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

Ultra Safe Nuclear

usnc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 536 posts

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#271

Post by nimish »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #87
gruez wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>We can capture 1/5th of its output per square meter. For free! except you know, the solar panels. by the same logic you can you can capture fission power for free, all you need is set up the reactor.

There was a comment here about cleanup costs of nuclear vs. solar, that was deleted while I was typing my response to that. I'm just gonna copy in my response here, because I think it's an interesting topic: Are we really sure solar panels are much easier to dismantle on a euro-per-kWh basis though? That is, if you divide the total cost of dismantling and recycling a solar power plant, divided by the total amount of…

Not now, but if the problem arises technology will be invented to make it cheaper. If only to drive profits, not the cleanliness of the Earth.

Of course we should mandate that we keep the Earth clean, we don't have another.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#272

Post by Wowfunhappy »

kolinko wrote: post #263
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, why did so many countries/companies originally build nuclear reactors, if the economics inherently don’t make sense? Has something changed?

renewables were 10-100x times more expensive back then

But we also didn't know about climate change yet (for the most part), right? So nuclear was competing with oil.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#273

Post by jhayward »

littlestymaar wrote: post #248
hairytrog wrote: post #156

Two interesting things to see here, of many. They are really planning the sites to be temporary compared to the solar/wind/ and other industrial power plants that have little or no plan for returning their sites to the original virgin soil. And two, they seem to use a molten salt loop like in concentrated solar to meet variable demand without changing the power level of the reactor, which you can't really do because…

Excuse me, could you be more specific about why you think Xenon poisoning is relevant here? I think I just missed your point.

In a situation where you want to rapidly ramp a generator's output up or down, Xenon poisoning narrows the window of reactor control system authority. This prevents the reactor from achieving full power on a reasonable time scale.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#274

Post by WalterBright »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #261
ajross wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And unlike a natural gas plant, it costs 3-10x what the equivalent generating capacity in renewables would cost. I come to post this Same Thing every time this discussion comes up. It's not about safety. Everyone serious understand nuclear, even current technologies, is "safe enough" to be useful to build out. Nuclear is outrageously expensive , though. And new reactor designs don't seem to be making much progress on…

Not to mention the waste which needs an armed guard almost forever, making the total cost of the energy almost infinite.

> an armed guard almost forever

Things that have long half-lives are not very dangerous, as in order to have a long half-life it must be emitting radiation at correspondingly lower levels.

For example, something with a half-life of 100,000 years is emitting 1/100,000 of the radiation that one with a half-life of a year is.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#275

Post by manfredo »

epistasis wrote: post #151
cmehdy wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll alleviate your concerns: it is not due to a big nuclear conspiracy aiming at making Big Nuclear fill its pockets, but by people who look at what physics dictates and notice that with our energy consumption things just don't add up. So you will see an increasing amount of (1) posts about nuclear, and (2) posts about de-growth or accepting to shrink economies through less consumption and production, not because th…

There is absolutely no "physics" that goes into those postings. It's just some gut feelings. I've come across this at least a dozen times, with people just sure that "physics" says something, but there is no physical principle that requires we decrease energy use to power the entire world with renewables and storage and possibly hydrogen or other synthetic carbon fuels. We can power all of the developing world at Wes…

Modern societies run on heat engines, and nuclear power is still a heat engine just with a carbon free source of heat. It's possible to run a carbon free modern society without drastic change in energy use, through using nuclear energy - France has done so successfully for decades.

By comparison proposals to use renewables almost invariably involve immense amounts of energy storage which is nowhere near deliverable with current technologies. Either that or they involve massive changes to how society used energy, essentially refactoring the whole economy and infrastructure to work around the intermittency of renewable generation.

There are fundamental physical challenges to using a low density and intermittent source of energy, and nuclear largely offers all of the same benefits as fossil fuels just without the carbon.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#276

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

ajross wrote: post #254
nine_k wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two questions: (1) Night time. (2) Quiet time. Of course there are batteries! But factoring them in seems to increase the cost significantly. Power lines and cross-continent smart grids are fine, too — but also not free to build and operate. So a self-contained unit that does not depend on weather, does not need refueling, and includes its own energy accumulator has some appeal.

Right. So show me the balance sheet where building out reactors makes sense. Because as of right now it clearly doesn't, and the proof is that no one is building reactors but everyone is building windmills.

About 50 power reactors are currently being constructed in 15 countries (see Table below), notably China, India, Russia and the United Arab Emirates.

   2020 Korea, KHNP Shin Hanul 1 APR1400 1400
   2020 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 VVER-1200 1170
   2020 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 VVER-440 471

   2021 Argentina, CNEA Carem25 Carem 29
   2021 Belarus, BNPP Ostrovets 2 VVER-1200 1194
   2021 China, CNNC Fuqing 6 Hualong One 1150
   2021 China, CGN Hongyanhe 5 ACPR-1000 1080
   2021 China, CNNC Tianwan 6 ACPR-1000 1118
   2021 Finland, TVO Olkiluoto 3 EPR 1720
   2021 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam PFBR FBR 500
   2021 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR-700 700
   2021 Korea, KHNP Shin Hanul 2 APR1400 1400
   2021 Pakistan Karachi/KANUPP 2 ACP1000 1100
   2021 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 VVER-440 471
   2021 UAE, ENEC Barakah 2 APR1400 1400
   2021 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 AP1000 1250

