Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

bloomberg.com

61–70 of 87 posts

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#61
post #15

I’m an interested layperson at best, but I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now, and that the safe storage of spent (or “slightly used” as I’ve heard it called) fuel pellets is a much harder political problem than technical problem. Gorbachev once speculated that it was actually Chernobyl that brought down the USSR. I personally wonder if it’s also why we’re going to have a climate catastrophe.

What to do with spent fuel rods is more of a political problem than a technical one. Read up on Yucca Mountain. Current thinking is that the best approach to long term disposal is to find a cold hard-rock mountain where nothing has changed much in millions of years. Dig tunnels that are far above any possible flooding. Drill vertical holes in the tunnels. Package the nuclear waste in stainless steel thimbles, with th…

Why do the tunnels need to be above any possible flooding? With the waste contain the way you described it being submerged in a flood doesn’t seem like it would cause problems.

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#62
post #15

I’m an interested layperson at best, but I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now, and that the safe storage of spent (or “slightly used” as I’ve heard it called) fuel pellets is a much harder political problem than technical problem. Gorbachev once speculated that it was actually Chernobyl that brought down the USSR. I personally wonder if it’s also why we’re going to have a climate catastrophe.

What to do with spent fuel rods is more of a political problem than a technical one. Read up on Yucca Mountain. Current thinking is that the best approach to long term disposal is to find a cold hard-rock mountain where nothing has changed much in millions of years. Dig tunnels that are far above any possible flooding. Drill vertical holes in the tunnels. Package the nuclear waste in stainless steel thimbles, with th…

Why don’t we just end Carter’s prohibition On reprocessing the spent fuel rods?

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#63
Actually, nuclear fission is close enough to start dreaming. NuScale got their Small Nuclear Reactor approved by the NRC last year [1], and a few days ago they announced a deal to build a set of 6 SMR's in Romania, for a total of almost 0.5 GW [2], as soon as 2028. Chances are this could actually happen. Their other current contract is for a power plant in Idaho, which may open in 2029-30 [3].

[1] https://www.nuscalepower.com/technology/licensing

[2] https://newsroom.nuscalepower.com/press-releases/news-detail...

[3]https://www.nuscalepower.com/Projects/Carbon-Free-Power-Proj...

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#65

This sounds like 1950s claims of Fission being so cheap and clean that electricity would be almost free. Unanticipated externalities appeared in practice, resulting in high cost and pollution. Fusions heel may stray neutrons turnin reactor wall material highly radioactive.

It is more like fission externalities ended up way over-anticipated, almost killing the industry.

Fission is the technology that is statistically (even taking into account all the incidents) safer than most other viable generation options, yet people have very hard time accepting it

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#66
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Just like we have fusion for decades. As fusion isn't practical, electric cars were not practical mass mean of transportation until very recently.

Electric cars have always been doable, they've just been more expensive than fossile fuel alternative which is ostensibly free energy. The situations are not at all comparable. Nuclear Fusion has still barely been demonstrated as a proof-of-concept.

I don't believe that is true about electric cars. Battery technology is now only good enough for a half decent range.

Nuclear fusion has been proven for decades, it's the goal of producing net-energy that is the problem.

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#67

I’m an interested layperson at best, but I gather that we know how to build safe fission reactors now, and that the safe storage of spent (or “slightly used” as I’ve heard it called) fuel pellets is a much harder political problem than technical problem. Gorbachev once speculated that it was actually Chernobyl that brought down the USSR. I personally wonder if it’s also why we’re going to have a climate catastrophe.

I think Hiroshima also is a big factor.

Chernobyl, too, sure, but if Hiroshima hadn't already shown the terrible risks of "nuclear", I think it would have mattered a lot less.

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Think of all the fusion powered direct air CO2 capture we could have Oh, trees? ;-)

For a tree to be an effective long-term sequestered of carbon, you have to ensure the tree never burns or decays. Obviously this can be done; you can sink it in anaerobic water or bury it deep in a mineshaft... but just letting forests grow wild doesn't get the job done anymore. Not since the end of the Carboniferous era. New forests don't make new coal deposits, that's a thing of the past. Trees are still great thou…

Left to their own, trees will grow, die, fall over, and build up soil. The soil is carbon sink. You just have to keep it from eroding.

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First question I have about it: wouldn't it be an attractive target for bombing/terrorist attacks or would it be rock solid enough to withstand those?

The threat of terrorism is massively overblown across the board, not just with respect to nuclear waste. The means to make conventional explosives are widely available, yet outside of a handful of conflict zones it is rarely done. Americans can buy gunpowder at walmart, yet how many pipebomb attacks have you heard of? A handful, but not many. Not many considering the country has hundreds of millions of people with re…

This is true, particularly in developed nations. [0]

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism

Re: Nuclear fusion is close enough to start dreaming

#70
It's been all dreaming, all along.

Tokamak dreams are just the fever sort: extracting energy from a Tokamak fusor will necessarily cost overwhelmingly more than from fission. But fission is already not competitive, and gets less so every day. Fission could, in principle, deliver not unreasonably cost-ineffective power, but not in the US where its construction mostly delivers tax money via political patronage, with a sideline in grid power, maybe, someday. Small nukes might sidestep that system, but they have a hard time drawing capital in competition with the now reliable graft conduits.

Helion is interesting for its direct "aneutronic" electromagnetic energy extraction route, but dependent on a supply of Helium-3 that it will have to breed up from side deuterium-deuterium fusion. That one, anyway, might work.

But most of the dreaming right now is of the venture capital sort. Billions of dollars will change hands, for years, without a solitary watt-hour pushed out to the grid, while solar is built out as best it can absent those $billions. The more solar and, soon, storage is built out, the lower the price target the fusors and small-scale nukes must compete against.

It is not all gloom for them: they don't need to match the price per watt of peak output from solar, but something like three to six times that, because they only need to match the price of power delivered from a storage system that was charged up during the third of each day when solar is producing well. The odds-on favorite storage systems (favored first for cheap build-out) are not especially efficient, delivering round-trip maybe half of what was put in.

As intermittent solar picks up an increasing share of power generation, some industries will increasingly adapt to maximizing power use when it is cheapest. Those industries won't buy much of more-expensive power, but will instead wait for it to be cheap again. Prime examples of this will include hydrogen, hydrocarbon, and ammonia synthesis from water and air feedstocks, but even steel and aluminum production. Warring against this tendency will be debt service for capital equipment not making money sitting idle. Economic analysis will choose at what prices to start and stop production.

Post reply on HN