5 ms·

While only a footnote, I like the nod to nuclear energy. I remember in the 1950s, there was a Popular Mechanics cover touting nuclear as a coming technology to

While only a footnote, I like the nod to nuclear energy. I remember in the 1950s, there was a Popular Mechanics cover touting nuclear as a coming technology to power homes and even cars. Imagine the next Tesla-like company offering to install a small nuclear reactor in houses. Like solar, you can sell electricity back to the grid, charge your electric car with it, literally use it to heat your water.... Also might be a very attractive option to going off-grid.

Daneel_ 7y ago
Yes, absolutely. Today’s modern reactors are night and day compared to Chernobyl/Fukushima era reactors - they’re not even comparable. They’re fail-safe rather than fail-deadly, and are much more compact and efficient, with better controls and containment. The size of the reaction chamber is basically that of a household washing machine. I’d gladly live next door to a modern plant.
- criddell 7y ago
  What exactly do you mean by fail safe? Are there no catastrophic failure modes? So even if a group of people with malicious intent were to gain access, they couldn't do more damage than with a natural gas or coal burning plant?
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Not parent commenter, but I'll repeat what I said above to someone else about what fail-safe means in terms of nuclear reactors: Fail-safe just means that if equipment breaks or a human does something wrong, the plant goes to low power and passive natural-circulation systems kick-in that keep the low-power shutdown mode from going to temperatures high enough to break the radiation containment structures. Recall that coal plants and oil emissions kill 4-6 million people per year from air pollution. Nuclear plants are crazy safe compared to that. And while natural gas is safe from an air pollution POV, the hazards of climate change from it are potentially large. Nuclear reactors are essentially carbon-free.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ljhsiung 7y ago
  Sorry for being pedantic, but do you mean fail-secure? Fail-safe = things inside the area can get out on failure. Fail-secure = things cannot get out i.e. catastrophe is contained (though people inside may die). I don't know much about reactor design, but I don't think I'd live next door to a fail-safe plant, but please correct me if I'm misguided because.
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    In general, fossil kills 4-6 million people per year from air pollution. Nuclear has killed ~4000 total, ever. So nuclear plants are very, very safe compared to normal energy alternatives. Fail-safe just means that if equipment breaks or a human does something wrong, the plant goes to low power and passive natural-circulation systems kick-in that keep the low-power shutdown mode from going to temperatures high enough to break the radiation containment structures.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Current reactors are extremely safe compared to fossil if you look at the stats. 3 orders of magnitude safer in a deaths/TWh basis. The new designs (which are actually all revivals of 1960 designs) may be safer and cheaper but we have yet to prove that. I'm in the middle of writing an elaborate history of the quest for economical nuclear power to help with this discussion.
- asdff 7y ago
  I dream of the day when all the oil derricks and refineries hidden behind facades all over west Los Angeles would be replaced by nuclear energy, not to mention the inglewood oil field.
Retric 7y ago
Nuclear reactors don’t scale down very well. The economics really break down under about 10MW which is ~5,000 times more power than most homes need. Even ultra cost efficient full scale powerplants are a money losing proposition without huge subsidies. They are being squeezed between extremely cheap renewables, low cost natural gas, and rapidly advancing storage technology. Which is why nuclear was 17.6% of global electricity generation in the late 90’s but has fallen to 10% in 2019.
- deadmetheny 7y ago
  >Nuclear reactors don’t scale down very well. The economics really break down under about 10MW which is ~5,000 times more power than most homes need. This is true and fully agreed. Home reactors are not really feasible or even a good idea. >Even ultra cost efficient full scale powerplants are a money losing proposition without huge subsidies. They are being squeezed between extremely cheap renewables, low cost natural gas, and rapidly advancing storage technology. Plants are expensive due to the regulation and insurance making them that way. Safety with nuclear is obviously paramount, but political and social pressure has expanded a lot of the requirements to quite a high degree. Additionally, renewable are also subsidized quite a lot and are not always viable in all locales. Storage tech is good for all forms of power generation. >Which is why nuclear was 17.6% of global electricity generation in the late 90’s but has fallen to 10% in 2019. Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet.
  - Jedd 7y ago
    > Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet. This is a common trope. I can't work out where you live, but I do often see this line of reasoning put forward by residents of the USA, who overlook the fact that 'the feds' don't regulate what happens in the other 95% of the planet, and yet other parts of the world are equally disinterested in building more nuclear fission plants. It may be that the problems -- federal / national governments red tape, NIMBY lawsuits, local gov / state gov / provinces / councils, 'fearmongering', etc -- are common and similar everywhere, but this seems prima facie unlikely, certainly not demonstrated.
joejerryronnie 7y ago
I’m pretty sure my HOA has a clause against installing a personal nuclear reactor in our home :)

