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

Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

popularmechanics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 554 posts

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#281

Post by pfdietz »

EricE wrote: post #12

This is huge. Not only are micro reactors far more economical, it dramatically reduces the need to maintain a massive nationwide grid and provides flexibility to people in remote areas including greater autonomy. Efficiency should be greater without massive transmission line losses. Might start fewer fires in California too.

> Not only are micro reactors far more economical

Experience to date has been the opposite. They have diseconomies of scale in construction and operation. The proponents claim they will make up for this somehow, for example by making the reactors in factories, but note that NuScale has given up on that and is going to have the parts fabricated by others and assembled on site, just like larger reactors.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#282

Post by pfdietz »

dangjc wrote: post #181

How is nuclear compatible with variable renewable energy sources? It can’t ramp up or down quickly, so it’s not good for filling the gaps in the day when the sun is not shining. And solar is now so cheap during sunny days that the excess power is curtailed or at a negative price.

Even if nuclear could level up and down instantly, it's economically incompatible with variable renewable sources. If the plant is not operating nearly all the time the cost of power from it goes up and up.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#283

Post by godelski »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #276
godelski wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn't really counter my argument. The key part is that it has different kinds of waste. There are more factors than the radioactivity. For example sites like Hanford have melted fuel, which might have inspired that green goo that people associate with nuclear waste, but a power plant only produces solid waste. Aerosols and liquids have vastly different storage requirements and added complexity requirements tha…

>Aerosols and liquids have vastly different storage requirements So whip the aerosol into some epoxy and when it cures throw it in the cask with the rest of the stuff. If you just want to make something that's not solid and reactive into something solid and non-reactive modern chemical science has nearly infinite options.

While I agree with you, for the most part, there is a cost and complexity issue. I was really just trying to tell marsh that they aren't making accurate conclusions from the selected data that they are pulling from to generate their absurd anti-nuclear stance.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#284

Post by pfdietz »

nickik wrote: post #27

As a huge fan of nuclear power, I never felt like NuScale style 'SMR' were all that great of an idea. Yes, it gains you some of the economics of factory construction and that you can start small and scale a location, but on the other side you lose that again because you lose the economics of scale that traditional PWR gets. I really believe we should be a nuclear society by now, and that regulations both around react…

> Yes, it gains you some of the economics of factory construction

They have given up on that, I read.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#285

Post by runarberg »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #279
runarberg wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This rhetoric of new nuclear is gonna solve the climate crises reminds of how GMO was poised to increase our food safety and end world hunger. It didn’t. And since I’ve learned that new technology doesn’t save us when there is an underlying social issue that is causing it. With GMO the issue is food distribution. In the climate disaster the cause is a little more complex but undeniably a few actors are making an unfa…

You ever notice that the countries where the people are pissed off at the rich for taking too much, pissed of at the government and pissed off about climate change are all countries where basically everyone is fed, clothed and has running water and stable electric power? Advancements in technology (including GMO crops) and productivity in general have massively raised standards of living in the developing world. Rais…

I’m not sure anything you say here is true:

* I really doubt GMO has raised the standard of living for the average person.

* I really doubt people in less then stable economy have any less salt towards the rich, the government, or polluters.

* I really doubt there is a correlation between the standard of living caring about your neighbors.

So to answer your question. No. I have never noticed that countries where people are pissed at the rich are the people that live in stable economy. To prove you wrong, take a look at Greta Thunberg’s twitter feed. She is constantly retweeting people from poorer countries being pissed at the rich for ruining our climate.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#286

Post by karaterobot »

runarberg wrote: post #257
karaterobot wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is in no way to disagree with your overall point, but marine cloud brightening looks like it might be a fairly cost-effective solution to climate change. It's unproven, but not an insane gamble either, and it has little risk of second-order consequences if it doesn't work. All that at a cost of single-digit billions per year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_cloud_brightening#Costs

We have many proven solutions to the climate disaster, including, carbon tax, renewable energy, cleaner and more efficient infrastructure, telecommuting, international agreements, etc. Going after a single unproven solution (yes this includes non-existing types of nuclear energy too) is just magic at this point and it doesn’t work.

I wouldn't say those approaches have turned out to be sufficient by themselves, so far. Why not keep improving them, and try additional measures with some hope of success and little risk?

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#287

Post by djur »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #274
dodobirdlord wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world is filled with naturally occurring phenomena far more dangerous than a big pile of low-grade nuclear waste. The really dangerous stuff ceases to exist after a few decades of sitting in a cooling pond, and then what’s left has such a long half life that it’s not particularly threatening. Water is an incredible radiation dampener, and the ocean is already chock full of dissolved uranium. The only reason we do…

So we can just put it all in your house and you'll be cool with that? After all, there are more dangerous things out there, and we won't be putting any of those in your house, so that makes it okay right?

"Would you be willing to have your house turned into a waste dump?" is a challenge that would seem to strike down virtually every industrial process dating back to the Stone Age.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#288

Post by pfdietz »

normanmatrix wrote: post #120

I was thinking Nuclear would be the stable baseline for renewable. But this is not a sustainable option. We need to enforce hydrogen. Do not submit to the fallacy of nuclear waste disposal. First Elon needs to fix space travel and make transport into the sun feasible. And we will have iter by then.

ITER is not a power plant, but if one could turn its gross fusion output to electrical power at 40% efficiency it would cost $100/W (vs. $10/W for fission and $1/W for solar). Not sure why you think this will be something worth waiting for.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#289

Post by pfdietz »

nuccy wrote: post #132
normanmatrix wrote: post #120

I was thinking Nuclear would be the stable baseline for renewable. But this is not a sustainable option. We need to enforce hydrogen. Do not submit to the fallacy of nuclear waste disposal. First Elon needs to fix space travel and make transport into the sun feasible. And we will have iter by then.

Hydrogen is not a good (at the moment at least) source of energy or fuel for cars or industry (chemically speaking, obviously much better together with Deuterium and Tritium for fission, though we are still from such a technology). Steam reforming, which is currently the most common way of hydrogen production, uses natural gas and water and produces plenty of CO2 [1]. Nice summary as for cars fuel application here [2…

Hydrogen is an answer to the question "how do renewables serve 100% of the grid?". It enables renewables to cover that last 10% or so, and rare prolonged dark/calm periods, without excessive amounts of overcapacity or batteries.

Re: Small nuclear reactors: tiny NuScale reactor gets safety approval

#290

Post by piannucci »

pvaldes wrote: post #272
pdonis wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leak to where? It's below grade and it's not under any pressure greater than atmospheric.

The elephants foot in Chernobyl was so hot that melted the concrete and dug into the soil. Is this pool bottom impossible to melt?

1. Don’t let that happen.

2. There have been proposals before for core dilution buckets: a wide shallow dish under the reactor full of something like gallium for the hot core to dissolve into. As it spreads out into the dish, the heat and radiation fluxes become less unmanageable, and the core material becomes less critical.

3. Don’t let that happen. :-P

Post reply on HN