UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries • Hacker News Board

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#111

Post by TheLoneWolfling » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 6:54 PM UTC

donttrustatoms wrote: post #80

dredmorbius wrote: post #72

First off: I'm very pleased to see that YC are backing startup concepts other than an endless stream of privacy-invading "social" surveilices, games, and new forms of intrusive and annoying advertising. I'd posted something of a rant on that subject about 7 months ago which didn't go over hugely at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7063690 Secondly: this is actually what I'd consider a "Big Problems" sta…

I love that you bring up the global scale. It's in the global scale things sound daunting. But it's in the global scale that what is really important becomes clear. Maybe the most important fact it all boils down to is energy density. Nuclear is literally millions of times more energy dense than any other energy source. Practically, that means millions of times less waste. (See let's talk about physics baby http://ww…

Something to take note of.

Different types of energy production are useful for different roles.

Nuclear tends to fall into the category of base load - it costs (close enough to) just as much to run it at 5% capacity as at 100%.

Most traditional fossil-fuel steam turbines (coal, oil) have spin-up times on the order of several hours to a day. As such, they tend to be used to compensate for longer-timescale variations, but cannot really cope with very short term spikes.

There are fossil-fuel power stations with shorter lag times, but they tend to be relatively inefficient, and as such only get used for unexpected high loads.

Hydro is really good in a lot of ways, at least where hydro power stations can be built. The biggest reason is that it can be adjusted on really short timescales. Read: minutes or less. Longer lag time for larger power stations - the biggest limitation tends to be preventing cavitation and water hammer.

Solar and wind are both extremely variable, and unpredictably so (you can predict, but there is enough inaccuracy in the predictions that you cannot trust them). As such, they are practically useless without at least one of power storage, fast-responding power generation, or fast-acting power usage cuts when necessary. (Read: hydro or paying aluminum smelters to only run in the back shifts. (First thing that came to mind))

As there is no efficient and decently long-lasting power storage at grid scales (Vanadium-redox batteries are good, but have issues. Molten-salt storage leaks heat quickly. Etc.), effectively: you can forget about solar and wind for grid-scale power without hydro.

Nuclear power for everything is a waste unless society changes. And good luck with that.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#112

Post by anonymous999 » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 7:23 PM UTC

donttrustatoms wrote: post #107

anonymous999 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. First of all, best of luck with your startup. I'm all for better nuclear technology. However, I'm related to a nuclear engineer (who is currently in a senior position at IAEA, thus the anonymous account), and I understood that both steps you're currently undertaking were commonly know to be viable and efficient, BUT contravened most non-proliferation agreements (note: I'm not a nuclear engineer or physicist. Just…

Thanks so much for the luck wishes! We will try to make the most of this luck. ;) I'm glad you brought up the dirty bomb factor again. The perpetuation of the myth of the dangers of the dirty bomb is truly sad. We all intuitively realize that the dangers of chemical warfare, biological dispersion (especially because it is transmissible long after the incident), and the dangers of bombs themselves are so much greater…

Thank you :)

It is not me who you have to convince! :) It's the general public (and fighting decades of propaganda).

Maybe a YouTube viral video or something, I don't know :)

I wouldn't go showing the plutonium dust article. Reminds me too much of Alexander Litvinenko.

And your point about reprocessing in France actually reinforces my point: it required multiple inter-governmental agreements at the highest diplomatic levels, and complying with EURATOM, very especially (as it applies to you) the 2001 Joint Convention, OSPAR (?) and I'm sure plenty more of red tape (source: IAEA publications).

Being U.S. based is obviously a benefit to you, since they're the most likely to shrug international oversight (and you say you're not reprocessing anyways).

Plus, France is the most pro-nuclear country in Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Convention_on_the_Safety_...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/1997/inf...

I saw the diagrams on your website, it does look like a very unlikely target for being blown up, but the likelihood doesn't enter the equation when irrational fears are bandied around (they might say you're lying, etc..).

I just want you to be very aware of the stigma and irrationa l fears, and the regulatory hazards, because I very much want you to succeed.

I've talked to politicians (outside the U.S.), and they tell me that pushing a nuclear agenda, while economically sound, is political suicide. Some countries have a "stealth" approach (simply by not calling attention to media and quietly "expanding" current facilities), while others, like Germany, caved in to public pressure.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#113

Post by donttrustatoms » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 9:16 PM UTC

anonymous999 wrote: post #112

donttrustatoms wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks so much for the luck wishes! We will try to make the most of this luck. ;) I'm glad you brought up the dirty bomb factor again. The perpetuation of the myth of the dangers of the dirty bomb is truly sad. We all intuitively realize that the dangers of chemical warfare, biological dispersion (especially because it is transmissible long after the incident), and the dangers of bombs themselves are so much greater…

