12 ms·

Former Google VP Starts a Company Promising Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy

176 points by mmettler 10y ago

pooper 10y ago
I'd imagine fusion is a better alternative to fission which in turn is a better alternative to coal. I still feel sad for the morons who think that the end of the "war on coal" will bring any semblance of Glory back to coal towns. When all is said and done they still need help.
tehlike 10y ago
mike cassidy is a brilliant man. he is strong promoter of speed when developing business: https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-speed-startup2startup-may-2008?src=embed https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-speed... I am looking forward to what he achieves with his new journey.
- deepGem 10y ago
  Just look at his fund raising speed. 21/4: 8.15 AM pitch DFJ 4 pm get term sheet. Dev team gives notice to current jobs. Wow am truly amazed.
  - FiatLuxDave 10y ago
    That may be more about DFJ than Mike Cassidy. When DFJ funded my fusion startup, it went about that fast.
- andygates 10y ago
  Speed and nuclear power plants don't typically go together: there's a lot of detail, and a lot of dilgence to be done, because the consequences are so awful if it screws up. NuScale just got their modular concept into the approval program, estimated conclusion of that, 2020. Don't speedy startup types typically get frustrated when faced with the real world?
  - tehlike 10y ago
    Hah, that's what i kind of was thinking - i think the final product won't necessarily be a nuclear plant. maybe it will, though, who knows?
- dirtyaura 10y ago
  Interesting. Has anyone tried any of products his startups did build? How scrappy were they? Is his skills more in business dev, or product building?
  - tehlike 10y ago
    i would guess business dev - given the time between company foundation to sale of business.
- benzible 10y ago
  FWIW, I remembered reading about management issues at (Google) X during his time running Project Loon and dug up the article: http://www.recode.net/2016/8/29/12663630/google-x-alphabet-moonshot http://www.recode.net/2016/8/29/12663630/google-x-alphabet-m... Sources describe most of X’s public projects — Project Loon, drones, robotics and wind energy kites — as rudderless. [...] Mike Cassidy, who stepped down from Loon, ran the team “like a fire drill,” a former employee said.
  - tehlike 10y ago
    I take these with a grain of salt. Each person's style is different. For some people, working out of 5-9 is something they run away as fast as possible. For some, work is their passion. Disclaimer: Google employee.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
a_imho 10y ago
I don't know much about the current nuclear reactors, but reading the wikipedia article about Integral fast reactors[0] paints them in a very positive light. Maybe there are better designs already, but why don't we have more of these? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
- f_allwein 10y ago
  That' a completely different thing, as it is based on nuclear fission ('normal' nuclear power), whereas the technology metnioned here is nuclear fusion ('what happens in the sun'). According to the German Wikipedia, Integral fast reactors (or breeders) have specific risks, e.g. they use a large amount of plutonium: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegenma.C3.9Fnahmen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegen... This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean, safe, limitless energy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60-years-is-nuclear-fusion-finally-poised-to-deliver https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60... ). It has been researched for ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it would be a big thing.
  - a_imho 10y ago
    Well, the article says hybrid fusion/fission but maybe it is still a big leap forward. Point is, according to my reading the IFR promised clean energy which is much safer than light water reactors in 1994 not X years into the future.
- Beltiras 10y ago
  Politics. Effing politics.
- DennisP 10y ago
  We don't have them because the Clinton administration cancelled the program shortly before completion, and because the NRC makes life extremely difficult for anything besides conventional light-water reactors.
briandear 10y ago
I hope he succeeds! This is far better than having the landscape littered with bird killing windmills and solar farms that incenerate birds. Nuclear is the best source of large scale energy IF safety were guaranteed. The safety of nuclear energy seems like a solvable engineering problem -- a difficult problem certainly, but then again so was manned space flight. I am not saying solar and wind are worse than fossil fuels -- but I am saying that nuclear could be the future. Combining nuclear generation with advanced batteries seems to be an ideal energy future.
- throwaway6556 10y ago
  > the landscape littered with bird killing windmills and solar farms that incenerate birds. Are you for real?