   2022 China, CGN Fangchenggang 3 Hualong One 1180
   2022 China, CGN Fangchenggang 4 Hualong One 1180
   2022 China, CGN Hongyanhe 6 ACPR-1000 1080
   2022 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR-700 700
   2022 Pakistan Karachi/KANUPP 3 ACP1000 1100
   2022 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kursk II-1 VVER-TOI 1255
   2022 UAE, ENEC Barakah 3 APR1400 1400
   2022 USA, Southern Vogtle 4 AP1000 1250

   2023 Bangladesh Rooppur 1 VVER-1200 1200
   2023 China, CNNC Xiapu 1 CFR600 600
   2023 France, EDF Flamanville 3 EPR 1750
   2023 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 3 VVER-1000 1050
   2023 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 4 VVER-1000 1050
   2023 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR-700 700
   2023 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 5 APR1400 1400
   2023 Russia, Rosenergoatom Kursk II-2 VVER-TOI 1255
   2023 Turkey Akkuyu 1 VVER-1200 1200
   2023 UAE, ENEC Barakah 4 APR1400 1400

   2024 Bangladesh Rooppur 2 VVER-1200 1200
   2024 China, Guodian & CNNC Zhangzhou 1 Hualong One 1150
   2024 Iran Bushehr 2 VVER-1000 1057
   2024 Korea, KHNP Shin Kori 6 APR1400 1400
   2024 Turkey Akkuyu 2 VVER-1200 1200

   2025 China, CGN Taipingling 1 Hualong One 1150
   2025 China, Guodian & CNNC Zhangzhou 2 Hualong One 1150
   2025 UK, EDF Hinkley Point C1 EPR 1720

   2026 UK, EDF Hinkley Point C2 EPR 1720
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#277

Post by croutonwagon »

manfredo wrote: post #17
grawprog wrote: post #8

So why has nuclear waste become a thing that's not mentioned anymore? It was a pretty big thing in the 90's, now it seems to get brushed under the rug for all this 'safe' nuclear power marketing. It's mot just meltdowns and containment breaches that are a problem with nuclear power. None of the renewable alternatives produce radioactive waste that needs to be stored and dealt with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rad…

Because it's not a problem. There's actually very little of it. It occupies a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. Storing it is pretty foolproof: bury it in an area with no aquifer. The main risk of contamination is getting into the groundwater. If there's no groundwater the risk of contamination is eliminated even if the containers decay over time. And lastly, it doesn't make sense to bur…

I wouldnt necessarily agree. It needs to be stored for a time that is longer than any single civilization has survived. Its pretty arrogant to assume we will still be around for that amount of time.

This source pretty heavily influenced my change of opinion on nuclears efficacy

https://www.pbs.org/video/independent-lens-containment/

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#278

Post by Reason077 »

manfredo wrote: post #47
merb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. How long does it need to be kept safe? 2. How to find a storage facility that can keep it safe that long? 3. How to ensure that a facility does not contamine other stuff in X years? 4. if it is recycable why does nobody do it? 5. if it is so easy to store it safe, why does not country have a TRUE final depot? yeah coal is bad, but why compare it to coal in the first place when we want to reduce such things anyway?…

1. Forever. Uranium is a heavy metal, it's toxic regardless of it's radioactivity. 2. The US already has one [1]. Congress stopped it's opening, but it's sitting there built ready to be used. Europe also is constructing a disposal site [2] 3. Like I wrote in my comment, bury it in an area with no groundwater. 4. France does recycle it's nuclear waste. 5. We do, as I pointed out above. And for the second time, this wa…

> "2. The US already has one [1]. Congress stopped it's opening, but it's sitting there built ready to be used. Europe also is constructing a disposal site [2]"

France is also developing a deep geological storage facility for nuclear waste, known as "Cigéo":

https://www.andra.fr/cigeo

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#279

Post by manfredo »

croutonwagon wrote: post #277
manfredo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not a problem. There's actually very little of it. It occupies a volume the footprint of a football field and 10 yards high [1]. Storing it is pretty foolproof: bury it in an area with no aquifer. The main risk of contamination is getting into the groundwater. If there's no groundwater the risk of contamination is eliminated even if the containers decay over time. And lastly, it doesn't make sense to bur…

I wouldnt necessarily agree. It needs to be stored for a time that is longer than any single civilization has survived. Its pretty arrogant to assume we will still be around for that amount of time. This source pretty heavily influenced my change of opinion on nuclears efficacy https://www.pbs.org/video/independent-lens-containment/

The waste is buried under hundreds of meters of rock. And even if the containers eventually corrode, the waste needs to escape from this bedrock. The only way this is going to happen is either deliberately or through a meteor hitting in just the right spot.

Re: Ultra Safe Nuclear

#280

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

littlestymaar wrote: post #259
ajross wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. So show me the balance sheet where building out reactors makes sense. Because as of right now it clearly doesn't, and the proof is that no one is building reactors but everyone is building windmills.

Everyone is building heavily subsidized windmill. And nobody is building reactors[1] mostly because it's really unpopular (which it pretty much deserves IMHO after decades of shady practices) but it's not a matter of technical merit (and it's never the case). [1] except those who do, China leading the pack.

I'd suggest looking through Lazard's levelized cost of energy slide decks. The unsubsidized price of renewables is indeed substantially less than nuclear.

Next look at the time scales for building new nuclear. Then look at the trend lines in the cost of storage, particularly utility scale lithium batteries.

You don't have to be a genius to realize this makes new nuclear a bad bet purely on the finances. Even if you waved a magic wand to eliminate any environmental opposition, the only way new nuclear is getting funded is if government picks up the tab. And that's what we see globally.

One of the reasons NuScale and the linked company above are getting investment traction is exactly because they're attempting to reduce the capital costs and timelines. That's a bet investors are more willing to take, even if the technology is unproven yet.

Post reply on HN