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

41–50 of 114 posts

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

#41

Post by warfangle »

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?

The weaponizable argument was why research was shut down in the first place (also, pressurized water reactors were more useful for the US's naval fleet).

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

#42

Post by andreasvc »

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?

The technology has not been fully developed, there only have been research reactors. Developing reactors for it would require significant investments and apparently no government is willing to invest in it.

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

#44

Post by baq »

anigbrowl wrote: post #21
ZoFreX wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

i think that the biggest problem is the potential for making places on our planet unsuitable to live in forever (for all practical purposes). people look at chernobyl and see a place that will be dangerous to all life long after they're dead. they don't want that to happen again. fukushima is potentially the next such place, albeit on a lower scale.

the fact that radiation doesn't hurt doesn't help either. if our civilization ever falls, chernobyl will be a place cursed by gods.

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

#45

Post by iSnow »

andreasvc wrote: post #42
mrinterweb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The technology has not been fully developed, there only have been research reactors. Developing reactors for it would require significant investments and apparently no government is willing to invest in it.

>there only have been research reactors

Well not exactly. They tried over here, but it eventually lead to nowhere. 2bn for 4 operational years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

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

#46

Post by bdunbar »

jfoutz wrote: post #37
bdunbar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several. One is to dump it in the Mariana trench, let nature push it back down into the crust. If we're foresighted, we'll bombard a crater in the moon with it. It won't go anywhere, and if we need to get it back, there it is.

Space launch is risky, not just perceived as risky, actually risky. rocketry isn't one of those 5 9's of reliability activities.

Space launch is risky, not just perceived as risky, actually risky.

This is true now, it need not always be so.

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

#47

Post by learc83 »

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…

Someone posted an article a while back that estimated that the levels people were exposed to would lead to about 194 extra cancers.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044477240457758...

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

#48

Post by rosser »

jfoutz wrote: post #37
bdunbar wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are several. One is to dump it in the Mariana trench, let nature push it back down into the crust. If we're foresighted, we'll bombard a crater in the moon with it. It won't go anywhere, and if we need to get it back, there it is.

Space launch is risky, not just perceived as risky, actually risky. rocketry isn't one of those 5 9's of reliability activities.

Two words: rail gun.

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

#49

Post by learc83 »

rorrr wrote: post #25

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).

Don't you think we might not stay on that curve forever?

At some point growth in access to western amenities (climate control, transportation, better food) will level off, and population growth will level off.

Also in 1000 years we'll have athletes who finish races before they begin.

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

#50

Post by pjscott »

bdunbar wrote: post #15
pgrote wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the permanent solution?

There are several. One is to dump it in the Mariana trench, let nature push it back down into the crust. If we're foresighted, we'll bombard a crater in the moon with it. It won't go anywhere, and if we need to get it back, there it is.

Shorter term (e.g. next century or so) there's also the easy option of just storing it somewhere safe and keeping an eye on it. There's so little of the waste, by volume, that it's not too hard to manage. The advantages of this scheme are:

1. It's easy. It's what we're doing right now.

2. It lets us recycle the slightly used fuel that comes out of our reactors.

Nuclear waste is not useless. Waste from conventional reactors is mostly usable as fuel, but mining it is cheap enough that this recycling isn't economically compelling yet. Our nuclear waste stockpile can be thought of as a strategic nuclear fuel reserve: a valuable resource set aside for the future.

Post reply on HN