  - iraklism 10y ago
    I'm hoping there is an invisible /s there.
    - pvaldes 10y ago
      It seems that some solar energy mills act as 'furnaces' that reflect massive amounts of heat and can burn birds and anything flying over them, yes. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-deaths-20160831-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-dea...
  - mustacheemperor 10y ago
    This is the stuff my high school girlfriend's hyper-conservative parents would spit all over the windshield while driving us places. Didn't expect those memories to surface in a HN thread.
- GlennS 10y ago
  Birds killed by wind turbines are insignificant compared to birds killed by domestic cats.
jlebrech 10y ago
why not invest in LFTR? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY
- lukealization 10y ago
  Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one that will be operational 20 years from now.
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    LFTR is operational yesterday, you think Fusion is operational tomorrow?
    - xaldir 10y ago
      No it's not. There was some small scale experiments, to have a fully working industrial prototype, the amount of problem to solve is just colossal. I think 40+ years is a much more reasonable guess. The thing is we don't even have a realistic timeline for those, because even that requires more research. We need way more data to say something about LFTR. Fusion on the other hand has an estimate timeline. If everything goes well with ITER, DEMO should be operational around 2040-2050+. And actual power plants will use DEMO design. That's what we know today. With more research, we could find better design and faster ways to get fusion (Wendelstein 7-X) or we can find more trouble along the way.
      - douche 10y ago
        Fusion is always 40-50 years away, going back to the first experiments in the 1950s. It's hard to take such estimates seriously.
        adrianN 10y ago
        Fusion is mostly a certain amount of research dollars away. Funding has been steadily declining.[1] [1] http://imgur.com/sjH5r http://imgur.com/sjH5r
ohthehugemanate 10y ago
I get so frustrated reading anything in the popular press about nuclear power. Everyone commits the same fucking fallacy over and over again: measuring it against an absolute idea instead of anything in the real world. Even here in the HN comments, I see "if it can be made safe." In TFA, it's the explanation that people are afraid of a three mile island or Chernobyl event, that his killer feature is the impossibility of meltdowns. Here in the real world, you have to measure options against other real world options. The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants emit much more radiation than nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more. Coal power is responsible for 800,000 deaths per year, WHEN IT'S WORKING PROPERLY. That's the bar nuclear, and any other alternative baseload power source, has to beat. It doesn't have to failure proof, it doesn't have to have zero deaths. It just has to be significantly better than the alternatives. Refusing to consider a power source unless it has zero deaths, zero radiation, zero side effects for all time, is living in a fantasy world. It's the paradigm promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and bought hook line and sinker by the dumber end of the environmentalist movement. And it keeps us from ever decreasing our power generation carbon footprint.
- efaref 10y ago
  Agreed. Nuclear accidents may have made some bits around Chernobyl and Fukushima unpleasant, but coal and oil have ruined the entire planet. People simply aren't rational. It has been so hard for me to accept that.
  - SmkyMt 10y ago
    >People simply aren't rational. It has been so hard for me to accept that. You raise an important point: human irrationality is as real as climate change. And probably more challenging. We might more quickly tackle climate change by simultaneously tackling human irrationality. It's a shame that more of the best and brightest minds don't enter the (messy)fields of behavioral science - where progress is much less impressive of late than in technology IMHO.
- 10y ago
lifty 10y ago
They are mentioning doing a fusion reactor but there are no details. Lower down the page they mention that the startup will be actually using a fission-fusion process, so they are not talking about classic self sustained fusion that we haven't been able to maintain yet. They are using the fusion word a bit lightly. Fusion is a big deal.
- Grangar 10y ago
  I'm no nuclear physicist, but they might use the fission reaction as a primer for the fusion?
  - lifty 10y ago
    Well, they are mentioning fusion-fission reactions, which use fusion to trigger fission. But on an ongoing basis. As far as I can understand, stable fusion is not achieved.
  - alexfarran 10y ago
    This article in Popular Mechanics explains it a bit better http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo...
