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

81–90 of 353 posts

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#81

Post by lorenzhs »

erulabs wrote: post #64
hannob wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 “po…

Stars are fusion reactors, not fission. They're mostly made of hydrogen and helium, which account for 98% of its mass: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Tables/suncomp.ht.... You're going to have a hard time building a fission reactor running on hydrogen and helium.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#82

Post by neuronic »

erulabs wrote: post #64
hannob wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 “po…

Solar is fusion and not fission [1]. If you can't even get that right, why should anyone take these weird pro-fission arguments seriously in 2020?

The solution is to keep using existing nuclear power and develop renewables for replacement. Nuclear fission plants take at the very least 10 years (!!) to go online from the day construction begins. And that leaves out years of planning and dealing with contracts.

It's too expensive, dangerous and redundant in the face of emerging renewable tech which is becoming cheaper and more efficient by the month.

[1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/fission-and-fusion-what-d...

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#83

Post by roenxi »

rusk wrote: post #74
roenxi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If literally all the electricity ever produced by the human waste had been produced by current generation nuclear technologies, there would be a small hill of high-level nuclear waste somewhere. It wouldn't be an issue except locally where it was stored. To believe that is a problem is to not have grappled with just how big the world is and how much of it is uninhabitable to humans already. The human population is co…

Yeah man, I dunno either ... I think "poisonous" is understating it somewhat. We're talking about substances that will remain toxic for thousands of years, and are quite happy to go everywhere they can if there is some issue with containment. I appreciate that you have a conviction that this is a problem, but you're coming across a bit hand-wavy in your arguments. I'd prefer to see concrete solutions (and I don't mea…

> you're coming across a bit hand-wavy in your arguments. I'd prefer to see concrete solutions

It is an order-of-magnitude argument; a bit like arguing whether $1 billion or $1 million is more dollars. The difference between the two figures is almost exactly a billion dollars because there really is no comparison between orders of magnitude. Uranium is something like 6 orders of magnitude more energy dense than fossil fuels (so more of a trillion to a million) - the waste is a lot worse too, but it is nowhere near 6 orders of magnitude more dangerous, because that would suggest it is killing more people than the population of the earth already. Which it is not ^.

You can say you want something solved, but the problem you want solved is several orders of magnitude smaller than the problems everyone currently shrugs off as totally normal. The orders of magnitude are so different they do not need to be solved and can be handwaved. The nuclear waste problem is incomparably small compared to the fossil fuel problem which has proven to be tolerable despite 20+ years of resistance by Green groups.

It is also probably going to turn out to be smaller than the waste problem fabricating renewable will have by the same order of magnitude issue.

^ The evidence suggests it is actually not that much worse because it is so easy to isolate. It is practically achievable for nuclear waste to do less actual harm unit-to-unit than coal.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#84

Post by posix_me_less »

threeseed wrote: post #51
hannob wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Especially if there are advancements in power distribution e.g. high temperature superconductors. This would be a game changer for the major continents like Europe, US, Africa where you could have power coming from hydro, thermal, solar, wind etc and being shipped to where it is needed.

Loss of power during distribution is not a problem that needs solving, power losses due to transmission in conventional grid are mere 5%.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Lo...

Considering how costly and inflexible all superconductors are, I don't see why they would help.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#85

Post by alpaca128 »

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.

That's like saying "let's first neatly reorganize all the files on these 700 harddrives before thinking about backups" when you can just do both.

Spending for space exploration is currently at a laughably low level, if countless people didn't manage to solve all our problems in the course of decades then adding a few billions of dollars won't do anything except make a few people even richer.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#86

Post by lorenzhs »

imtringued wrote: post #44
mytailorisrich wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They rely on water for cooling so are built near a source of it, be it the sea or a river.

Rivers tend to have different flow rates over the course of the year. If there is a heat wave the plant may not have enough water for cooling. The ocean is more dependable.

The problem is not so much the flow rate as it is the river's temperature. You can't raise that too much without harming the river's ecosystem. This is what limits several of France's nuclear power stations during summer.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#87

Post by hannob »

roenxi wrote: post #75
hannob wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The solar panels do have to be fabricated. That probably doesn't have the same scaling potential as nuclear given how much power/m2 nuclear can reach. Also, at a guess the energy in solar panels drop with the square of distance to the sun. It is unlikely to be a good choice for interstellar travel if 'advance[ing] as a species' heads in the more fantastic directions.

> The solar panels do have to be fabricated.

Let me tell you a mindblowing fact: It doesn't matter which energy technology you use, there's always technology involved that has to be fabricated.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#88

Post by the8472 »

dmos62 wrote: post #54
luspr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree completely. It's a fallacy to believe we will require less energy in the long run. We need much more, if we want to advance as a species.

> we want to advance as a species I'm somewhat weary of people talking of civilization progress as if its definition is obvious and universal.

As far as humans are concerned overall progress has been linked to climbing up fractions of the kardashev scale since fire was invented.

And even before fire, organisms could only become more complex as the energy available to them increased. You can't run a hummingbird or mammalian brains on photosynthesis directly, it's just not energy-dense enough.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#89

Post by Reason077 »

neuronic wrote: post #82
erulabs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 “po…

Solar is fusion and not fission [1]. If you can't even get that right, why should anyone take these weird pro-fission arguments seriously in 2020? The solution is to keep using existing nuclear power and develop renewables for replacement. Nuclear fission plants take at the very least 10 years (!!) to go online from the day construction begins. And that leaves out years of planning and dealing with contracts. It's to…

> "Nuclear fission plants take at the very least 10 years (!!) to go online from the day construction begins."

Yes, but that's what the small modular reactors being proposed by Rolls-Royce, and others, intend to solve. If successful, they would greatly reduce the construction time, risk, and cost of nuclear projects.

Re: Rolls-Royce plans mini nuclear reactors by 2029

#90

Post by kwhitefoot »

chrisco255 wrote: post #39
luspr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree completely. It's a fallacy to believe we will require less energy in the long run. We need much more, if we want to advance as a species.

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

Not really. The supply of economically extractable fissile material is limited in just the same way as any other mineral.

If energy prices rise then it will become worthwhile to extract, if they fall then it will be less so. Of course if the number of consumers rises this will also improve the viability of mining. According to this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_Australia, it is currently uneconomic to proceed with several mining projects.

Regardless of economic considerations fissile material is a finite resource although it could be that we will never reach the limit.

Post reply on HN