Thank you :) It is not me who you have to convince! :) It's the general public (and fighting decades of propaganda). Maybe a YouTube viral video or something, I don't know :) I wouldn't go showing the plutonium dust article. Reminds me too much of Alexander Litvinenko. And your point about reprocessing in France actually reinforces my point: it required multiple inter-governmental agreements at the highest diplomatic…

Absolutely. We talked to German energy heads that said they would invest but wouldn't tell anyone. :)

One thing we could use a favor from you. So, so so many people are saying "I support nuclear but I'm the only one"... you aren't! Believe me you're in the majority (70% in US support, although nuclear especially needs people like you, in the top of that group in knowledge/education to speak out and help educate) and that even this is changing... and just come out of the closet already. :)

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#114

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 9:44 PM UTC

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #111

donttrustatoms wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love that you bring up the global scale. It's in the global scale things sound daunting. But it's in the global scale that what is really important becomes clear. Maybe the most important fact it all boils down to is energy density. Nuclear is literally millions of times more energy dense than any other energy source. Practically, that means millions of times less waste. (See let's talk about physics baby http://ww…

Something to take note of. Different types of energy production are useful for different roles. Nuclear tends to fall into the category of base load - it costs (close enough to) just as much to run it at 5% capacity as at 100%. Most traditional fossil-fuel steam turbines (coal, oil) have spin-up times on the order of several hours to a day. As such, they tend to be used to compensate for longer-timescale variations,…

Quite.

Hydro, hydro pumped storage, tidal impounds (essentially low-head but large-area reservoirs), and geothermal (wet field) are all highly dispatchable.

Solar thermal is expensive but among its benefits it has is a built-in storage capability. For most present plants that's only a few hours, but several days worth of banked heat might be viable.

There are a number of storage options, of which the prospect of synfuels, in particular seawater-based Fischer-Tropsch fuel synthesis, which as been studied by Brookhaven National Labs, MIT, and the US Naval Research Lab for over 50 years, looks fairly promising. It starts with hydrogen electrolysis, to which CO2 is added, sourced from seawater. Outputs are analogs of present day diesel, gasoline, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. Most of the energy cost is in the electrolysis. Net energy return in terms of fuel is about 50-60%, round-trip net of generation would be fairly low (~20%), but the energy storage is very long-term stable, and dense by weight or volume (for liquids). We've got a lot of experience burning hydrocarbons, and these are carbon-neutral (the source CO2 comes from the present biosphere).

http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/28nqoz/electric...

http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/22k71x/us_navy_...

There's also work by some (including a recent video by Amory Lovins) suggesting that there are relatively modest requirements for dispatchable generation, though I suspect those are a tad optimistic.

http://www.engineering.com/ElectronicsDesign/ElectronicsDesi...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#115

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 10:08 PM UTC

Is there more detail on just how the energy is being generated here? All I see is "battery" and intimations that there are no working fluids.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#116

Post by dredmorbius » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 10:11 PM UTC

donttrustatoms wrote: post #80

dredmorbius wrote: post #72

First off: I'm very pleased to see that YC are backing startup concepts other than an endless stream of privacy-invading "social" surveilices, games, and new forms of intrusive and annoying advertising. I'd posted something of a rant on that subject about 7 months ago which didn't go over hugely at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7063690 Secondly: this is actually what I'd consider a "Big Problems" sta…

I love that you bring up the global scale. It's in the global scale things sound daunting. But it's in the global scale that what is really important becomes clear. Maybe the most important fact it all boils down to is energy density. Nuclear is literally millions of times more energy dense than any other energy source. Practically, that means millions of times less waste. (See let's talk about physics baby http://ww…

NB: source of that land use chart:

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/2036_Alternative-Energy-Sour...

http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2010/...

http://www.cnet.com/news/figuring-land-use-into-renewable-en...

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#117

Post by TheLoneWolfling » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 11:29 PM UTC

dredmorbius wrote: post #114

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something to take note of. Different types of energy production are useful for different roles. Nuclear tends to fall into the category of base load - it costs (close enough to) just as much to run it at 5% capacity as at 100%. Most traditional fossil-fuel steam turbines (coal, oil) have spin-up times on the order of several hours to a day. As such, they tend to be used to compensate for longer-timescale variations,…

Quite. Hydro, hydro pumped storage, tidal impounds (essentially low-head but large-area reservoirs), and geothermal (wet field) are all highly dispatchable. Solar thermal is expensive but among its benefits it has is a built-in storage capability. For most present plants that's only a few hours, but several days worth of banked heat might be viable. There are a number of storage options, of which the prospect of synf…

Dispatchable. That's the term. Thanks.

The thing is, by the time you talk about the design lifetime power output of wind in particular, and couple in the 20% figure you quote for the round trip, one has to wonder if it is worth it.