- DennisP 10y ago
  They're probably using fusion neutrons to kick off fission reactions. People have talked about this idea for years but I don't think anyone's attempted it until now. By adding uranium you don't need to get net power from fusion alone, which is really hard. The extremely high-energy neutrons from D-T fusion can fission U238, not just the scarce U235, which means you don't need enrichment and you get very little long-term waste. By having the fusion reactor as a neutron source, you can use subcritical amounts of uranium, so there's no chance of a runaway reaction. If something goes wrong with the fusion reactor it just stops, and without the fusion neutrons the fission shuts down too.
itchyjunk 10y ago
I wish some of these companies would go into fusion/fission for the research of it. Sure, going for a commercially viable model gives you more investment, but all these silicon valley rich guys trying to save the world should also invest on some research. I get it, you can't start a fusion company without R&D so there will be some anyways, but I feel like the research angle needs some love too. I am pretty sure we haven't understood everything there is to understand, and it won't hurt. Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics?
- tinco 10y ago
  As rich as they are, not many have the funds to build a nuclear reactor. Even one's that have been fully designed and based on traditional design still cost billions to build. Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but there definitely are a lot of bears on the road.
  - pm90 10y ago
    > Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but there definitely are a lot of bears on the road. Ehhhhhh....I hate to bring this up repeatedly but SpaceX would not exist without NASA. Which brings us to the role of government in research: its not necessarily to own everything, but it is provide incentives in one way or the other. To create a Market where none existed previously.
- lokimedes 10y ago
  > Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics? Absolutely, its an integrated part of anything from physics analysis to detector alignment and accelerator control. Tools of the trade: https://root.cern.ch https://root.cern.ch http://tmva.sourceforge.net http://tmva.sourceforge.net (Former particle physicist at CERN)
Elrac 10y ago
This may or may not be a Good Thing - I'm not qualified to make that call. But this article isn't doing the effort any favors. Labelling the technology _exclusively_ as "fusion" comes dangerously close to what's today called "fake news." I understand from other peoples' comments that the project aims to commercialize some kind of fission-fusion hybrid technology where fission reactions kick-start fusion reactions. That's (potentially) cool, but I'd have expected the article to tell me this.
- 0xfeba 10y ago
  Fake news is "Hillary buries dead FBI agent under pizza restaurant." Misleading/sensationalized news articles are just normal "news", as judged by the past 200 years.
tambourine_man 10y ago
“I believe that global warming is real and I believe we are just dumping tons and tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that is heating up the globe,” That kind of phrasing always bothers me. It's not a matter of belief, it's science. I'd wager a climate change doubter has no faith crisis when relying on relativity to get an acurate GPS location for their Uber.
- logancg 10y ago
  I think Cassidy would agree with you. I think it's strategic wording to sell his mission and motivation better. It also potentially engages people who continue to think it's a subject of belief. That may provide an opportunity to educate them.
- hyperbovine 10y ago
  Nit: GPS "relies on" trilateralization to calculate location, while correcting for the effects of relativity.
  - Toboe 10y ago
    Nit Nit: But you have to rely on those corrections to be able to rely on GPS
- alphapapa 10y ago
  It's not a matter of belief, it's science. Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted. It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay, the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome, and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face value, that's faith--by definition.
  - 10y ago
tronje 10y ago
Nobody has mentioned nuclear waste disposal as far as I can tell. Everybody is basically saying "yeah, as long as we avoid explosions, nuclear is great", but has disposal been solved? Or is it not as big of a problem as I'm thinking?
- adrianN 10y ago
  It's not as big of a problem as you're thinking. "Waste" can be used in breeder reactors to generate energy. This burns up >90% of the material. The remainder decays relatively quickly, not over geological time scales. Volume wise it's really not much. The entire nuclear industry so far has produced less than a 100kT of waste, a cube with a side length of about 30 meters. This is before putting the stuff in a breeder reactor.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    > a cube with a side length of about 30 meters. This is what annoys me so much. We fuck over a cubic mile and never have to worry about energy for like a million years. [ ((1 mile)^3) / ((30 meters)^3) = 154 377.105 according to google ]
