[deleted]
Energy
211–220 of 287 posts
Re: Energy
#212I 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…
think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth [...] reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up I like this metaphor. I think what you might have implied but didn't explicitly mention was distributed vs centralized when thinking about these systems as well. Solar can be a distributed system whereas fission & fusion systems are centralized. Even though you can make small fission syste…
Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor beyond it breaking down. Neither is waste - an inert reactor is harmless unless you insist on crowbaring into the core to bathe in all those activated inner wall materials.
Re: Energy
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it's worth, this is the kind of comment that looks hilarious in retrospect after every major breakthrough. YC has demonstrated they aren't just throwing darts here, so vague pessimism is not the best default.
I am literally asking "what?" Because I don't know of any common idea that is even in the realm of this. I'm hoping someone knew something about the process they're pursuing that is not commonly known among cargo cult physicists like myself.
[deleted]
Re: Energy
#214> terrestrial-based atomic energy... has major advantages when it comes to cost Are we talking public cost? Because that's all that matters. So far the public cost of nuclear power has been extraordinary, due to accidents and waste. I understand that some of these startups aim to process existing waste in relatively small distributed reactors but what is the public cost of spreading a bunch of "mini" toxic waste site…
First, the reactors are consuming the fuel while deployed, but no waste is stored at the sites. It is stored centrally so there are a few centralized sites that hold the waste for a few hundred years. After which you could make things out of the material and use them around your home without issue.
The reactors cannot be deviated for nefarious purposes. And the materials are not less secure. The materials are being consumed by the reactor, and they are not dangerous as they are. In fact these reactors could destroy weapons grade material that is slated to be destroyed for fractions of the cost of programs the US is pursuing. Plus the reactors are secured when deployed. They are also buried and completely cooled by natural forces so they always stay cool. No fuel overheating.
The reactors cannot be hacked, and if a bad actor commandeered one, all they could do is turn it off safely. Even if they tried to make it hotter it would just turn off and cool down. There just isn't enough fuel in the core to do anything else.
Re: Energy
#215> By combining our years of experience in fusion, newly available electronics technologies, and a revolutionary design using cutting-edge physics, Helion is making a fusion engine 1,000 times smaller, over 500 times cheaper, and realizable 10 time faster than other projects. What?!? I certainly appreciate the ambition, but humanity has spent seven decades and at least hundreds of billions of dollars on this very same…
Helion is investigating a different shaped magnetic containment field[0], and $5m is enough to get to them to the next prototype.
They have had previous success[1], and the torus-shaped magnetic containment fields used in most fusion research is known to be a problem.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversed_field_pinch
[1] http://www.alternative-energy-action-now.com/helion-energy.h... (yes, that domain sounds terrible, but the info seems ok)
Re: Energy
#216> terrestrial-based atomic energy... has major advantages when it comes to cost Are we talking public cost? Because that's all that matters. So far the public cost of nuclear power has been extraordinary, due to accidents and waste. I understand that some of these startups aim to process existing waste in relatively small distributed reactors but what is the public cost of spreading a bunch of "mini" toxic waste site…
I agree with this entirely. I think too many self-declared science-minded people buy into the argument that "nuclear is a good solution" without looking at the numbers or risks. Whilst I understand the costs of fossil fuel use, I think that the distribution of risks associated with nuclear power makes cost estimation a lot more difficult that proponents assume (ie, safe almost always, very rare disasters that cause h…
That's why the reactor can use thorium! There are big benefits. But frankly all advanced reactors are cooled by natural forces so are immune to fuel overheating. The challenge is more that the consequences of accidents are way overestimated. Nobody died from radiation at Fukushima, and no one is going to. The land is not uninhabitable, some bureaucrat who sets limits non-scientifically just says it is. If people actually paid attention to data and not just assume things based on what pop culture or some bureaucrat has falsely led them to believe, people would realize the consequences of catastrophic meltdowns just aren't that bad. They shouldn't happen, but we shouldn't speculate wildly about indirect costs that are generally made up and use that as a basis for their thoughts on nuclear power. Your comments are right on in that people need to investigate nuclear. I find most people who do, find it to be a great option, while it is generally those who are opposed that didn't like it at the onset without knowing much about it and then refused to learn about it. That is why the opponents are the significant minority in the US. So your advice is good, but it's directed at the wrong crowd.
Re: Energy
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
Solar generation is less predictable, and the grid needs an energy source that is capable of quickly adjusting to the current fluctuation in demand of consumers.
That's where the batteries come in. To continue the software metaphors, batteries provide caching, and the cache is tunable for cost and performance. This wasn't viable a decade ago, but with the advances in solar/wind cost/performance, and the advances in battery cost/performance, it's really becoming a powerful option.
[deleted]
Re: Energy
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
Anyone thinking about this needs to watch "Into Eternity", a movie about the Finnish nuclear waste repository: http://www.intoeternitythemovie.com/ "In Finland the world’s first permanent repository is being hewn out of solid rock - a huge system of underground tunnels - that must last 100,000 years as this is how long the waste remains hazardous." It was eye opening.
On a positive note: While I have major questions/concerns about distributing poorly secured fast reactors and toxic waste sites all over the planet, if this tech really does turn out to be a practical way to reduce the half life of waste... Why not just turn the waste storage sites into reactor farms? That would sidestep the problems stemming from decentralization and probably achieve some economies of scale too. May…
They are not poorly secured, and the material is not weaponizable. Not to mention they are not toxic sites, the waste is put into a block of metal that is completely passively cooled so it can't melt. It is buried, and it is secured. And they would generally be deployed in multi unit farms. Plus, no need to throw away the energy, especially if it's cheaper than energy from gas or coal.
Re: Energy
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth [...] reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up I like this metaphor. I think what you might have implied but didn't explicitly mention was distributed vs centralized when thinking about these systems as well. Solar can be a distributed system whereas fission & fusion systems are centralized. Even though you can make small fission syste…
Interesting analogy and choice of words since UPower is building a solid state reactor.
From what I can gather it's solid state in the sense that it's a passive system that doesn't require pumps but it still involves heat creating steam which in turn drives generators. The liquid changes phase from liquid to gas then cools to a liquid again, so it can remain self-contained.
Very cool, but feels kinda not as solid if you know what I mean. Don't want to downplay how neat it is though.
Re: Energy
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
think of finance in terms of latency/bandwidth [...] reactors are high latency - they're expensive and take a long time to set up I like this metaphor. I think what you might have implied but didn't explicitly mention was distributed vs centralized when thinking about these systems as well. Solar can be a distributed system whereas fission & fusion systems are centralized. Even though you can make small fission syste…
Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor beyond it breaking down. Neither is waste - an inert reactor is harmless unless you insist on crowbaring into the core to bathe in all those activated inner wall materials.
Faults are not a serious issue with a fusion reactor beyond it breaking down
That's what I mean in the context of centralized vs distributed - replacing a faulty solar panel is no biggie. Replacing a micro fusion reactor, while not as bad as replacing a tokamak reactor, is significant.
Neither is waste [...] unless you insist on crowbaring into the core
Reactors still need to be decommissioned at some point, though you're right - it's trivial comparatively. I will do a dance when fusion is a thing and the world will be a better place.