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

Transatomic Power

transatomicpower.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Transatomic Power

#31

Post by MichaelGG »

aout wrote: post #10

So ok, the website is cool and the technology is said to be something like 99.9999% better. This might be a stupid question but I'm no nuclear engineer not a specialist about chemistry or physics but I wonder why a such "beautiful" idea would not be already used. I've read the related wikipedia article about Molten Salt Reactors and I understand there are several problems about the technology: mostly corrosion and em…

Probably the same reason Germany shutdown its power plants after Fukushima. Despite Fukushima being a huge success story [1] some people are scared, some unthinking, almost all irrational and unable to handle probability at all. Nuclear power seems magical and shares a word with scary weapons. It's not "natural" for mediocre definitions of natural.

1: Seriously. Fukushima did everything wrong. Huge earthquake and tsunami. Older design. Then they tried to cover stuff up. And the repair crews showed up with wrong equipment. More denial. And all that with no loss of life. Just a bit of "lost" land for a while, and extra costs. So many people freak out about it, but that US carmaker with the stupid ignition killed more people and we aren't giving up cars. Fukushima screams "hey, wee couldn't fuck this up, even given perfect conditions and terrible management". But hey, why take a rational approach when you can " go green ".

Re: Transatomic Power

#32

Post by shabble »

outworlder wrote: post #19

I am not a nuclear physicist, but isn't this concept proven and well-understood already? Now, a sales pitch is indeed a missing piece. Given the regulations, the nuclear industry is stuck with power plants whose designs date from decades back. I didn't see anything about handling the waste heat though. Dumping it into rivers would be atrocious. Ingesting large amounts of water to use evaporation towers is also enviro…

Waste heat dissipation is a problem for all thermal power generation schemes. The use of CHP to provide residual heat for nearby residential heating/industrial use boosts the overall efficiency of the system, but with higher upfront costs.

Re: Transatomic Power

#33

Post by alexhill »

Maxels wrote: post #2

So this is a company with a pretty ui that is advocating the same thing Kirk Sorensen has been advocating for a few years now. I know every time this molten salt vs light water reactor debate comes up, people much smarter than I talk about how the salt is corrosive and there are currently no viable solutions to deal with this. Is there anyone out there smarter than I that can explain whether this company is doing any…

There are certainly solutions to deal with it by designing for leaks as an expected maintenance problem, though preventing them would obviously be preferable. There are numerous operating molten salt reactors around the world, so I guess it depends what you mean by viable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Breeder_reactor...

Re: Transatomic Power

#34

Post by MichaelGG »

pheo wrote: post #26

"Fast," "Breeder," or "Salt" reactors breed weapons grade fissionable material (Ie. Plutonium 239) from relatively un-enriched materials (Ie. Uranium 238 and Thorium). Fast reactors make nuclear weapons as byproduct. Thats why we don't use them.

You're probably being downvoted for saying that reactors make nuclear weapons. They don't. They might be able to produce materials to build a weapon, but it's not like they pop out little bombs. Considering some folks equate "nuclear power plant problem" with "nuclear bomb explosion", this is a nontrivial distinction.

Re: Transatomic Power

#35

Post by gonehome »

MichaelGG wrote: post #31
aout wrote: post #10

So ok, the website is cool and the technology is said to be something like 99.9999% better. This might be a stupid question but I'm no nuclear engineer not a specialist about chemistry or physics but I wonder why a such "beautiful" idea would not be already used. I've read the related wikipedia article about Molten Salt Reactors and I understand there are several problems about the technology: mostly corrosion and em…

Probably the same reason Germany shutdown its power plants after Fukushima. Despite Fukushima being a huge success story [1] some people are scared, some unthinking, almost all irrational and unable to handle probability at all. Nuclear power seems magical and shares a word with scary weapons. It's not "natural" for mediocre definitions of natural. 1: Seriously. Fukushima did everything wrong. Huge earthquake and tsu…

Doesn't it take a while for people to die or see effects from radiation exposure (unless it's extreme?). Is there a reason to suspect that we won't see problems from what happened?