It's a lot of metal (and in particular the "weirder" metals - rare-earths and the like) to smelt and move around to get a relatively small amount of power. And the increased power losses due to having to put them where the wind is. And the power cost of building the storage capability.

Synfuels are indeed interesting, for bunches of reasons, chief among them that they are the most power-dense storage solution we've got. Personally, it's about the best option for personal vehicles. Yeah, electric vehicles are neat, but they suffer from short ranges and long recharge times, as well as using bunches of relatively rare elements (and elements that are mined using techniques that are abysmal in environmental terms).

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#118

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Aug 19, 2014, 11:48 PM UTC

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #117

dredmorbius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite. Hydro, hydro pumped storage, tidal impounds (essentially low-head but large-area reservoirs), and geothermal (wet field) are all highly dispatchable. Solar thermal is expensive but among its benefits it has is a built-in storage capability. For most present plants that's only a few hours, but several days worth of banked heat might be viable. There are a number of storage options, of which the prospect of synf…

Dispatchable. That's the term. Thanks. The thing is, by the time you talk about the design lifetime power output of wind in particular, and couple in the 20% figure you quote for the round trip, one has to wonder if it is worth it. It's a lot of metal (and in particular the "weirder" metals - rare-earths and the like) to smelt and move around to get a relatively small amount of power. And the increased power losses d…

I've always thought of windpower as a weird kind of battery. You put all sorts of energy in upfront (manufacturing, installing, repairing) and get a trickle our for a long time.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#119

Post by TheLoneWolfling » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 12:39 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #118

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dispatchable. That's the term. Thanks. The thing is, by the time you talk about the design lifetime power output of wind in particular, and couple in the 20% figure you quote for the round trip, one has to wonder if it is worth it. It's a lot of metal (and in particular the "weirder" metals - rare-earths and the like) to smelt and move around to get a relatively small amount of power. And the increased power losses d…

I've always thought of windpower as a weird kind of battery. You put all sorts of energy in upfront (manufacturing, installing, repairing) and get a trickle our for a long time.

There are better batteries...

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#120

Post by dredmorbius » Wed, Aug 20, 2014, 12:44 AM UTC

TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #117

dredmorbius wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite. Hydro, hydro pumped storage, tidal impounds (essentially low-head but large-area reservoirs), and geothermal (wet field) are all highly dispatchable. Solar thermal is expensive but among its benefits it has is a built-in storage capability. For most present plants that's only a few hours, but several days worth of banked heat might be viable. There are a number of storage options, of which the prospect of synf…

Dispatchable. That's the term. Thanks. The thing is, by the time you talk about the design lifetime power output of wind in particular, and couple in the 20% figure you quote for the round trip, one has to wonder if it is worth it. It's a lot of metal (and in particular the "weirder" metals - rare-earths and the like) to smelt and move around to get a relatively small amount of power. And the increased power losses d…

There are a few people who've done calculations of the EROEI (energy returned on energy input) of various renewable energy technologies, most notably the guy who came up with the term, Charles A.S. Hall. I've had a few discussions with him on this.

Wind power has a modestly high EROEI, around 18. For solar PV, his numbers are far lower -- around 2.6. The problem comes in when you account for whether there's a minimum EROEI necessary to sustain an advanced civilization, and just what that might be. Hall's view is that it's around 6-10, after which you pretty much fall off a cliff -- you've got to get a sufficient return on your energy investment to make other economic activity possible.

For the synfuel path I discussed, the point is that there are a few things for which having hydrocarbons (liquid or gas) is really, really useful, and as I've noted elsewhere in this discussion, there's simply not enough net biological productivity ("photosynthetic ceiling" to use Jared Diamond's term, or HANNP, human appropriation of net primary productivity, another formulation) to provide fuels in the quantities humans are presently accustomed to -- some of the acreage requirement estimates get stunningly large and rapidly:

http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/2cvap7/the_intr...

In particular (the table on that page is a bit prettier than it will appear here on HN):

    Crop        Yield (gal/acre-yr)     Acres required (millions)
    soybeans    50      5,670
    canola      100     2,835
    canola      300     945
    algae       1000    283
    algae (high est)    10,000  28

Note that total arable land in the US is about 410 million acres, and total land area of the US is 2.4 billion acres. You'd have to overplant the US twice to get enough fuel-from-crops via soybeans.

Note that "rare earths" aren't actually all that rare, though there are plenty of minerals which are limited in abundance:

http://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/267901/global_r...

As for synfuels: since you're converting surplus generating capacity, your marginal energy cost is nil. Even assuming you're building capacity specific to the need, what you're trading is a non-storable, non-mobile, non-dispatchable form of energy for one which has all of those properties. That can be a good trade.

The fact that it's a drop-in replacement for the existing energy system is an added bonus.

Will it work? I really don't know, though the answer to that question's been occupying me for some time.