12 ms·

Looking at TerraPower's website, they're talking about a prototype by the mid-2020s, and they've already been working for 11 years. Would be nice to see this sp

Looking at TerraPower's website, they're talking about a prototype by the mid-2020s, and they've already been working for 11 years. Would be nice to see this sped up. The Manhattan Project lasted only 4 years. We spend much more time on the ethical, safety, and proliferation considerations than we did back then, of course, and with good reason. But I wonder if this project could use a little Elon Musk hell-or-high-water drive to move it along. I'll probably get down-voted for that, but seems like a discussion worth having.

DennisP 7y ago
In the early days of nuclear power we got things done a lot faster. Now in the U.S. the government makes things unnecessarily difficult; the NRC requires a couple hundred million dollars worth of design work before they'll even take a look at a new reactor. Then they give a flat yes or no, and if it's no then you're out of business. You're pretty much forced to do a big design up front; you can't do a series of experiments and adjust as you go. Things are different in Canada, and that's why reactor startups like Terrestrial Energy are making good progress there. But the U.S. DOE has a lot of infrastructure that could really help.
mikeyouse 7y ago
The Manhattan Project also cost something like $40 billion in today's dollars and had the benefit of conscripting some of the most brilliant minds in the world (including many Europeans who fled the war) to work on it for modest salaries.
- sib 7y ago
  It sounds like a lot to me, but it's worth noting that there are individuals with more money than that (and certainly plenty of tech companies who could invest that much). The Gates Foundation alone could fund that investment.
Reedx 7y ago
It's shocking to me that the best solution we have for climate change gets downvoted on a site that's generally pro-science. But it seems to happen with every discussion about nuclear energy. Also surprising how even Bill Gates gets ignored on this issue. He's talked repeatedly about why nuclear[1][2][3], yet doesn't get a lot of traction. 1. https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018 https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2... 2. https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520 https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520 3. https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy
- rbanffy 7y ago
  > best solution For some values of "best". There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all power source.
  - ClumsyPilot 7y ago
    While I sympathise with your sentiment, viable is enough. We aren't exactly sd spoilt for choice
    - rbanffy 7y ago
      There are many other things we could do that are as viable, if not more - we barely started using wind or solar, and while wind and solar may be poor replacements for coal, hydro or nuclear, it's excellent for cars and trucks and they are a significant portion of our energy matrix. We will eventually need to increase the fission base, if fusion continues to be 10 years away for much longer, but that's something that can wait until we have better designs than the current generations. What nuclear really excels at is at replacing coal. It's pretty much a plug-in replacement: nuclear generation can be built pretty much wherever coal can and, from the grid's perspective, it looks a lot like coal. This, along with industry subsidies (both direct and as military expenditure) has always shifted economics towards it.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        Why will we eventually need to increase the fission base? I see no good justification for that. > What nuclear really excels at is at replacing coal Coal is being displaced, but not by nuclear. Nuclear is actually rather bad at displacing coal. People were building coal fired power plants for decades when they could have been building nuclear plants, because nuclear failed at being attractive enough to replace coal.
        rbanffy 7y ago
        Nuclear is dense and constant, far more dense than wind or solar. BTW, burning coal for energy should be considered a crime against humanity. It should be replaced by anything, regardless of energy output ;-)
strainer 7y ago
It is a heat source for thermo-electric generation - basically just a way to boil water[1] not the "unlimited" power its always promoted as promising. We don't have unlimited water resources[2]. Elon Musk decided big disposable rockets where just not worth building - well big thermo-electric plants are just not worth building. Solar and wind are the paradigm change in power generation, any Manhattan project would be crazy not to focus on them now and supporting technologies. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/thermoelectric-power-water-use https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/t... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 - "Global groundwater extraction a ticking time bomb”
- DuskStar 7y ago
  Given sufficient power and seawater, we have unlimited drinking water. Reactors provide sufficient power. So I don't think "running out of water" is a valid concern here. (Though some plants have had issues from lack of water flow in rivers, that's more a temperature issue than a lack of water one)
  - strainer 7y ago
    More magic unlimited thinking I'm afraid. There are costs to desalinating seawater, cost of the plant, cost of locating plants to suitable coastlines, cost of disposal of concentrated brine, cost of introducing gigawatts of heat into water courses and local region - in an already heat stressed climate. Its big resource intensive thermoelectric generation, with or without unlimited fuel source.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  You seem to misunderstand the issue. Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out. There are also variants that use liquid metals The powerplant requires a cold reservoir to discharge heat, as does any heat engine. Cooling towers that evaporate fresh water are one of several methods for doing that. Coastal powerplants use seawater to discharge heat. Reactors in megawatt range usually use passive cooling and air cooling, you could operate them in the middle of sahara.
fluidcruft 7y ago
Per the Wikipedia article the prototype is dead: > However, in January 2019 it was announced that the project had been abandoned due to technology transfer limitations placed by the Trump administration.