Also having land uninhabitable for thousands of years weighs pretty heavily even if the risk of failure is low.

Re: Transatomic Power

#36

Post by lettergram »

gonehome wrote: post #35
MichaelGG wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the same reason Germany shutdown its power plants after Fukushima. Despite Fukushima being a huge success story [1] some people are scared, some unthinking, almost all irrational and unable to handle probability at all. Nuclear power seems magical and shares a word with scary weapons. It's not "natural" for mediocre definitions of natural. 1: Seriously. Fukushima did everything wrong. Huge earthquake and tsu…

Doesn't it take a while for people to die or see effects from radiation exposure (unless it's extreme?). Is there a reason to suspect that we won't see problems from what happened? Also having land uninhabitable for thousands of years weighs pretty heavily even if the risk of failure is low.

It's not thousands of years, though it will likely be a few hundred[1].

[1] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/area-around-cherno...

Re: Transatomic Power

#37

Post by Animats »

Here's a good overview of the state of thorium reactors today.[1] The Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics has been talking about building a demo unit in Singapore to be operational in 2015, but that seems to have slipped to 2017.[2]

The article glosses over a big issue - this type of reactor has to be hooked to a chemical plant which continually reprocesses the radioactive molten salt. Chemical plants for radioactive materials are historically a huge headache to operate. Many such plants are now toxic waste sites.

With BWR and PWR reactors, the radioactive portion of the system is simple, with few moving parts, and the working fluid is water. More complex large reactor designs have a poor track record. Sodium reactors have sodium fires (Monju, in Japan, was shut down after one in 1995), helium-cooled reactors leak helium (Ft. St. Vrain was a real disappointment), and pebble bed reactors have pebble jams (there's one in Germany so jammed it can't be dismantled.)

[1] http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/current-and-future-generat... [2] http://www.ornl.gov/ornl/news/news-releases/2015/ornl-and-sh...

Re: Transatomic Power

#38

Post by MichaelGG »

gonehome wrote: post #35
MichaelGG wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the same reason Germany shutdown its power plants after Fukushima. Despite Fukushima being a huge success story [1] some people are scared, some unthinking, almost all irrational and unable to handle probability at all. Nuclear power seems magical and shares a word with scary weapons. It's not "natural" for mediocre definitions of natural. 1: Seriously. Fukushima did everything wrong. Huge earthquake and tsu…

Doesn't it take a while for people to die or see effects from radiation exposure (unless it's extreme?). Is there a reason to suspect that we won't see problems from what happened? Also having land uninhabitable for thousands of years weighs pretty heavily even if the risk of failure is low.

They originally said it'd be a few years, but the JP government is on behind, so it might take longer to decontaminate. I don't think anyone is talking more than a decade or few. Countries sell land, so think of it that way, at worst. The clean up is also super expensive. And, over 1000 people died from evacuation-related issues. I guess that's just a factor when you move older people around, for any reason. So, yes Fukushima sucked, but in context, given the incompetence, it seems very encouraging. Unless we act even more stupid and get a large disaster, why would it be worse?

From what I've read, the estimates of cancer are really low. But you're right, there might be a few directly related deaths over the next several decades.

You'd think this would result in an attitude of wanting to push newer designs and so on, but running away is a more human reaction, it seems. :(

Re: Transatomic Power

#39

Post by DennisP »

Animats wrote: post #37

Here's a good overview of the state of thorium reactors today.[1] The Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics has been talking about building a demo unit in Singapore to be operational in 2015, but that seems to have slipped to 2017.[2] The article glosses over a big issue - this type of reactor has to be hooked to a chemical plant which continually reprocesses the radioactive molten salt. Chemical plants for radioacti…

You're correct since you specified thorium reactors, but it's also possible to build very simple non-breeding molten salt reactors running on uranium. Terrestrial Energy, for example, is working on one that's designed to reach production as soon as possible.

Advantages include passive safety, no potential for hydrogen explosions, no high pressure containment, excellent nonproliferation, and reasonably high burnup. It's nowhere near what breeders are shooting for, but it's a good start.

Post reply on HN