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

Energy

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 287 posts

Re: Energy

#11

Post by arenaninja »

jonathannorris wrote: post #4

It's great to see you invest your time and money in nuclear power Sam. We already have the nuclear technology to solve our energy emissions problem, we just lack the political will to make the shift away from coal/oil/gas. Great leaps in the efficiency and safety of nuclear power systems will hopefully make the shift politically achievable.

I thought the biggest hurdle with nuclear energy was waste management? As in, we've nowhere to put the toxic dump that's produced that will radiate a few tens of thousands of years? Unless that's been solved, in which case consumer education would be a next step

Re: Energy

#12

Post by jsprogrammer »

Hmm, major reversals of conflict-of-interest policy? (ie. now chairman of two YC companies and personally investing in them)

Large claims with no hard data comparisons? (eg. atomic power has major cost, density, and predictability advantages)

This(?):

>There will only be one cheapest source of energy

Really? There can't be two sources at or near equilibrium?

These systems are not deployed in isolated, designer environments, but instead are deployed in complex environments. Transportation and project logistics will prefer some sources over others.

The lack of any real metric for cost or "cheapness" is a red flag. Is cost being measured in nominal dollars? Will such a thing even exist in the 22nd century?

Re: Energy

#13

Post by sgk284 »

Slightly off-topic, but going to UPower's site shows nothing but a somewhat sparse wintery forest. Perhaps I've too much sci-fi on the brain, but it made me think of a nuclear winter.

Re: Energy

#14

Post by nine_k »

jacquesm wrote: post #6
iamcurious wrote: post #2

I find it strange there is no mention about batteries. From what I understand (and it isn't much, I'm way out of my field) getting energy is easy, saving it is hard.

If you can generate on demand then you don't need batteries.

Batteries are great when you need a relatively compact and lightweight source without moving parts and noise. That is, cars, helicopter drones, phones, etc. Batteries still lack the high energy density of fuels like kerosene; you cannot fly a jet plane or rocket on batteries.

Electric power can probably be used to synthesize traditional fuels from carbon dioxide and water, to stay carbon-neutral. Plants can do that but in a quite inefficient manner. A (bio)chemistry breakthrough is badly wanted on this front.

Re: Energy

#15

Post by api »

I'm very happy to see independent fusion efforts raising money, given that government R&D has decided to put nearly all its eggs in the tokamak basket.

Re: Energy

#16

Post by jarvist »

cjensen wrote: post #9
iamcurious wrote: post #2

I find it strange there is no mention about batteries. From what I understand (and it isn't much, I'm way out of my field) getting energy is easy, saving it is hard.

Fusion and Fission systems tend to run 24/7, unlike Wind and Solar. There is far less need to store energy when using the former types of generation.

Fission: Nuclear power stations have relatively low capacity factors (a measurement of how much of time they're actually connected to the grid and producing power). This is typically 70% over the last few decades for Western countries (i.e. a third of the time, a nuclear power station is not producing anything). As well as unintended maintenance shut down periods, most reactor designs require a multi-month shut down to refuel. In recent years some countries have managed closer to 90%.

Fusion: By '24/7' you mean the 0.5 s sustained burn at JET in the 90s. Humanity has not yet managed to sustain fusion for a full second on the Earth, let alone get any useful power out of it. ITER (the next generation Tokamak test reactor) isn't built yet. The intent is for it to achieve 1000 s of fusion burn time. Its over budget and behind time, and they've just had a management reshuffle to try and deal with this.

* Edited & extended to try and incorporate nbouscal's feedback from below

Re: Energy

#17

Post by washedup »

A huge part of the problem is not investment or technology, but the legislative structure which still favors fossil fuels. The lobbying interests and influence are immense. Once this starts to change there will be a rapid shift towards clean energy.

Re: Energy

#18

Post by Eleutheria »

Distributed generation is where we should invest. Energy independence for the individual.

Individual solar panels and batteries, personal windmills, personal reactors, etc.

Imagine all the savings in infrastructure for energy transportation and reinvestment in other sectors. Imagine all the possibilities if people could switch their energy generation model as simple as buying a new product and installing it at home.

Individual energy independence, even if it will never be possible, that's where our dreams should be.

Then water, then food. That's disruption at seismic level. Post-scarcity world.

Re: Energy

#19

Post by sskates »

I always wondered why more energy wasn't generated from nuclear. On paper it seems like a great energy source.

Kudos to Sam for putting not just his money, but his time where his mouth is. If only the rest of the internet could do the same!

Re: Energy

#20

Post by beat »

I suspect solar (including wind/biomass) + batteries is going to trounce fission reactors in the not terribly long term. If you think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth (a model I use for lots of things), reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up.

Meanwhile, solar/wind is heading toward dirt cheap and trivial to set up. Environmental impact is minimal, too. It doesn't require giant corporations, government sponsorship, complex regulations, or exotic engineering skills to implement. With those incredible advantages, it doesn't need to be cheaper than nuclear - it just needs to be adequately cheap.

Post reply on HN