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

Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 353 posts

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#61

Post by EliRivers »

LatteLazy wrote: post #59
EliRivers wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this not what we expect from technology? That over time it becomes commodified and increasingly easy to operate?

No, in a word. You expect a technology to be made to work first, then to be made to work profitably, and only then commodified, miniaturised, etc. Nuclear works, but no one has made it work profitably. There is no reason to think shrinking it will make more profitable. Quite the opposite in fact: nuclear has big fixed costs. That's why you usually see multiple reactors build close together on single sites. The more p…

I believe you have not disagreed with me, but you have introduced additional intermediate stages and conditions with which I disagree.

I disagree that it is necessary for technology to be made profitable before becoming commoditised. I would argue that some technologies only become profitable when they are commoditised.

There is no reason to think shrinking it will make more profitable.

I cannot see into the minds of Rolls Royce, but I would hazard that they think it can be done. They suggest that if they can export this technology overseas as well, they can turn a profit on it. While I don't know if they're correct, they clearly believe it's possible.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#62

Post by mvc »

pintxo wrote: post #36
majewsky wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> terrorism has evolved as well I stopped worrying about terrorism when I realized that they could easily take out most of the European power grid with a few well-placed bombs on the central very-high-voltage power lines. Yet for some reason, they don't. If terrorists were really hellbent on killing as many enemy civilians as possible, the world would look very different. What actually seems to be happening is that t…

Interesting idea. I'd say they are just not intelligent enough to really figure out how to kill as many as possible. If they where intelligent, they would understand that terrorism rarely works in achieving its stated goals and do something more likely to work out in their favor.

Terrorism has been working pretty great for the US and UK governments over the past 200 years.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#63

Post by nolok »

AtlasLion wrote: post #26
grabbalacious wrote: post #15

>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…

baby steps I'd say. Let's first fix all the mess we are making here on earth before thinking of space exploration.

You're missing the point. Going to space puts us in very restrictive environments and situations that forces us to solve issues that we "can" just shrug away here on earth (meaning we move it to one or two generations down the line so it's not our problem anymore).

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#64

Post by erulabs »

hannob wrote: post #48
chrisco255 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and nuclear is the only near-infinite source of energy.

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 power is simply indirect nuclear power anyhow. If we can do what’s happening in the sun in a bottle - then no need to produce panels. If there is material in stars to produce solar power, then there is more potential nuclear power. I’m for both, and solar seems distributed in a way that makes me think it’s better for human society, but since stars are made of fissable materials - by definition there is more “potential energy” in fission than solar, since solar is simply a subset of fission at a distance.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#65

Post by eeZah7Ux »

grabbalacious wrote: post #15

>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…

> solve all kinds of existential problems

...very few existential problems have anything to do with technology.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#66

Post by nolok »

pferdone wrote: post #28
mrarjen wrote: post #21

Personally I'm all for having mini reactors if it means we can generate reliable energy with minimal pollution. Anything that helps reduce emissions should be considered. But this would need to be a fail save type of reactor and with a clear plan(s) all the way down to how the waste is handled till it's no longer active.

TerraPower [1] seem to have a good alternative with its Traveling Wave Reactor. It can be run on nuclear waste we already have and provide energy to 10bln people with US per capita power consumption for basically eternity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower

Always be wary of grandiose claims like this that amount as much to facts as to marketing material.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#67

Post by imtringued »

simonblack wrote: post #17

Nuclear reactors' biggest drawback is the cost and danger of dismantling and disposing of them after their working life is finished. Up till then they are clean and cost-effective.

The huge cost leads to mismanagement. Obsolete or unsafe nuclear plants keep running even when they shouldn't. Those plants should have been replaced with new designs immediately but it is cost prohibitive and that is what lead to accidents like Chernobyl.

If you can't afford to shut it down then don't build expensive big designs. Build smaller ones that you can actually afford to take offline.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#68

Post by eeZah7Ux »

arcturus17 wrote: post #13
ainiriand wrote: post #4

That sounds like a very bad idea. Although I am confident that the tech has evolved since Chernobyl, terrorism has evolved as well. It just takes a bunch of assholes to destroy a small town. And yes, I think they will be pretty well guarded. But if you have lots of them some of them will have security flaws.

How many attacks with the scale and sophistication needed to pull off something like that have we seen in the last 10 years in the West? I mean, how many successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants have we really seen?

> I mean, how many successful terrorist attacks on nuclear plants have we really seen?

This is the best example of survivor bias I've seen in a while.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#69

Post by NeedMoreTea »

thomasedwards wrote: post #5

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.

It's probably the only possible successor to that surprisingly standard looking Merlin powered Phantom II someone did a few years ago.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#70

Post by socialdemocrat »

AtlasLion wrote: post #26
grabbalacious wrote: post #15

>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…

baby steps I'd say. Let's first fix all the mess we are making here on earth before thinking of space exploration.

No that is an absolutely terrible way of thinking about ANYTHING. That is what the townspeople said to the aristocrat funding development of the microscope. They demanded he care for the sick before engaging in this glass grinding business which had no obvious benefit

Yet the microscope proved to be the biggest advance in medicine. Nobody could have predicted that being able to look at really small things would have an impact on how we understand disease.

Likewise nobody could have predict the profound impact satellites have had on our economy and on science.

Space exploration brings technological progress. If you are concerned about waste of money then first start to worry about industries we spend far more money on 1) Gambling 2) Cosmetics 3) Weapons, bombs etc 4) Disposable fashion

Not to mention most of the worlds problems are of political nature. They are not problems a scientists can solve. Insisting that a physicist should apply his skills to create say world peace is a waste of skills and effort.

Post reply on HN