Live data from Hacker News

Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

bbc.co.uk

201–210 of 353 posts

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#201

I'm amazed that the industry is still propagating the mistake made in the early nuclear age of using PWR and solid fuel. The more I read about nuclear the more convinced I become that SMRs for next gen plants are safest and most efficient using the Thorium-U233 fuel cycle and employing molten salt to transfer heat. It's automatically safe since if a runaway reaction takes place the fuel will drain into a tank and rea…

> It uses a cheaper fuel of which we have a virtually endless supply of

Which fuel is that? Thorium-U233?

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#202
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we want to advance as a species I'm somewhat weary of people talking of civilization progress as if its definition is obvious and universal.

Couldn't agree more. "Advancement as a species" seems to imply a sort of consensus that doesn't really exist.

Exactly. Hegel developed a theory that historical progress goes always forward, or towards better things. Capitalist-based theory says that Capitalism is the inevitable outgrowth from Feudalism, which is false (Meiksins-wood showed that Capitalism is an idea that was enacted through force, not an inevitable outgrowth of the previous systems). Communist theory says that Capitalism inevitably fails and tends towards Socialism, which eventually develops into Communism, which has yet to be shown. People tend to think that Evolution results in better and better organisms, rather than those that convey the best advantages for it's environment. For some reason lot of people tend to think that a society's values will get better over time, and that modern societies are qualitatively better than those from thousands of years ago, rather than just different.

Hell, even here a lot of people believe that technological progress is a linear path towards the future, even when there's evidence contrary to that assumption. Without even reaching for evidence from other fields, it's trivial to find examples of entire theories that have been forgotten and rediscovered. Think of Low-Density Parity-check codes, that were developed in the 1960s and essentially forgotten for 20 or so years. A lot of technology has been found and then lost.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As we expand to space. On Earth there is an effective upper limit to the amount of heat we can release into the atmosphere before we'd cause catastrophic warming even without greenhouse effect.

That upper limit is probably orders of magnitude higher than we’re currently dissipating. We could blanket every city and town with permanently heated streets, and - as long as we stopped pumping water vapour into the dry upper troposphere - we wouldn’t even notice an increase in temperature. The big problems are 1) gigatons of soot coming over the north poles, permanently lowering the albedo of the planet and 2) pum…

You missed out the ecosystem collapsing because marine life has died off, and the oceans and waters becoming acidic (which will affect trade, drinkable water, rain, etc.)

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#204
post #58

I really wanted this to be about Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited rather than Rolls-Royce Holdings plc. A nuclear-powered Rolls-Royce Phantom would be incredibly boss.

Actually, several American car manufactured experimented with this idea in the 50's. Most notably Ford with the Nucleon [0], but also other brands such as Packard and (I believe) Cadillac were also designing nuclear powered cars. Eventually it was concluded that the shielding of the reactor would make a nuclear powered passenger car impractical, as it would make the vehicle too big. And of course there were the obvio…

Maybe that "too big" argument should be revisited in light of recent standard sizes.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#205
post #177

What's missing is a $/kwh quote. It's important because renewables are the cheapest option on the market right now and nowhere near done dropping further in price. If the last ten years are any indication, an order of magnitude further drop in prices before the end of the decade is not unreasonable considering mass production of batteries, solar, and wind is still ramping up and considering the enormous amount of R&D…

No, renewable are incredibly expensive, on the contrary. Why is that? Because renewable produce when wind blows or sun shines, and not when we need power. That's the first point, we need to produce exactly as much energy as we consume, at any time. Renewables fail utterly at that, and that's why renewable energy appears so cheap when you simply consider the price at which it's sold on the markets: production occurs a…

Do you have any sources for your claim of batteries multiplying the cost for renewables by "5, 10 or more" in a realistic grid scenario? Did you take into account that most energy storage is done with hydro, not batteries?

I haven't had time to carefully review the literature, but there seem to be quite a few papers that claim that storage for a 100% renewable grid would not be such a big issue.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#206

I'm amazed that the industry is still propagating the mistake made in the early nuclear age of using PWR and solid fuel. The more I read about nuclear the more convinced I become that SMRs for next gen plants are safest and most efficient using the Thorium-U233 fuel cycle and employing molten salt to transfer heat. It's automatically safe since if a runaway reaction takes place the fuel will drain into a tank and rea…

Someone made an excellent post on reddit a while back on why Thorium reactors will never become a reality, it's a really good read: https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/9unimr/dutch_satiri...

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#207
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always baffled by such statements. Can you explain in which way solar is not a "near-infinite source of energy"? I mean... there are without doubt technical challenges and all that (but arguably less technical challenges than to do the same with nuclear), but there really is no relevant limit to the deployment of solar cells if you include things like large-scale installations in the desert.

Solar depends on weather, location and battery storage. Solar cells also require massive amounts of physical area to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant. And you can't compare a "2 gigawatt" solar installation to an equivalent nuclear installation because nuclear will produce power 24/7 at peak capacity, rain or shine. A solar plant sees a huge amount of variability and only hits peak efficienc…

Solar power in the desert produces power 24/7 by keeping the molten sand hot overnight. It’s also always sunny

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#208
post #54
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree completely. It's a fallacy to believe we will require less energy in the long run. We need much more, if we want to advance as a species.

> we want to advance as a species I'm somewhat weary of people talking of civilization progress as if its definition is obvious and universal.

If we want the species to get off this mudball, we need newer and better technology, also we need it to head off the climate and pollution crises and raise the quality of health and living for everyone on the planet.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#209
post #100
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as humans are concerned overall progress has been linked to climbing up fractions of the kardashev scale since fire was invented. And even before fire, organisms could only become more complex as the energy available to them increased. You can't run a hummingbird or mammalian brains on photosynthesis directly, it's just not energy-dense enough.

> overall progress This thread is becoming recursive. Is organism complexity progress? Everyone might agree with you, or not. That's because progress is whatever we say it is. It's subjective, in that everyone can have a different view of it, and it's non-constant, in that you can change your mind whenever. Progress is such a loaded word today. I'm hardpressed to find more than a few words with so much cultural bagga…

Progess is a human invention, without us it has no meaning. Complexity is a first order axiom; if you don't adhere to that philosophy then it is not. You are free to move to a remote area and live off the land.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#210

>Environmentalists are divided over nuclear power, with some maintaining it is dangerous and expensive, while others say that to achieve net zero emissions by 2050 all technologies are needed. Yes, a mix of technologies. But there's more to it than that. We're going to need increasing amounts of power in the future to explore the solar system and to solve all kinds of existential problems. Energy usage is not inheren…

Dyson swarm.

The nuclear reactor comes pre-installed.

Post reply on HN