Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades • Hacker News Board

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#61

Post by dgacmu » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:41 PM UTC

throwup238 wrote: post #50

xp84 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California has energy costs more than double most other states so it’s probably not the best argument for “it’s so easy to go mostly renewable.” A lot of things are feasible if you’re willing to [force everyone in the state to] spend 2x. Whatever California is trying to do in the past 20 years has been extraordinarily regressive.

Our energy costs are due to the distribution network and the massive amount of deferred maintenance on it that has come due in the last decade, accelerated by the Camp fire court case. There was a two year period a few years ago where power went out at least once a week while SDGE replaced every power pole in the rural east county by flying them in on helicopters. That's largely what we're paying for.

As the above poster said.

Generation costs are a small part of most consumers' bills, but particularly in CA.

If you look at the location marginal pricing map from CA ISO: https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices

You'll see that right now (before solar has really kicked in), The price for the next megawatt hour of generation is $49 -- i.e., under 5c per kWh. That's comparable to the average price in PJM (east coast) at the same time:

https://www.caiso.com/todays-outlook/prices

vs https://pjm.com/

The big problem for California is that cheap generation via solar doesn't move the needle as much on consumer bills because of the transmission and distribution costs. In San Francisco, for example the distribution fee is over $0.20/kWh. That's twice what mine is in Pittsburgh. In contrast, the generation pricing is only about $0.04/kWh more than mine:

https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHED...

though this pricing does favor behind the meter generation such as residential solar.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#62

Post by hammock » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:41 PM UTC

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #49

billy99k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

Almost nobody knew or cared about the coming global warming in the 60s-90s.

What do you mean “the coming” global warming? I thought the hockey stick graph starts hockey sticking around 1900.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#63

Post by zekrioca » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:45 PM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #42

StopDisinfo910 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But at the moment, solar + battery is quick to deploy and about as cheap as you can get. The actual equation is solar + battery + gas fired power plant. That’s the dirty secret behind intermittent power sources and why fossil fuel companies are all investing in solar and wind. Batteries are simply not enough to face the long term intermittence. It’s purely an intra-day solution at the moment and nobody knows how to…

The actual actual problem is energy per acre of land per year. Solar is king in places like west Texas and Nevada. Massive sunny flat sprawling landscapes where the land is practically free. It's a different story in places like Massachusetts or New York, where land is expensive and the sun is mildly sunny. Gas becomes much more competitive because you only need 5 acres instead of 500, and the energy is 24/7.

Long distant transmission lines would help with that. Also, I want to point out we need to decarbonize, so I don’t think gas considers all externalities that it causes, like air pollution.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#64

Post by shevy-java » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:47 PM UTC

You don't want to know what I keep in my basement ...

(... but it really isn't so interesting, so in order to keep the mystery, I'll simply not say what it is!)

> In 1975, Kodak powered up the country’s first californium neutron flux multiplier (CFX). Though it couldn’t live up to the sci-fi-tinged promise of its name

Why? It vanished! Nobody knows why or how.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#65

Post by zekrioca » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:49 PM UTC

xp84 wrote: post #45

dgacmu wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar + battery + wind actually do pretty well. There's a bit of a de-correlation between solar and wind that makes the mix more resilient than either alone. We can't do 100% in most places yet, but it's pretty straightforward to move to a much higher percentage of them in our grid mix than we have now, California possibly excepting. (But even in California you see battery starting to extend how much we can do with s…

California has energy costs more than double most other states so it’s probably not the best argument for “it’s so easy to go mostly renewable.” A lot of things are feasible if you’re willing to [force everyone in the state to] spend 2x. Whatever California is trying to do in the past 20 years has been extraordinarily regressive.

It hasn’t, it is actually showing the way forward for a more dynamic energy mix. Regressive is continuing with the same 150y fossil fuel receipt for energy despite continuous advances in various clean technologies. California has multiple natural issues with regular fires and dry air that makes energy management very expensive.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#66

Post by zekrioca » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:51 PM UTC

ThatMedicIsASpy wrote: post #24

billy99k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

I also really enjoy privatizing profits and let the public deal with the aftermath.

Exactly. It is amazing how certain people really don’t care about others’ money, and above all, health.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#67

Post by anjel » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:53 PM UTC

At the Univ of Maryland College Park in the mid 1980s, a campus of 40k students, it was common knowledge the was a small research reactor in full time operation right on campus. I can't imagine it was the only school to have one.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#68

Post by zekrioca » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:57 PM UTC

7bit wrote: post #58

billy99k wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These public freak outs is also why we don't have abundant nuclear energy. The climate activists of the 60s-90s stopped us from building more reactors, one of the cleanest sources of energy ever known.

1. Mining and processing are destructive Uranium mining leaves behind contaminated soil, groundwater problems, tailings, and long-term ecological damage. “Yellow Cake” shows this clearly. These impacts last far longer than any economic benefit. 2. Operation is low-CO₂, but not low-risk Severe accidents are rare, but the consequences are catastrophic when they do occur. Chernobyl and Fukushima are obvious examples. Th…

Certain lobbyists like hiding the end-to-end aspects of nuclear and focus mostly on “energy density”, “clean operations” etc, because they take advantage of the fact most people think short term (because, well, it is simpler). It is like the fossil fuel lobbyists that say gas is cheaper but never mention the externalities caused by e.g., the air pollution causing health issues to those living nearby LNG plants, who end up paying for the costs, just not at the moment of operationalization. Of course none of these proponents live near these infrastructures. This is the very same old 60-90’s stories with the tobacco industry saying smoking have health benefits.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#69

Post by sillysaurusx » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 3:57 PM UTC

orioni wrote: post #19

jandrewrogers wrote: post #17

When I studied chemistry at university, only a handful of select students were introduced to the nuclear science lab in the basement. It had a lot of spicy isotopes, neutron sources, etc. Even as a chemistry student with free run of the place for years I had no idea it was in the building until the department head pulled a few of us aside. The reason for the informal secrecy, as it was explained to me, is that every…

This is just like how universities hide their animal research facilities. It wasn't until the final year of my biology degree that I found out we had a basement floor under our life sciences building where this research is carried out. I visited a few times as part of a research project I was involved in, and that experience was one of the factors that put me off pursuing a career in biomedical research.

Could you describe the experience? I’ve always wondered what biomedical research was actually like.

Re: Kodak ran a nuclear device in its basement for decades

#70

Post by alpinisme » Sat, Nov 22, 2025, 4:00 PM UTC

jpalawaga wrote: post #54

alpinisme wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that depends on how hysterically you read the word secret (including projecting hysterics on others using it). But we at work have a lot of secret projects. Basically everything is given a project code name until it’s public and if you work in R&D you are told not to discuss your work on such projects either outside the company with friends or inside the company with people who don’t work in R&D. That is the…

Is there a penalty to discussing the secret projects? Like if your manager/director/vp knew you were talking specifics without some authorized, what would happen? It sounds like there is no penalty to the nuclear labs except, if you blab to the wrong person, it’s going to stir up trouble.

I’ve never heard of anything more happening than being reminded not to do that (pretty much the only time it happens is when someone is talking with product support and lets slip a feature or product they’re working on will solve a complaint about an existing product). I’m sure you’d be fired if it was thought you did it intentionally to spread knowledge of the secret though.

I guess in this case the question comes down (for me) to whether employees at this lab were asked by their managers not to tell friends and acquaintances what they worked on. Even if not with an explicit threat of harm, asking someone not to tell something is pretty much exactly what asking them to keep it a secret means.