- Recurecur 10y ago
  One bright spot on the disposal front is that Yucca Mountain should finally open soon - Harry Reid is gone from the senate and momentum is building. That is a very good thing!
fuzzfactor 10y ago
Westinghouse always promised clean & safe nuclear energy themselves. Maybe not enough funds were invested, too bad their runway was so short. They almost delivered.
c517402 10y ago
In any reactor that contains U238, present day reactors and the hybrid reactors from the article, a neutron is absorbed to form U239. This quickly beta decays into Np239 (23.5 minute half-life). This then beta decays into Pu239 (2.3 day half-life). So, anyplace there is U238 and a bunch of neutrons, you are producing the best material known for the fission explosion that initiates a fusion explosion. At the end of the life cycle of a normal Uranium fuel pellet most of the energy is actually coming from Plutonium. Why do you think there was a push to have Iran's Uranium enriched outside the country? So it could be salted to make the Pu239 unusable with Pu240. I just think the production of Pu239 should enter the rational discussion of nuclear energy. EDIT: fixed grammar
- wbl 10y ago
  The Pu-240 production happens as a side reaction so low-burnup is required. IAEA safeguards have never been exploited, and some include designing reactors to prohibit frequent refuelling.
  - c517402 10y ago
    I take it that by 'exploited' you mean 'circumvented'. I would like to be more assured than "has never happened before." And, "low-burnup is required?" Separation of Pu239 and Pu240 is physically impossible? It may be hazardous and difficult but seems possible. If there is a physical reason Pu240 depletion is impossible, please let it be known.
    - wbl 10y ago
      If you can extract Pu240 why not produce high enriched U-235 instead? Isotope separation is expensive compared to chemical seperation, and has a large footprint. It's not enough to make a nuke: you need to do so covertly or else your enemies will preempt it.
      - c517402 10y ago
        If a footprint to produce reactor grade Uranium already exists, it could mask the footprint for something else. It might be easier to deplete a small percentage of Pu240, than to enrich reactor grade Uranium (4% U235) to a highly enriched form (90% U235). How would the volatility of Pu240 effect separation? Not sure.
cowardlydragon 10y ago
So the higher energy fusion neutrons can then split Thorium 232 and U-235? But high energy means the container vessel degrades faster too, doesn't it? I just think we need a design like LFTR standardized in a size that can just be "stacked" for more power, and then factory manufactured. When one of the "cells" degrades or hits end of life you replace it, and recycle the old one for new production materials, and any transmuted elements that can be reclaimed. LFTR style reactors burn all isotopes and some (?all?) radioactive waste from older generations. I just don't see why those aren't pursued using the small ORNL design, and substituting evolving/continuously improved designs as they are manufactured. LFTR is also hard to "boot" since you need a fissile plug to start, but all the forces in control of that fuel are the incumbent designs, the fuel rod reprocessors that make money off of the solid rod designs, and the military that likes the old designs because they produce weaponized isotopes for their nukes.
hossbeast 10y ago
90% of this thread seems to be taking about current nuclear tech, I.e. fission. The article is about new companies which are trying to develop nuclear fusion tech. Doesn't that completely change the cost benefit analysis?
curtis 10y ago
The Wikipedia article "Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid" [1] provides some good background. I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long for someone to start talking about a commercial implementation rather than merely researching the idea. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...
killjoywashere 10y ago
I wonder if this is based on the Bussard polywell design. The Navy was soliciting for bids on development of that as recently as 2008 (1), and Bussard presented at Google at in 2006 (2). A decade seems about right to get from small prototype that blew up to stable prototype. Indeed, other people think this too (3). 1) https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11465cc26d4079ac9201008f960 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11... 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 3) http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-gets-in-fusion-game.html http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-gets-i...

