David Hahn did.
Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
71–80 of 107 posts
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is one of the emotions. If you read the article you will read about two reactors that are actually fueled by what we consider waste today. That we don't completely burn the fuel used in a reactor is a 'bug', a misfeature if you will. That was expedient when the initial reactors were being brought online and now is a regulatory pain in the butt. There is nothing in the physics that requires a nuclear reactor comp…
The fact that a reactor is fueled by waste doesn't mean it doesn't create waste or have a waste-disposal aspect. In the case of any nuclear reactor, the vessel and mechanism itself becomes radioactive and must be disposed of (the same process also leads to embrittlement and other issues with the vessel/structure itself). And the resulting fission products are also still radioactive and require disposal, though my und…
This is an important point, so let's be precise here.
The fact that a reactor is fueled by waste doesn't mean it doesn't create waste or have a waste-disposal aspect.
There is nothing in the physics of building nuclear reactors that prevents us from building a reactor that does not leave behind any waste that is either chemically reactive, or even modestly radioactive. No currently implemented reactor designs do that, but it is possible to create one that is both fueled by current reactor waste, and has no waste disposal aspect.
It is unclear if we could ever license such a reactor given the current climate.
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#73My daughter was one of the operators of the TRIGA reactor at Reed college. Some of the students joked it was a Fisher-Price My First Reactor reactor :-) at only 250kW its small as reactors go, but also exceptionally interesting. It is very disappointing how constricted the field of nuclear research is, as it is a demonstrably zero carbon footprint energy source. I understand the emotion that nuclear power evokes in p…
People saying nuclear power plants having zero carbon footprint aren't really according for the entire nuclear fuel chain. the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are building the power plant, uranium mining, and nuclear decommissioning. I still think nuclear power has its place for example having nuclear reactors on warships let them stay out to sea as long as they have food. They make their own electr…
Of course, some of the work done in the construction/mining/decommissioning could be powered by electricity from other reactors, getting closer to carbon-zero.
But realistically, there is no extant electricity supply that has zero carbon costs over it's lifecycle. At least that I am aware of.
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
A non-US citizen here, so I have practically no understanding of the politics related to US nuclear power. However, the Wikipedia article for Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository seems to mention that the cancellation was for political rather than for technical reasons. Wouldn't this imply, that the opposing forces aren't technological, but rather political? As in, if there's will, the problem can be at least part…
Oh, no disagreement there. I don't think there is in principle a problem with safely storing nuclear waste, in the sense that it would be technically impossible to do it or anything. The problem is that in practice the current solution is to have a bunch of it hanging out in "interim" storage that is not really well planned or designed as permanent storage. That's mostly a political problem, and secondarily an econom…
It's yet another example of the brilliance of the American public when it comes to power. Shut down the nuclear plants! (spin up coal plants instead). Block Yucca Mountain! (pile up spent fuel in short-term storage instead). So on and so forth.
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
This looks like a pretty big real world consequence to me: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chernobyl&safe=off&espv=21... Say what you like about the strength of the evidence linking burning of hydrocarbons and climate change, but it doesn't carry the risk of a meltdown leaving a footprint so big and dangerous that cities have to be abandoned. I don't think it's "ignorance... that borders religiousness" that keeps t…
What relevance does Chernobyl have with modern nuclear power plants? A honest question, because I am under an impression that with modern regulations and reactor designs the chance of a meltdown or less severe nuclear disaster are infitesimally small, granted that 1) regulations are being followed(which they weren't in Chernobyl) 2) safety of operation is being maintained and that the plant itself isn't faulty(which…
What relevance does Chernobyl have with modern nuclear power plants?
In line with this notion, I am reminded of automobiles. Automobiles of yesteryear were more dangerous and significantly more polluting (causing serious health problems for the residents of Los Angeles). But of course we clearly cannot point to a '57 Chevy with no seatbelts or catalytic converter and say, "Clearly cars are too dangerous and noxious to allow".
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#76Well, there's this company:
VC-backed, too!
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is one of the emotions. If you read the article you will read about two reactors that are actually fueled by what we consider waste today. That we don't completely burn the fuel used in a reactor is a 'bug', a misfeature if you will. That was expedient when the initial reactors were being brought online and now is a regulatory pain in the butt. There is nothing in the physics that requires a nuclear reactor comp…
Nuclide, not nucleotide. Nucleotides are the fundamental component of a DNA molecule. Nuclides are the differentiated nucleuses of the common atomic elements, some of which are regarded as isotopes, of which some isotopes are radioactive
Aye, you are correct of course, typing fast always trips me up.
