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

New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 114 posts

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#21

Post by anigbrowl »

ZoFreX wrote: post #16
anigbrowl wrote: post #10

I'm pro-nuclear, but I can't take this writer's hand-wavey dismissal of the risks seriously.

Honestly, I don't think it's that hand-wavey when nuclear has killed less people ever than coal does every year.

People are more frightened of things they don't understand, so effective advocacy of nuclear power requires making the effort to bridge the information gap. Also, people find concentrated acute harm more scary than dispersed chronic harm, which is why the idea of a plane crash is more disturbing than the larger number of people killed in road accidents.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#22

Post by aidenn0 »

ExpiredLink wrote: post #7
lutusp wrote: post #4

This idea only makes sense if the used-fuel disposal problem is resolved, and it is not at all resolved. It would be like claiming that the coal supply is unlimited, but without addressing the problem of emissions.

The journalist writes "we know that nuclear power is safe".

Some data in support of that (granted not from a neutral source):

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf06app.html

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#23

Post by mrinterweb »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #5

I really thought this was going to be about Thorium. Surprise - its about extracting Uranium from seawater.

I can not figure out why more effort is not put into thorium nuclear technology research. The only reason I have heard why thorium is not being considered is because it is not weaponizable. Are there any other reasons why thorium based nuclear fission is not being pursued as an energy source?

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#24

Post by DanielBMarkham »

Let's reverse the logic. Instead of talking about how much radioactive material we're pulling from the ocean, how much could we put in?

Am I mistaken in saying that we could put back in every bit of radioactive material we'd use until 5000AD and only double the natural background radiation amount?

I know the math isn't exact -- it's not a symmetry -- but on a rough-order-of-magnitude basis, is that a reasonable conclusion?

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#25

Post by rorrr »

5000AD estimate is complete bullshit. Our energy consumption doubles every ~20 years (15 to 35 by various sources).

In only 10 doublings (200 years) our energy consumption will increase 1,000 times.

After 20 doublings (400 years), it will increase 1,000,000 times.

I expect by then we will be using mostly fusion and/or the energy of the Sun (and/or some new energy source).

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#26

Post by dexen »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #24

Let's reverse the logic. Instead of talking about how much radioactive material we're pulling from the ocean, how much could we put in? Am I mistaken in saying that we could put back in every bit of radioactive material we'd use until 5000AD and only double the natural background radiation amount? I know the math isn't exact -- it's not a symmetry -- but on a rough-order-of-magnitude basis, is that a reasonable concl…

Probably makes sense, but you'd have hard time to pull this one off given the state of modern-day press and other media.

Suppose scientists calculate seawater contains, on average, N parts per million of Uranium and aim at inceasing it to just N+1 (assuming N >> 1).

Armchair `ecologists' -- think Greenpeace -- would go thermonuclear on you -- and mass media would give those `ecologists' much more print space and air time than to the scientists. Public opinion would be skewed from the get-go.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#27

Post by davidcuddeback »

mrinterweb wrote: post #23
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #5

I really thought this was going to be about Thorium. Surprise - its about extracting Uranium from seawater.

I can not figure out why more effort is not put into thorium nuclear technology research. The only reason I have heard why thorium is not being considered is because it is not weaponizable. Are there any other reasons why thorium based nuclear fission is not being pursued as an energy source?

I was just about to ask the same question. I hadn't heard of Thorium-based nuclear power until now, so I just read a summary of it on Wikipedia [1]. It seems like a promising technology for further research, so I'm wondering what the source is for the "Thorium? Not again" reactions.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#28

Post by chc »

anigbrowl wrote: post #14
rauljara wrote: post #9

"Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe." It seems to me like the primary danger from radiation like that leaked from Fukushima would be an increase in cancer. I think it's a little early to be claiming that Fukushima will cause no increase harm to humans. There is already evidence that it caused harm to…

One of the interesting things about the pale grass butterfly results is that until now scientists considered such insects to be fairly resistant to environmental radiation at a genetic level, notwithstanding their physical delicacy. There are some references to this in the Nature paper. Those findings must be very disturbing to prospective or recent parents that lived in the vicinity of the nuclear plant.

The article isn't very specific on the specific vectors at work here, but from what the scientists did, it sounds like those butterflies were very close indeed and literally ate radioactive materials. So it may not be relevant to local parents unless their kids eat a lot of dirt right outside power plants.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#29

Post by gliese1337 »

aidenn0 wrote: post #18
TallGuyShort wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's an unfair way to express the estimate though. Sure, it might not really last until 5000 AD, but to me it simply implies 3000 "years of fuel", with a "year of fuel" being how we use fuel now. If energy consumption goes up or down it doesn't really matter - I still have a sense of how significant this energy source is.

Yes, but growth sucks. Assuming 3000 years in the article means what you think it means, consider exponential and linear growth: If energy usage doubles every 30 years (pulled that out of my ass, it's not likely the trend but divides nice into 3000) then it will last us less than 200 years If energy usage grows linearly increasing by the current amount every 30 years (so in 2042 we are using double, and 2072 we are u…

And in any case, 3000 years is still finite. There will come a time, if we don't go extinct or experience the rapture, when nuclear fuel will run out, and we'll have to use renewables anyway. Fortunately, the sun puts out a rather large amount of power, and even 200 years is a pretty good amount of time for figuring out how to capture it better.

Re: New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

#30

Post by rogerbinns »

ZoFreX wrote: post #16
anigbrowl wrote: post #10

I'm pro-nuclear, but I can't take this writer's hand-wavey dismissal of the risks seriously.

Honestly, I don't think it's that hand-wavey when nuclear has killed less people ever than coal does every year.

And it turns out that radiation from coal plants is a problem - some claim it is more radioactive that nuclear waste! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is...
Post reply on HN