176 points by mmettler 10y ago

I'd imagine fusion is a better alternative to fission which in turn is a better alternative to coal. I still feel sad for the morons who think that the end of the "war on coal" will bring any semblance of Glory back to coal towns. When all is said and done they still need help.

tehlike 10y ago

mike cassidy is a brilliant man. he is strong promoter of speed when developing business: https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-speed-startup2startup-may-2008?src=embed https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-speed... I am looking forward to what he achieves with his new journey.

deepGem 10y ago
Just look at his fund raising speed. 21/4: 8.15 AM pitch DFJ 4 pm get term sheet. Dev team gives notice to current jobs. Wow am truly amazed.
- FiatLuxDave 10y ago
  That may be more about DFJ than Mike Cassidy. When DFJ funded my fusion startup, it went about that fast.
andygates 10y ago
Speed and nuclear power plants don't typically go together: there's a lot of detail, and a lot of dilgence to be done, because the consequences are so awful if it screws up. NuScale just got their modular concept into the approval program, estimated conclusion of that, 2020. Don't speedy startup types typically get frustrated when faced with the real world?
- tehlike 10y ago
  Hah, that's what i kind of was thinking - i think the final product won't necessarily be a nuclear plant. maybe it will, though, who knows?
dirtyaura 10y ago
Interesting. Has anyone tried any of products his startups did build? How scrappy were they? Is his skills more in business dev, or product building?
- tehlike 10y ago
  i would guess business dev - given the time between company foundation to sale of business.
benzible 10y ago
FWIW, I remembered reading about management issues at (Google) X during his time running Project Loon and dug up the article: http://www.recode.net/2016/8/29/12663630/google-x-alphabet-moonshot http://www.recode.net/2016/8/29/12663630/google-x-alphabet-m... Sources describe most of X’s public projects — Project Loon, drones, robotics and wind energy kites — as rudderless. [...] Mike Cassidy, who stepped down from Loon, ran the team “like a fire drill,” a former employee said.
- tehlike 10y ago
  I take these with a grain of salt. Each person's style is different. For some people, working out of 5-9 is something they run away as fast as possible. For some, work is their passion. Disclaimer: Google employee.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

a_imho 10y ago

I don't know much about the current nuclear reactors, but reading the wikipedia article about Integral fast reactors[0] paints them in a very positive light. Maybe there are better designs already, but why don't we have more of these? [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

f_allwein 10y ago
That' a completely different thing, as it is based on nuclear fission ('normal' nuclear power), whereas the technology metnioned here is nuclear fusion ('what happens in the sun'). According to the German Wikipedia, Integral fast reactors (or breeders) have specific risks, e.g. they use a large amount of plutonium: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegenma.C3.9Fnahmen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegen... This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean, safe, limitless energy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60-years-is-nuclear-fusion-finally-poised-to-deliver https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60... ). It has been researched for ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it would be a big thing.
- a_imho 10y ago
  Well, the article says hybrid fusion/fission but maybe it is still a big leap forward. Point is, according to my reading the IFR promised clean energy which is much safer than light water reactors in 1994 not X years into the future.
Beltiras 10y ago
Politics. Effing politics.
DennisP 10y ago
We don't have them because the Clinton administration cancelled the program shortly before completion, and because the NRC makes life extremely difficult for anything besides conventional light-water reactors.

briandear 10y ago

I hope he succeeds! This is far better than having the landscape littered with bird killing windmills and solar farms that incenerate birds. Nuclear is the best source of large scale energy IF safety were guaranteed. The safety of nuclear energy seems like a solvable engineering problem -- a difficult problem certainly, but then again so was manned space flight. I am not saying solar and wind are worse than fossil fuels -- but I am saying that nuclear could be the future. Combining nuclear generation with advanced batteries seems to be an ideal energy future.