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#78The dynamics by which nuclear reactor design cease to be "fun" resonates very strongly with yesterday's post on creativity, and in particular on simonsarris's mention of John Cleese's video on creativity. The how to kill creativity bit at the end in particular. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6862240 I've got my own thoughts and doubts over the ultimate viability of nuclear energy and of the net potential of tec…
And what about the guy who though up the Higgs boson saying that he would be kicked out of university these days because he doesn't meet the arbitrary bureaucratic metric thought up by small-minded administrators. I.e. he does not publish enough papers. These are a few examples of the idiocracy taking root. MBAs running companies into the ground because they fundamentally do not understand the domain in which their b…
That too. There's been something of a confluence of posts on this topic in the past few days. Not that it isn't a topic that has some attraction here.
Another datapoint: a recently posted (here?) interview of Richard Feynman, shot only a few weeks before he died. What really got me was the mischievous nature he displayed: constantly smiling and joking. Einstein was somewhat similar. God may not play dice with the Universe, but each of these two was, I think, toying with it.
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Their opposition has merit; it's easy to point to Fukushima and Chernobyl as major disasters. The disasters are one thing. The constant lying from authorities, government and assigned experts was another. They were caught pants down telling lies and misinforming in handling the Fukusima accident. This breaks trust. And for projects like that, that involve billions of dollars (enough to fuel much payola and greed),…
Sources, please? I don't disbelieve you; I want to know more. (And precisely what you're referring to.)
There are several statements that TEPCO made before, during, and after the Fukishima incident that were directly refuted by the IAEA report on the disaster. And I certainly agree that it doesn't help the cause of Nuclear Power use when such things occur. There were also false and misleading statements made by the opponents of Fukishima but I hold them to a lower standard than I do TEPCO.
"Ideally, in a crisis, a government would communicate effectively to its people and the global community. Risks associated with the crisis and ongoing efforts to manage the crisis would be clearly articulated. Efforts would be made to provide factual reassurances to the international community. All of this would be done with timely information provided by recognized authorities in a coordinated fashion. Fundamental to such effective crisis communication would be adherence to a sound, well-researched accident management plan predicated on coordination and support among government entities and the utility (or utilities) involved and on trust among all parties, including the national and global communities.
None of the above happened with the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The reasons why are not entirely clear. Obviously, the Japanese government; safety authorities; and TEPCO, the nuclear utility, had a stake in the conduct and outcome of the accident, and they, for their own benefit at least, needed to provide reliable, timely information to their stakeholders and constituents. In addition, many other organizations across the globe had a stake in the conduct and outcome of the accident, and they too needed solid information to be provided to them so that they themselves could provide meaningful information to their decision makers, stakeholders, and constituents. What was actually executed was unfortunate for all parties involved."
Re: Nobody builds nuclear reactors for fun anymore
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that a reactor is fueled by waste doesn't mean it doesn't create waste or have a waste-disposal aspect. In the case of any nuclear reactor, the vessel and mechanism itself becomes radioactive and must be disposed of (the same process also leads to embrittlement and other issues with the vessel/structure itself). And the resulting fission products are also still radioactive and require disposal, though my und…
As opposed to coal, oil and gas fracking? I sure rest assured that when the local groundwater and aquifiers for my city are too toxic to drink, well at least I'll only be dying of organic and heavy metal poisoning.
As opposed to coal, oil and gas fracking?
Tu quoque fallacy.
No, I didn't say that these weren't.
If you want to know, rather than project on me, my beliefs, you could ask me. As it happens, my view is that humans, as with other life forms, exist to perform the function of exploiting low-entropy energy stocks and flows. The consequences of that ... tend not to be something we consider in advance. We've benefited hugely from fossil fuels, but have put ourselves well beyond the point of sustainability. Even with, say, a practically unlimited energy supply we'd bump into the problems of heat dissipation within a few centuries to millennia at present growth rates. We've simply got to stop growing.
As to what's sustainable? Probably on the order of 500m - 2 billion souls if you want any sort of industrialized lifestyle. Hell, even if not, not much more than that.
The next century or two will be very interesting times. Starting likely within a decade or two, possibly less.