10 ms·

> So far they have always turned out to be spectacularly wrong. So far, there weren't 7 billions humans neither. > Nuclear power, both fission and fusion, is

• dagw 16y ago
  I totally agree that we aren't building enough nuclear power plants, but that is purely for political reasons. The research is still happening and once there is a change in the political climate we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Also if we look back at the past 1000 (or even just 100) years of human history, we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes.
  • wazoox 16y ago
    > we'll be able to ramp up nuclear power over a few decades. Maybe if thorium comes on the radar. > we've been pretty good at discovering and harvesting 'magic ponies' of all shapes and sizes. Well, not that much. By the end of the roman republic, most of what made the industrial revolution possible was available, but it didn't happen until 18 centuries later.
    • infinite8s 16y ago
      Except about 200 years of science and math starting from the end of the Renaissance Period.
      • wazoox 16y ago
        The Antikythera mechanism (2 century BC) basically reset what we believed of science, mechanics and mathematical knowledge during antiquity. That, and some other things : Hero's Eolipyle, Nero's emerald monocle, Provence "industrial" mills... They had the ability, they lacked the will.
        • whughes 16y ago
          They lacked metallurgy, banking, agricultural technology... The Industrial Revolution was built on hundreds of years of slow progress and access to tons of natural resources. The Aeliopile was a toy that opened doors; it wasn't going to power any steamships.
          • infinite8s 16y ago
            There's a strange parallel to the evolution of life on Earth. Took about a billion years before the simplest single-celled organism developed all the basic mechanisms/components, and then a few hundred million years from complex multicelled organisms, and finally a huge explosion in diversity in the last hundred million years. I wonder if evolution and technological progress plotted on the same relative logarithmic scale would overlay each other?
    • mbreese 16y ago
      The ancient Greeks even had an initial stream engine, but never put it to practical use, relegating it to parlor/temple game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolipile
      • wazoox 16y ago
        That's what I mean : they had the ability to go to industrial age, they lacked the will, the impulse.
        • joeyo 16y ago
          Also, they had slavery.
    • dagw 16y ago
      While Thorium reactors are cool and all, they aren't necessary. It's not like we're about to run out of uranium any time soon. Hell, you can take your basic 1970's uranium reactor, incorporate everything we've learned about nuclear safety over the past 40 years, throw in some generic improvements to basic turbine technology and have a fully functional power plant that will do a splendid job for decades to come.
      • wazoox 16y ago
        And still no proper way to manage nuclear waste.
        • pjscott 16y ago
          Here are some options. Forgive my brevity, but I'm tired of people simply asserting that there's no way of managing nuclear waste. * Throw it away. Deep-sea subduction zones work nicely for this. Tremendously wasteful, though; that "waste" is valuable fuel. * Recycle the waste to decrease its volume. This isn't a full solution, but it makes the waste cheaper to store for a while. * Store the waste for a while, and later we can use it in breeder reactors or fusion/fission hybrids. There's so much useful U-238 in that slightly-used fuel. After this, the waste is pretty much dead.
          • wazoox 16y ago
            I'm tired of this toon and particularly of the general political atmosphere on HN (technology will solve all problems! yay!). If it's so easy to get rid of nuclear waste, why didn't we do it yet?
            • sesqu 16y ago
              GP just said. Because getting rid of it would be stupid - the current approach is building long-term storage.
            • whughes 16y ago
              So far, technology has solved all problems. What else is there?
• Daniel_Newby 16y ago
  "We aren't building enough nuclear plants now to compensate for the future closing of the old ones." Which is an intentional choice, arising from a combination of ennui, defeatism, and witch hunting. Those political movements seem to have run their course. "Fusion research is blooming, but it didn't make much progress, particularly compared to the huge effort (see ITER)." Most of the tokamak megaprojects were done to give academics a safe way to demonstrate activity. ITER is the plasma physics version of string theory. In my opinion, the real progress has come from small quiet projects involving vacuum physics and power electronics. "'Space ore' simply can't happen unless you find the way to harvest the power from some magic ponies yet to discover." It's metal, not ore. If you can lay your hands on asteroidal metal, you can turn it into useful articles with a blacksmith's forge. Fancy alloys and precious metals are more effort, but often easier than dealing with crappy terrestrial ores. The magic pony is to cancel the failed Shuttle, yet another stagnant megaproject. And avoid replacing it with other doomed megaprojects. The barrier to space activity is heavy lift capability to get there at all. Once you can get above the atmosphere cheaply enough, the solar system is your oyster. (It's like Fed Ex. The capital investment to build Fed Ex is ludicrous, but once somebody has the balls to do it, entire industries rise up from nowhere to exploit it.)
  • wazoox 16y ago
    > The barrier to space activity is heavy lift capability to get there at all. Pipe dreaming. The barrier to space is the _tremendous_ amount of energy required to get anything to low-earth orbit, let alone getting raw material going back from Jupiter's vicinity. Even with 1000 times better technology (which won't arrive soon), your asteroid iron still will be costlier than platinum. Science-fiction is mostly fiction, you know.
    • Daniel_Newby 16y ago
      Nope. The energy cost is trivial. The cost of joules for a vacation to Europa is within upper middle class aspirations. It only costs so much because our lifters are hideously inefficient. The reason rockets are so inefficient is that we don't know how to keep cracks from spreading through our structural materials, so we have to derate their strength by huge factors to get reliability. Nano- and micro-composite materials look like they will be able to vastly improve this situation (and indeed already are in the latest jetliners), and the rocket equation gives big big cost savings for weight savings. High strength materials are also good for rotovators and other semi-passive lifters. Another big opportunity is to shift some of the propulsion to the ground. It should be straightforward to shine launch lasers up the tail of a standard rocket and reduce its propellant requirement by many percent, which the rocket equation then multiplies into a large cost savings. Exclusively laser launched vehicles are also possible but speculative at this point (they need visible light lasers to get range but those are still too inefficient). Most of the necessary technology exists or can easily be built. All we lack is the optimism to make the investment. As for getting metal back, the asteroid belt is energetically close despite the distance. A small nuclear reactor and patience will do the job.