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

Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#41

Post by akshatrathi »

aplummer wrote: post #39
Jedd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the nice people behind metric came up with the tonne. It avoids any ambiguity -- the 5% of the planet still struggling with imperial measurements can continue to confound each other with ton, while the rest of us can confidently talk amongst ourselves about thousand-kg units (tonnes).

Look I love the metric system as much as anyone, but it’s an American website and a lot more than 5% of the readers are likely American...

That's the reason. Thanks for helping me out here.

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#42

Post by DennisP »

philipkglass wrote: post #26
dantheman wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually uranium at various enrichments is cheaper than ever. SWU cost last year was $125.43/SWU https://www.eia.gov/uranium/marketing/

Right, that's true in the actual world. I'm trying to imagine a world where a startup is developing nuclear power for the very first time, which includes developing/building any enrichment technologies their reactor might depend upon. I don't think that a reactor requiring enriched fuel is a good Very First Reactor design -- and the actual first reactors did not require enriched fuel -- but enrichment came up in the…

Possibly a nuclear industry kicked off by startups would use different technology. It may be no coincidence that we used a gigantic price-insensitive entity to develop the early technology, and ended up with expensive reactors.

Molten salt reactors, for example, were known back in the 1950s, and appear to have a number of major cost advantages.

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#43

Post by rypskar »

Jedd wrote: post #35
chottocharaii wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A metric ton is substantially different to a ton in the old English

Hence the nice people behind metric came up with the tonne. It avoids any ambiguity -- the 5% of the planet still struggling with imperial measurements can continue to confound each other with ton, while the rest of us can confidently talk amongst ourselves about thousand-kg units (tonnes).

>It avoids any ambiguity

My first language is not English and I am using metric, and to me using metric ton or metric tonne removes ambiguity. I know Americans have a ton that is different from a normal ton, but have no idea about how much it is, and it is not used often enough for me to even consider it exist. I would assume 5 tonnes if it was written as 5 ton, 5 metric tons, 5 tonnes or 5 metric tonnes

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#44

Post by Jedd »

aplummer wrote: post #39
Jedd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the nice people behind metric came up with the tonne. It avoids any ambiguity -- the 5% of the planet still struggling with imperial measurements can continue to confound each other with ton, while the rest of us can confidently talk amongst ourselves about thousand-kg units (tonnes).

Look I love the metric system as much as anyone, but it’s an American website and a lot more than 5% of the readers are likely American...

> ... but it’s an American website ...

I'm really never quite sure what that kind of claim actually means -- it's hosted in the US (it isn't - most of the assets come from proximal CDN for me), it's written exclusively by Americans (it isn't - they are proud of the fact their team covers 115 countries and they have 19 languages between them), it's targeted exclusively to Americans (it isn't - they've launched Quartz India and Quartz Africa), or it's read mostly by Americans (it isn't - I believe their US audience is something less than 50%), or it's owned by Americans (it isn't - Quartz is owned by a Japanese based company), or the person reading it is in North America and wants to believe that most other people are too(I can't really comment on that one).

Perhaps it's just the TLD -- but even that's a pretty flimsy claim. I've got my own .org, and I'm very much not in/owned/near/have/were American.

Anyway, there's this word tonne (which means 1000kg) and it's entirely not at odds with ton (which doesn't).

Unlike gallon, gill, mile, nautical mile, survey foot, quart, pint, fluid ounce, bushel -- which all vary depending which side of the pond you call home -- the tonne is delightfully agnostic of all that madness, and should be embraced and encouraged by sensible journals (for example Quartz) even if it means some North Americans get a bit sensitive about their archaic measurement systems.

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#45

Post by Jedd »

rypskar wrote: post #43
Jedd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the nice people behind metric came up with the tonne. It avoids any ambiguity -- the 5% of the planet still struggling with imperial measurements can continue to confound each other with ton, while the rest of us can confidently talk amongst ourselves about thousand-kg units (tonnes).

