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

Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 172 posts

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#101

Post by cryptonector »

dmurray wrote: post #6
richardatlarge wrote: post #5

Quote: "and though it takes roughly 100 pounds of it to build an atomic bomb...” Are they stupid at PM or just selling misinformation?

This matches other sources on the internet: a bomb requires about 15kg of U-235 [0] with a good use of neutron reflectors, and HEU by definition contains 20%+ of U-235 [1]. We don't know exactly what the U-235 concentration was in the Kodak device, but reasonable values would make the claim "roughly" correct. [0] https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-weapon/Princip... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriche…

HEU != 20% enriched -- 20% is more like the floor for considering it HEU. You need much more than 20% to make an efficient Uranium bomb.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#102

Post by parineum »

jeffbee wrote: post #84
dgacmu wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the above poster said. Generation costs are a small part of most consumers' bills, but particularly in CA. If you look at the location marginal pricing map from CA ISO: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices You'll see that right now (before solar has really kicked in), The price for the next megawatt hour of generation is $49 -- i.e., under 5c per kWh. That's comparable to the average price in PJM (east coas…

In terms of consumer bills, California is actually among the states with typical spending on such things. Your actual energy bill in California is not that high. There are 14 American states where residential energy bills are higher than California's. People are always pointing out the marginal volumetric costs of electricity, which is indeed very high. But that is just reflection of the fact that we use so little en…

Cost of electricity and cost of energy should be considered in a conversation about renewables vs fossil fuels.

Many of those other states avoid high electricity costs because they are cold states that don't use electricity for heat.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#103

Post by Teever »

MengerSponge wrote: post #93
hammock wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can’t have a good faith discussion then maybe it is a good idea to hide nuclear and animal labs. But with less oversight, that also invites abuse. You can probably imagine abuse on your own in an anima lab, but I would also point out after Obama banned gain of function research in 2014 U.S. scientists moved their lab to China where it continued without the same oversight, and bad things happened.

Joe Public doesn't provide oversight. He's mostly good at generating outrage. Experts provide oversight, and animal research in the US is highly regulated by experts!

People like Erin Brokovitch, Lois Gibbs, and Wilbur Tennant seem to have provided significant oversight that has proven beneficial to society.

As a Joe Public, how do you suggest that I can verify the oversight of experts?

Is there sufficient oversight with animal testing in a place like Wuhan?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_Gibbs

[3] https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/dupont-bilott-book-ex...

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#104

Post by parineum »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #91
billy99k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

Nuclear accidents were common back then. Activists not only had good intentions they had actual accidents occuring with cover-ups. I think you're only seeing the worst parts here. They didn't follow the science as well as they should but they did get dumping sorted and held the industry liable.

> Nuclear accidents were common back then

Name them

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#105

Post by _ea1k »

xp84 wrote: post #45
dgacmu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar + battery + wind actually do pretty well. There's a bit of a de-correlation between solar and wind that makes the mix more resilient than either alone. We can't do 100% in most places yet, but it's pretty straightforward to move to a much higher percentage of them in our grid mix than we have now, California possibly excepting. (But even in California you see battery starting to extend how much we can do with s…

California has energy costs more than double most other states so it’s probably not the best argument for “it’s so easy to go mostly renewable.” A lot of things are feasible if you’re willing to [force everyone in the state to] spend 2x. Whatever California is trying to do in the past 20 years has been extraordinarily regressive.

Texas and Florida both have a lot of solar as well, with TX likely passing CA on battery storage over the next few years. Those states also have much cheaper energy than CA.

California's energy problems aren't due to the source of their energy.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#106

Post by parineum »

7bit wrote: post #58
billy99k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

1. Mining and processing are destructive Uranium mining leaves behind contaminated soil, groundwater problems, tailings, and long-term ecological damage. “Yellow Cake” shows this clearly. These impacts last far longer than any economic benefit. 2. Operation is low-CO₂, but not low-risk Severe accidents are rare, but the consequences are catastrophic when they do occur. Chernobyl and Fukushima are obvious examples. Th…

Future generations can't consent to anything, even fields of solar panels and mining for battery materials.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#107

Post by PeterHolzwarth »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #92
hammock wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we can’t have a good faith discussion then maybe it is a good idea to hide nuclear and animal labs. But with less oversight, that also invites abuse. You can probably imagine abuse on your own in an anima lab, but I would also point out after Obama banned gain of function research in 2014 U.S. scientists moved their lab to China where it continued without the same oversight, and bad things happened.

What bad things?

It's a reference to the theory that perhaps covid came from, and accidentally escaped from, a lab.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#108

Post by jeffbee »

parineum wrote: post #102
jeffbee wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In terms of consumer bills, California is actually among the states with typical spending on such things. Your actual energy bill in California is not that high. There are 14 American states where residential energy bills are higher than California's. People are always pointing out the marginal volumetric costs of electricity, which is indeed very high. But that is just reflection of the fact that we use so little en…

Cost of electricity and cost of energy should be considered in a conversation about renewables vs fossil fuels. Many of those other states avoid high electricity costs because they are cold states that don't use electricity for heat.

If the homes heated by gas or oil all switched to grid electricity, that would in all likelihood reduce the marginal volumetric price of electricity by amortizing the fixed costs over a larger volume.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#109

Post by 0ckpuppet »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

I suggest we should strive for a more educated public to raise the percentage of people who can have informed discussions. We've seen what happens when education is watered down, so let's try raising the bar, and pushing more science in high schools.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#110

Post by rnhmjoj »

xg15 wrote: post #76
vpShane wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, nuclear energy, real hot, make water boil, make things happen. You're telling me we don't have sci-fi energy harnessing capability to capture the nuclear energy itself and convert it to electricity? It's 2025!

Found it kind of depressing that this seems to be the current strategy for fusion as well. You have this insane device that produces a million degree hot ring of plasma and use it... to boil water...

We are still trying to solve the problem that we can't keep the plasma hot long enough to create fusion energy, so working on exotic conversion schemes is one step too far.

Consider also how complex these reactors already are, it makes sense to use the simplest method that we know works well.

Post reply on HN