Daneel_ 7y ago

Yes, absolutely. Today’s modern reactors are night and day compared to Chernobyl/Fukushima era reactors - they’re not even comparable. They’re fail-safe rather than fail-deadly, and are much more compact and efficient, with better controls and containment. The size of the reaction chamber is basically that of a household washing machine. I’d gladly live next door to a modern plant.

criddell 7y ago
What exactly do you mean by fail safe? Are there no catastrophic failure modes? So even if a group of people with malicious intent were to gain access, they couldn't do more damage than with a natural gas or coal burning plant?
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Not parent commenter, but I'll repeat what I said above to someone else about what fail-safe means in terms of nuclear reactors: Fail-safe just means that if equipment breaks or a human does something wrong, the plant goes to low power and passive natural-circulation systems kick-in that keep the low-power shutdown mode from going to temperatures high enough to break the radiation containment structures. Recall that coal plants and oil emissions kill 4-6 million people per year from air pollution. Nuclear plants are crazy safe compared to that. And while natural gas is safe from an air pollution POV, the hazards of climate change from it are potentially large. Nuclear reactors are essentially carbon-free.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ljhsiung 7y ago
Sorry for being pedantic, but do you mean fail-secure? Fail-safe = things inside the area can get out on failure. Fail-secure = things cannot get out i.e. catastrophe is contained (though people inside may die). I don't know much about reactor design, but I don't think I'd live next door to a fail-safe plant, but please correct me if I'm misguided because.
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  In general, fossil kills 4-6 million people per year from air pollution. Nuclear has killed ~4000 total, ever. So nuclear plants are very, very safe compared to normal energy alternatives. Fail-safe just means that if equipment breaks or a human does something wrong, the plant goes to low power and passive natural-circulation systems kick-in that keep the low-power shutdown mode from going to temperatures high enough to break the radiation containment structures.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
acidburnNSA 7y ago
Current reactors are extremely safe compared to fossil if you look at the stats. 3 orders of magnitude safer in a deaths/TWh basis. The new designs (which are actually all revivals of 1960 designs) may be safer and cheaper but we have yet to prove that. I'm in the middle of writing an elaborate history of the quest for economical nuclear power to help with this discussion.
asdff 7y ago
I dream of the day when all the oil derricks and refineries hidden behind facades all over west Los Angeles would be replaced by nuclear energy, not to mention the inglewood oil field.

Retric 7y ago

Nuclear reactors don’t scale down very well. The economics really break down under about 10MW which is ~5,000 times more power than most homes need. Even ultra cost efficient full scale powerplants are a money losing proposition without huge subsidies. They are being squeezed between extremely cheap renewables, low cost natural gas, and rapidly advancing storage technology. Which is why nuclear was 17.6% of global electricity generation in the late 90’s but has fallen to 10% in 2019.

deadmetheny 7y ago
>Nuclear reactors don’t scale down very well. The economics really break down under about 10MW which is ~5,000 times more power than most homes need. This is true and fully agreed. Home reactors are not really feasible or even a good idea. >Even ultra cost efficient full scale powerplants are a money losing proposition without huge subsidies. They are being squeezed between extremely cheap renewables, low cost natural gas, and rapidly advancing storage technology. Plants are expensive due to the regulation and insurance making them that way. Safety with nuclear is obviously paramount, but political and social pressure has expanded a lot of the requirements to quite a high degree. Additionally, renewable are also subsidized quite a lot and are not always viable in all locales. Storage tech is good for all forms of power generation. >Which is why nuclear was 17.6% of global electricity generation in the late 90’s but has fallen to 10% in 2019. Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet.
- Jedd 7y ago
  > Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet. This is a common trope. I can't work out where you live, but I do often see this line of reasoning put forward by residents of the USA, who overlook the fact that 'the feds' don't regulate what happens in the other 95% of the planet, and yet other parts of the world are equally disinterested in building more nuclear fission plants. It may be that the problems -- federal / national governments red tape, NIMBY lawsuits, local gov / state gov / provinces / councils, 'fearmongering', etc -- are common and similar everywhere, but this seems prima facie unlikely, certainly not demonstrated.

joejerryronnie 7y ago

I’m pretty sure my HOA has a clause against installing a personal nuclear reactor in our home :)