DennisP 7y ago

In the early days of nuclear power we got things done a lot faster. Now in the U.S. the government makes things unnecessarily difficult; the NRC requires a couple hundred million dollars worth of design work before they'll even take a look at a new reactor. Then they give a flat yes or no, and if it's no then you're out of business. You're pretty much forced to do a big design up front; you can't do a series of experiments and adjust as you go. Things are different in Canada, and that's why reactor startups like Terrestrial Energy are making good progress there. But the U.S. DOE has a lot of infrastructure that could really help.

mikeyouse 7y ago

The Manhattan Project also cost something like $40 billion in today's dollars and had the benefit of conscripting some of the most brilliant minds in the world (including many Europeans who fled the war) to work on it for modest salaries.

sib 7y ago
It sounds like a lot to me, but it's worth noting that there are individuals with more money than that (and certainly plenty of tech companies who could invest that much). The Gates Foundation alone could fund that investment.

Reedx 7y ago

It's shocking to me that the best solution we have for climate change gets downvoted on a site that's generally pro-science. But it seems to happen with every discussion about nuclear energy. Also surprising how even Bill Gates gets ignored on this issue. He's talked repeatedly about why nuclear[1][2][3], yet doesn't get a lot of traction. 1. https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2018 https://www.gatesnotes.com/About-Bill-Gates/Year-in-Review-2... 2. https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520 https://youtu.be/d1EB1zsxW0k?t=520 3. https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/what-is-the-safest-form-of-energy

rbanffy 7y ago
> best solution For some values of "best". There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all power source.
- ClumsyPilot 7y ago
  While I sympathise with your sentiment, viable is enough. We aren't exactly sd spoilt for choice
  - rbanffy 7y ago
    There are many other things we could do that are as viable, if not more - we barely started using wind or solar, and while wind and solar may be poor replacements for coal, hydro or nuclear, it's excellent for cars and trucks and they are a significant portion of our energy matrix. We will eventually need to increase the fission base, if fusion continues to be 10 years away for much longer, but that's something that can wait until we have better designs than the current generations. What nuclear really excels at is at replacing coal. It's pretty much a plug-in replacement: nuclear generation can be built pretty much wherever coal can and, from the grid's perspective, it looks a lot like coal. This, along with industry subsidies (both direct and as military expenditure) has always shifted economics towards it.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      Why will we eventually need to increase the fission base? I see no good justification for that. > What nuclear really excels at is at replacing coal Coal is being displaced, but not by nuclear. Nuclear is actually rather bad at displacing coal. People were building coal fired power plants for decades when they could have been building nuclear plants, because nuclear failed at being attractive enough to replace coal.
      - rbanffy 7y ago
        Nuclear is dense and constant, far more dense than wind or solar. BTW, burning coal for energy should be considered a crime against humanity. It should be replaced by anything, regardless of energy output ;-)

strainer 7y ago

It is a heat source for thermo-electric generation - basically just a way to boil water[1] not the "unlimited" power its always promoted as promising. We don't have unlimited water resources[2]. Elon Musk decided big disposable rockets where just not worth building - well big thermo-electric plants are just not worth building. Solar and wind are the paradigm change in power generation, any Manhattan project would be crazy not to focus on them now and supporting technologies. [1] https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/thermoelectric-power-water-use https://www.usgs.gov/mission-areas/water-resources/science/t... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21156408 - "Global groundwater extraction a ticking time bomb”

DuskStar 7y ago
Given sufficient power and seawater, we have unlimited drinking water. Reactors provide sufficient power. So I don't think "running out of water" is a valid concern here. (Though some plants have had issues from lack of water flow in rivers, that's more a temperature issue than a lack of water one)
- strainer 7y ago
  More magic unlimited thinking I'm afraid. There are costs to desalinating seawater, cost of the plant, cost of locating plants to suitable coastlines, cost of disposal of concentrated brine, cost of introducing gigawatts of heat into water courses and local region - in an already heat stressed climate. Its big resource intensive thermoelectric generation, with or without unlimited fuel source.
ClumsyPilot 7y ago
You seem to misunderstand the issue. Reactors do not "consume" freshwater, primary and secondary coolants runs in a closed loop, water never "leaves" or runs out. There are also variants that use liquid metals The powerplant requires a cold reservoir to discharge heat, as does any heat engine. Cooling towers that evaporate fresh water are one of several methods for doing that. Coastal powerplants use seawater to discharge heat. Reactors in megawatt range usually use passive cooling and air cooling, you could operate them in the middle of sahara.

fluidcruft 7y ago

Per the Wikipedia article the prototype is dead: > However, in January 2019 it was announced that the project had been abandoned due to technology transfer limitations placed by the Trump administration.