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

UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 123 posts

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#21

Post by jddw »

ahaefner wrote: post #3
chrissnell wrote: post #2

Are size and efficiency the most pressing issues to solve in nuclear power? I don't know a thing about nuclear issues but from the layperson's perspective, it seems like security is the biggest problem that keeps nuclear power from being used everywhere. These containers are essentially dirty bombs without detonators and must be protected as such. This might work for the military, where you could secure one on a rest…

Commercial power reactors are very expensive initially (multiple billions). This is a huge barrier to entry for most power plants. So the thinking is if the size can be reduced so can the cost. The military is interesting because they already have small reactors in submarines and ships. And they have access to the highest grade fuel because they don't have to follow power plant regulations. So it seems like if these…

The concept is to start small to overcome cost and regulatory barriers more quickly and for less.

And yes, we kick start using thorium with low enriched uranium or spent fuel to build up U233. Then we just keep reusing the thorium fuel over multiple refueling periods without reprocessing or separations until it is depleted.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#22

Post by jddw »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #20
chrissnell wrote: post #2

Are size and efficiency the most pressing issues to solve in nuclear power? I don't know a thing about nuclear issues but from the layperson's perspective, it seems like security is the biggest problem that keeps nuclear power from being used everywhere. These containers are essentially dirty bombs without detonators and must be protected as such. This might work for the military, where you could secure one on a rest…

I may be naive, but are there really bad actors lurking the world that a) have the resource to pull off such a crime, b) be able to get away with c) not already have means to get what ever it is they want? To take a stab at your hypothetical situation, the small town in Alaska has multiple armed guards 24/7 as well as centralized offsite monitoring. Protocols in place to alert local authorities which have protocols i…

Exactly right. Reactors are not attractive targets and this is very robust.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#23

Post by jjoonathan »

rdl wrote: post #11
ekianjo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> essentially dirty bombs without detonators and must be protected as such. No, it's completely wrong. That's not how a nuclear plant works. And as you can see, a nuclear plant does not "explode" when it goes amok. The chain reaction is very tightly controlled and there are multiples redundancies in case things don't work as expected.

"dirty bomb" is a radiological weapon, not a fission/fusion weapon, and is exactly what detonating explosives (or H gas, or whatever) inside a commercial power reactor or RTG would be.

Except that a dirty bomb is designed to maximize the hazardous effects of such an event while a reactor is designed to minimize the hazardous effects of such an event.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#24

Post by jddw »

beefman wrote: post #16
TheHoffman wrote: post #4

- Nuclear-powered electricity source - Touted as a "battery" - Solid state - Can be cooled by heatpipes and ambient air - Can use multiple fuels - Cheap - Small I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that they're commercializing a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (or multiple connected in a series), like the ones sitting abandoned all over the former Soviet Union (and occasionally spewing radiation when some fool disassem…

It's a reactor, not an RTG. One reason I don't like the term "nuclear battery". The term is also annoying here because it's clearly an attempt at spin. The cultural situation with nuclear is beyond spin, and requires direct confrontation.

Yes it is fission like the article says.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#25

Post by prestadige »

damian2000 wrote: post #14
ekianjo wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> essentially dirty bombs without detonators and must be protected as such. No, it's completely wrong. That's not how a nuclear plant works. And as you can see, a nuclear plant does not "explode" when it goes amok. The chain reaction is very tightly controlled and there are multiples redundancies in case things don't work as expected.

Except you just have to look at Fukushima to see that things can still go badly wrong, resulting in a meltdown of 3 reactors. And this happened in arguably one of the most tightly regulated and technologically advanced countries in the world.

Wrong, perhaps, but 'badly' wrong? Despite the accident, building Fukushima saved lives and reduced atmospheric pollution relative to other power sources.

Part of the reason we haven't improved reactor designs as rapidly as we should is due to irrational fears surrounding nuclear power. In other words, such fears have to some extent been a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#26

Post by beefman »

ahaefner wrote: post #3
chrissnell wrote: post #2

Are size and efficiency the most pressing issues to solve in nuclear power? I don't know a thing about nuclear issues but from the layperson's perspective, it seems like security is the biggest problem that keeps nuclear power from being used everywhere. These containers are essentially dirty bombs without detonators and must be protected as such. This might work for the military, where you could secure one on a rest…

Commercial power reactors are very expensive initially (multiple billions). This is a huge barrier to entry for most power plants. So the thinking is if the size can be reduced so can the cost. The military is interesting because they already have small reactors in submarines and ships. And they have access to the highest grade fuel because they don't have to follow power plant regulations. So it seems like if these…

'It can burn any fuel' is just code for 'we have no real core design yet'. But it doesn't matter, because no nuclear fuel is significantly better than any other, and they're all thousands of times better than alternatives.

Thorium is always used in mixed cores. An accelerator-driven thorium reactor will contain uranium from breeding even if no uranium is ever loaded into it.

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#28

Post by pjscott »

dadiomov wrote: post #18

I studied energy at Stanford and joined the team that spun TerraPower (www.terrapower.com) out of Intellectual Ventures with Bill Gates' backing. I spent a lot of time looking at these nuclear batteries and economically it's very hard to see them working out as anything close to competitive to natural gas, coal, or wind. The amount of security, containment, etc. that you need for a large plant vs. a small plant doesn…

They're aiming at niches where they won't be competing directly with more conventional power plants. Their web site claims [1] that it's intended "for remote and distributed generation where energy costs can exceed 30 cents/kWh, and power is needed 24/7".

[1] http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html

Re: UPower (YC S14) Is Building Nuclear Batteries

#30

Post by jddw »

beefman wrote: post #26
ahaefner wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Commercial power reactors are very expensive initially (multiple billions). This is a huge barrier to entry for most power plants. So the thinking is if the size can be reduced so can the cost. The military is interesting because they already have small reactors in submarines and ships. And they have access to the highest grade fuel because they don't have to follow power plant regulations. So it seems like if these…

'It can burn any fuel' is just code for 'we have no real core design yet'. But it doesn't matter, because no nuclear fuel is significantly better than any other, and they're all thousands of times better than alternatives. Thorium is always used in mixed cores. An accelerator-driven thorium reactor will contain uranium from breeding even if no uranium is ever loaded into it.

There are core designs for low enriched uranium loading, mixed thorium loading, and spent fuel loadings. Have to make sure a fuel design works before it's claimed to work.
Post reply on HN