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

Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#61

Post by euroderf »

rpmisms wrote: post #18
rabf wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Our gyrotron-powered drilling platform vaporizes boreholes through rock and provides access to deep geothermal heat without complex downhole equipment. Based on breakthrough fusion research and well-established drilling practices, we are developing a radical new approach to ultra-deep drilling." This company looks promising in the geothermal space. They are looking to be able to create 10km boreholes in 100 days. Th…

Looks amazing as a disruptor in the space, but I also want to say that Gyrotron is an excellent name for a device. Very industrial.

Expo '67 Gyrotron: https://en.worldfairs.info/expopavillondetails.php?expo_id=1...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#62

Post by euroderf »

dmurray wrote: post #38
pb1729 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bhauth wrote an analysis of this idea, and tldr is that trying to get an energy payback on literally vaporizing such a long cylinder of rock is brutally difficult, probably enough to make the economics of the plan unworkable. https://www.bhauth.com/blog/flawed%20ideas/microwave%20drill...

It makes it all sound like a problem of engineering, not of physics. It's really hard to vapourize all that rock and suck it out to the surface with a vacuum. But it's really hard in the sense that the vaporised rock might recondense and stick to the sides of the hole, not in the sense that vaporising the rock costs more energy than you get out of the hole in its 30-year lifetime.

Would it be possible to blow chilled air down the hole that would quickly condense the rock vapor into particulates that don't stick and instead get vacuumed out ?

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#63

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

lucb1e wrote: post #37
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #23

Near everything outperforms nuclear power. Nuclear power is unfathomably expensive. Come back when it is in the same league as renewables or CCGTs.

For anyone else who didn't know that CCGT is a euphemism for gas: > A combined cycle power plant is an assembly of heat engines that work in tandem from the same source of heat, converting it into mechanical energy. On land, when used to make electricity the most common type is called a combined cycle gas turbine plant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle_power_plant )

A backup system which can be ran on hydrogen or e-fuels when the time comes to tick off the final hard problems.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewable-gr...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#64

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

Krssst wrote: post #51
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We tried tons of nuclear power. It peaked at 18% of the global electricity mix in the 90s. Comparatively solar sits at 5.5% today but is rapidly increasing. If 18% of the global electricity mix is not trying hard enough then the technology did not work out. The cost savings never materialized, it’s always been a case of negative learning by doing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

Nuclear power successfully decarbonized almost the entire French electricity grid. The only case I know of of a large industrialized country without heavy hydro resources managing to almost remove fossil fuels from electricity generation. Maybe it's expensive (still less than in Germany which chose NREs, coal and gas), but it's also the only solution proven to work.

It is very intellectually boring to have the view that the only things which are possible is what we have already done.

Meaning, with your own logic the French nuclear buildout was impossible since no one had done it before.

It was possible. Just like renewables are today.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#65

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

MostlyStable wrote: post #45
bluescrn wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't do nuclear because it's expensive, and that's why it stays expensive. No economies of scale, minimal opportunities to iteratively improve designs. Solar was expensive until we started building a lot of it (often due to heavy subsidisation)

And, importantly, we have chosen to make it expensive by mandating a level of safety that is orders of magnitude higher than for any other generation method.

Nuclear power plants still can’t insure themselves on the public markets.

When the need for the insurance subsidy is removed then we can talk about it being as safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#66

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

hungie wrote: post #34
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not how small the waste is, it is the effects. High level radioactive waste can cause Goiânia like outcomes, or leach into the groundwater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident It is quite intellectually dishonest to try frame it as pixie dust rather than the true problem it poses.

If, and only if, you store it stupidly. There's plenty of ways to safely store it for millennia. It's not a truly difficult problem. And I'm just doing my best to present the facts as they are -- no fud.

“Hand waving” we can store it easily for millennia.

The US was founded ~250 years ago as a perspective.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#67

Post by [deleted] »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #64
Krssst wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power successfully decarbonized almost the entire French electricity grid. The only case I know of of a large industrialized country without heavy hydro resources managing to almost remove fossil fuels from electricity generation. Maybe it's expensive (still less than in Germany which chose NREs, coal and gas), but it's also the only solution proven to work.

It is very intellectually boring to have the view that the only things which are possible is what we have already done. Meaning, with your own logic the French nuclear buildout was impossible since no one had done it before. It was possible. Just like renewables are today.

[deleted]

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#68

Post by Krssst »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #64
Krssst wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power successfully decarbonized almost the entire French electricity grid. The only case I know of of a large industrialized country without heavy hydro resources managing to almost remove fossil fuels from electricity generation. Maybe it's expensive (still less than in Germany which chose NREs, coal and gas), but it's also the only solution proven to work.

It is very intellectually boring to have the view that the only things which are possible is what we have already done. Meaning, with your own logic the French nuclear buildout was impossible since no one had done it before. It was possible. Just like renewables are today.

It's not the only possible thing to do but the most surefire way of removing carbon from electrical grids.

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#69

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

Krssst wrote: post #68
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is very intellectually boring to have the view that the only things which are possible is what we have already done. Meaning, with your own logic the French nuclear buildout was impossible since no one had done it before. It was possible. Just like renewables are today.

It's not the only possible thing to do but the most surefire way of removing carbon from electrical grids.

Spending 3-10x as much depending on if you compare with offshore wind or solar?

Given the differences in cost investing nuclear power today prolongs our fight against climate change.

For every dollar invested in nuclear power we get less effect and need to wait longer for the effect to materialize compared to renewables.

https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

Re: Geothermal energy could outperform nuclear power

#70

Post by Krssst »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #69
Krssst wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the only possible thing to do but the most surefire way of removing carbon from electrical grids.

Spending 3-10x as much depending on if you compare with offshore wind or solar? Given the differences in cost investing nuclear power today prolongs our fight against climate change. For every dollar invested in nuclear power we get less effect and need to wait longer for the effect to materialize compared to renewables. https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-...

Yet a grid scale replacement for coal/gas using NREs still failed to materialize in the last decade. NREs definitely help with decarbonizing (and pushing NREs is better than doing nothing), but for some reason countries deploying NREs never seem to retire almost all fossil fuel production from the grid.
Post reply on HN