throwaway6556 10y ago
> the landscape littered with bird killing windmills and solar farms that incenerate birds. Are you for real?
- iraklism 10y ago
  I'm hoping there is an invisible /s there.
  - pvaldes 10y ago
    It seems that some solar energy mills act as 'furnaces' that reflect massive amounts of heat and can burn birds and anything flying over them, yes. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-deaths-20160831-snap-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-dea...
- mustacheemperor 10y ago
  This is the stuff my high school girlfriend's hyper-conservative parents would spit all over the windshield while driving us places. Didn't expect those memories to surface in a HN thread.
GlennS 10y ago
Birds killed by wind turbines are insignificant compared to birds killed by domestic cats.

jlebrech 10y ago

why not invest in LFTR? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

lukealization 10y ago
Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one that will be operational 20 years from now.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  LFTR is operational yesterday, you think Fusion is operational tomorrow?
  - xaldir 10y ago
    No it's not. There was some small scale experiments, to have a fully working industrial prototype, the amount of problem to solve is just colossal. I think 40+ years is a much more reasonable guess. The thing is we don't even have a realistic timeline for those, because even that requires more research. We need way more data to say something about LFTR. Fusion on the other hand has an estimate timeline. If everything goes well with ITER, DEMO should be operational around 2040-2050+. And actual power plants will use DEMO design. That's what we know today. With more research, we could find better design and faster ways to get fusion (Wendelstein 7-X) or we can find more trouble along the way.
    - douche 10y ago
      Fusion is always 40-50 years away, going back to the first experiments in the 1950s. It's hard to take such estimates seriously.
      - adrianN 10y ago
        Fusion is mostly a certain amount of research dollars away. Funding has been steadily declining.[1] [1] http://imgur.com/sjH5r http://imgur.com/sjH5r

ohthehugemanate 10y ago

I get so frustrated reading anything in the popular press about nuclear power. Everyone commits the same fucking fallacy over and over again: measuring it against an absolute idea instead of anything in the real world. Even here in the HN comments, I see "if it can be made safe." In TFA, it's the explanation that people are afraid of a three mile island or Chernobyl event, that his killer feature is the impossibility of meltdowns. Here in the real world, you have to measure options against other real world options. The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants emit much more radiation than nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more. Coal power is responsible for 800,000 deaths per year, WHEN IT'S WORKING PROPERLY. That's the bar nuclear, and any other alternative baseload power source, has to beat. It doesn't have to failure proof, it doesn't have to have zero deaths. It just has to be significantly better than the alternatives. Refusing to consider a power source unless it has zero deaths, zero radiation, zero side effects for all time, is living in a fantasy world. It's the paradigm promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and bought hook line and sinker by the dumber end of the environmentalist movement. And it keeps us from ever decreasing our power generation carbon footprint.

efaref 10y ago
Agreed. Nuclear accidents may have made some bits around Chernobyl and Fukushima unpleasant, but coal and oil have ruined the entire planet. People simply aren't rational. It has been so hard for me to accept that.
- SmkyMt 10y ago
  >People simply aren't rational. It has been so hard for me to accept that. You raise an important point: human irrationality is as real as climate change. And probably more challenging. We might more quickly tackle climate change by simultaneously tackling human irrationality. It's a shame that more of the best and brightest minds don't enter the (messy)fields of behavioral science - where progress is much less impressive of late than in technology IMHO.
10y ago

lifty 10y ago

They are mentioning doing a fusion reactor but there are no details. Lower down the page they mention that the startup will be actually using a fission-fusion process, so they are not talking about classic self sustained fusion that we haven't been able to maintain yet. They are using the fusion word a bit lightly. Fusion is a big deal.

