramatically lower costs, despite having none of those handicaps. Edit: Hmm, actually, I find wildly diverging LCOE numbers in different locations online. Some indicate they build at half the cost from France, while others say at a similar cost. So, if anyone knows which LCOE numbers are reliable please indicate.

Russia's economy is currently heavily dependent on oil exports, so there may at least be some incentive there to suppress it. China on the other hand, had quadrupled its nuclear power generation in the past 10 years (1). (1) https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/2023/05/17/h...

> Russia's economy is currently heavily dependent on oil exports...

All the more reason for them to build nuclear plants. Every barrel of oil that their own economy doesn't need (because they have plenty of nuclear plants) is another barrel they can make money exporting. And if or when using oil becomes unfashionable, or their oil reserved start running low...then being recognized experts on how to build & run lots of safe, economical nuclear plants sounds pretty good, eh?

Post reply on HN