>It avoids any ambiguity My first language is not English and I am using metric, and to me using metric ton or metric tonne removes ambiguity. I know Americans have a ton that is different from a normal ton, but have no idea about how much it is, and it is not used often enough for me to even consider it exist. I would assume 5 tonnes if it was written as 5 ton, 5 metric tons, 5 tonnes or 5 metric tonnes

Sure, but I feel it's a regression.

I recently saw (online) a North American try to use a date format of:

yyyy-dd-mm .... I don't know why, but it was done in earnest, and it's the sort of thing that could (if it gained any kind of widespread usage) destroy much of the great work done by the ISO 8601 date/time standard.

A small thing for people who never have to deal with date formats outside their own country -- but a significant concern for people who do.

Similarly, the word tonne means a metric unit of 1000kg.

Trying to dilute the meaning by introducing phrasing such as 'metric ton' or 'metric tonne' or 'imperial tonne' (perish the thought!) is a similar regression. Journals - as the curators of common usage - have an important role to play here.

I think we can either surrender, weaken the language, give up, and defer to the confused minority, or we can stick with the sensible, previously agreed definitions and hope they catch up to us in the next lifetime or two.

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#46

Post by rypskar »

Jedd wrote: post #45
rypskar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It avoids any ambiguity My first language is not English and I am using metric, and to me using metric ton or metric tonne removes ambiguity. I know Americans have a ton that is different from a normal ton, but have no idea about how much it is, and it is not used often enough for me to even consider it exist. I would assume 5 tonnes if it was written as 5 ton, 5 metric tons, 5 tonnes or 5 metric tonnes

Sure, but I feel it's a regression. I recently saw (online) a North American try to use a date format of: yyyy-dd-mm .... I don't know why, but it was done in earnest, and it's the sort of thing that could (if it gained any kind of widespread usage) destroy much of the great work done by the ISO 8601 date/time standard. A small thing for people who never have to deal with date formats outside their own country -- but…

>yyyy-dd-mm

how, what, why? Who would do something like that? The best is for all to stop using outdated imperial systems and forget that there is another ton than the one that is 1000 kg

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#47

Post by philipkglass »

DennisP wrote: post #42
philipkglass wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's true in the actual world. I'm trying to imagine a world where a startup is developing nuclear power for the very first time, which includes developing/building any enrichment technologies their reactor might depend upon. I don't think that a reactor requiring enriched fuel is a good Very First Reactor design -- and the actual first reactors did not require enriched fuel -- but enrichment came up in the…

Possibly a nuclear industry kicked off by startups would use different technology. It may be no coincidence that we used a gigantic price-insensitive entity to develop the early technology, and ended up with expensive reactors. Molten salt reactors, for example, were known back in the 1950s, and appear to have a number of major cost advantages.

Molten salt reactors might be the second generation of reactors in an alternative history with nuclear-by-startups. They require a higher fissile material concentration than found in natural uranium. To start operating a MSR you need some reactors fueled with natural uranium and moderated by graphite or heavy water in order to breed fissile plutonium from uranium, or uranium 233 from thorium, to get concentrated fissile material for starting molten salt reactors.

Or you could start a MSR with U-235 enriched from natural uranium, but that would require developing complex and expensive enrichment technology before you get your first watt of nuclear power generation.

Re: Bill Gates-led $1B energy fund expands startup portfolio fighting climate change

#48

Post by DennisP »

philipkglass wrote: post #47
DennisP wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Possibly a nuclear industry kicked off by startups would use different technology. It may be no coincidence that we used a gigantic price-insensitive entity to develop the early technology, and ended up with expensive reactors. Molten salt reactors, for example, were known back in the 1950s, and appear to have a number of major cost advantages.

Molten salt reactors might be the second generation of reactors in an alternative history with nuclear-by-startups. They require a higher fissile material concentration than found in natural uranium. To start operating a MSR you need some reactors fueled with natural uranium and moderated by graphite or heavy water in order to breed fissile plutonium from uranium, or uranium 233 from thorium, to get concentrated fiss…

True, and maybe a CANDU would be best at first if enrichment is a huge barrier. But MSRs don't necessarily need especially high enrichment. The IMSR for example only needs 5% U235, which is the upper end of what light water reactors use. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Molten_Salt_Reactor
Post reply on HN