Grangar 10y ago
I'm no nuclear physicist, but they might use the fission reaction as a primer for the fusion?
- lifty 10y ago
  Well, they are mentioning fusion-fission reactions, which use fusion to trigger fission. But on an ongoing basis. As far as I can understand, stable fusion is not achieved.
- alexfarran 10y ago
  This article in Popular Mechanics explains it a bit better http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo...
DennisP 10y ago
They're probably using fusion neutrons to kick off fission reactions. People have talked about this idea for years but I don't think anyone's attempted it until now. By adding uranium you don't need to get net power from fusion alone, which is really hard. The extremely high-energy neutrons from D-T fusion can fission U238, not just the scarce U235, which means you don't need enrichment and you get very little long-term waste. By having the fusion reactor as a neutron source, you can use subcritical amounts of uranium, so there's no chance of a runaway reaction. If something goes wrong with the fusion reactor it just stops, and without the fusion neutrons the fission shuts down too.

itchyjunk 10y ago

I wish some of these companies would go into fusion/fission for the research of it. Sure, going for a commercially viable model gives you more investment, but all these silicon valley rich guys trying to save the world should also invest on some research. I get it, you can't start a fusion company without R&D so there will be some anyways, but I feel like the research angle needs some love too. I am pretty sure we haven't understood everything there is to understand, and it won't hurt. Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics?

tinco 10y ago
As rich as they are, not many have the funds to build a nuclear reactor. Even one's that have been fully designed and based on traditional design still cost billions to build. Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but there definitely are a lot of bears on the road.
- pm90 10y ago
  > Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but there definitely are a lot of bears on the road. Ehhhhhh....I hate to bring this up repeatedly but SpaceX would not exist without NASA. Which brings us to the role of government in research: its not necessarily to own everything, but it is provide incentives in one way or the other. To create a Market where none existed previously.
lokimedes 10y ago
> Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics? Absolutely, its an integrated part of anything from physics analysis to detector alignment and accelerator control. Tools of the trade: https://root.cern.ch https://root.cern.ch http://tmva.sourceforge.net http://tmva.sourceforge.net (Former particle physicist at CERN)

Elrac 10y ago

This may or may not be a Good Thing - I'm not qualified to make that call. But this article isn't doing the effort any favors. Labelling the technology _exclusively_ as "fusion" comes dangerously close to what's today called "fake news." I understand from other peoples' comments that the project aims to commercialize some kind of fission-fusion hybrid technology where fission reactions kick-start fusion reactions. That's (potentially) cool, but I'd have expected the article to tell me this.

0xfeba 10y ago
Fake news is "Hillary buries dead FBI agent under pizza restaurant." Misleading/sensationalized news articles are just normal "news", as judged by the past 200 years.

tambourine_man 10y ago

“I believe that global warming is real and I believe we are just dumping tons and tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that is heating up the globe,” That kind of phrasing always bothers me. It's not a matter of belief, it's science. I'd wager a climate change doubter has no faith crisis when relying on relativity to get an acurate GPS location for their Uber.

logancg 10y ago
I think Cassidy would agree with you. I think it's strategic wording to sell his mission and motivation better. It also potentially engages people who continue to think it's a subject of belief. That may provide an opportunity to educate them.
hyperbovine 10y ago
Nit: GPS "relies on" trilateralization to calculate location, while correcting for the effects of relativity.
- Toboe 10y ago
  Nit Nit: But you have to rely on those corrections to be able to rely on GPS
alphapapa 10y ago
It's not a matter of belief, it's science. Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted. It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay, the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome, and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face value, that's faith--by definition.
- 10y ago

tronje 10y ago

Nobody has mentioned nuclear waste disposal as far as I can tell. Everybody is basically saying "yeah, as long as we avoid explosions, nuclear is great", but has disposal been solved? Or is it not as big of a problem as I'm thinking?

adrianN 10y ago
It's not as big of a problem as you're thinking. "Waste" can be used in breeder reactors to generate energy. This burns up >90% of the material. The remainder decays relatively quickly, not over geological time scales. Volume wise it's really not much. The entire nuclear industry so far has produced less than a 100kT of waste, a cube with a side length of about 30 meters. This is before putting the stuff in a breeder reactor.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  > a cube with a side length of about 30 meters. This is what annoys me so much. We fuck over a cubic mile and never have to worry about energy for like a million years. [ ((1 mile)^3) / ((30 meters)^3) = 154 377.105 according to google ]
Recurecur 10y ago
One bright spot on the disposal front is that Yucca Mountain should finally open soon - Harry Reid is gone from the senate and momentum is building. That is a very good thing!

fuzzfactor 10y ago

Westinghouse always promised clean & safe nuclear energy themselves. Maybe not enough funds were invested, too bad their runway was so short. They almost delivered.

c517402 10y ago

In any reactor that contains U238, present day reactors and the hybrid reactors from the article, a neutron is absorbed to form U239. This quickly beta decays into Np239 (23.5 minute half-life). This then beta decays into Pu239 (2.3 day half-life). So, anyplace there is U238 and a bunch of neutrons, you are producing the best material known for the fission explosion that initiates a fusion explosion. At the end of the life cycle of a normal Uranium fuel pellet most of the energy is actually coming from Plutonium. Why do you think there was a push to have Iran's Uranium enriched outside the country? So it could be salted to make the Pu239 unusable with Pu240. I just think the production of Pu239 should enter the rational discussion of nuclear energy. EDIT: fixed grammar

wbl 10y ago
The Pu-240 production happens as a side reaction so low-burnup is required. IAEA safeguards have never been exploited, and some include designing reactors to prohibit frequent refuelling.
- c517402 10y ago
  I take it that by 'exploited' you mean 'circumvented'. I would like to be more assured than "has never happened before." And, "low-burnup is required?" Separation of Pu239 and Pu240 is physically impossible? It may be hazardous and difficult but seems possible. If there is a physical reason Pu240 depletion is impossible, please let it be known.
  - wbl 10y ago
    If you can extract Pu240 why not produce high enriched U-235 instead? Isotope separation is expensive compared to chemical seperation, and has a large footprint. It's not enough to make a nuke: you need to do so covertly or else your enemies will preempt it.
    - c517402 10y ago
      If a footprint to produce reactor grade Uranium already exists, it could mask the footprint for something else. It might be easier to deplete a small percentage of Pu240, than to enrich reactor grade Uranium (4% U235) to a highly enriched form (90% U235). How would the volatility of Pu240 effect separation? Not sure.

cowardlydragon 10y ago

So the higher energy fusion neutrons can then split Thorium 232 and U-235? But high energy means the container vessel degrades faster too, doesn't it? I just think we need a design like LFTR standardized in a size that can just be "stacked" for more power, and then factory manufactured. When one of the "cells" degrades or hits end of life you replace it, and recycle the old one for new production materials, and any transmuted elements that can be reclaimed. LFTR style reactors burn all isotopes and some (?all?) radioactive waste from older generations. I just don't see why those aren't pursued using the small ORNL design, and substituting evolving/continuously improved designs as they are manufactured. LFTR is also hard to "boot" since you need a fissile plug to start, but all the forces in control of that fuel are the incumbent designs, the fuel rod reprocessors that make money off of the solid rod designs, and the military that likes the old designs because they produce weaponized isotopes for their nukes.

hossbeast 10y ago

90% of this thread seems to be taking about current nuclear tech, I.e. fission. The article is about new companies which are trying to develop nuclear fusion tech. Doesn't that completely change the cost benefit analysis?

curtis 10y ago

The Wikipedia article "Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid" [1] provides some good background. I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long for someone to start talking about a commercial implementation rather than merely researching the idea. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...

killjoywashere 10y ago

I wonder if this is based on the Bussard polywell design. The Navy was soliciting for bids on development of that as recently as 2008 (1), and Bussard presented at Google at in 2006 (2). A decade seems about right to get from small prototype that blew up to stable prototype. Indeed, other people think this too (3). 1) https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11465cc26d4079ac9201008f960 https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11... 2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8 3) http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-gets-in-fusion-game.html http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-gets-i...