7 ms·

I'm pretty excited about these. It takes nuclear in a new direction. What disappoints me though is that of the people doing this research that I've contacted, n

I'm pretty excited about these. It takes nuclear in a new direction. What disappoints me though is that of the people doing this research that I've contacted, none of them are reaching out to the "other side" (things you would pump the heat into) here. A packaged closed cycle steam turbine system for electricity generation, for example, would be an excellent add-on here. The Navy has some great small turbine systems (although they typically use the ocean as a big thermal sink for their re condensers), and the folks who design geothermal plants could have a role here if they wanted, but so far not much work there that has appeared in the sources I tend to scan. As a result I'm concerned that these things with hit the market with no "shovel ready" plans to put them into production, and the lag between that and when you can put them in production will kill the reactor developers. I have seen it in other industries and it hurts to watch it unfold.

semi-extrinsic 5y ago
OTOH, power generation from industrial waste heat is an increasingly hot topic these days. Whether steam turbine or organic Rankine cycle, finding something compatible in the 1-10 MW scale should be quite straightforward.
sroussey 5y ago
https://www.radiantnuclear.com/ https://www.radiantnuclear.com/
- ChuckMcM 5y ago
  I like these guys but get annoyed at the 1kWH == 1 Typical House. While a case can be made that over a 24h period a house may consume 24kWh the fact is that "typical" houses burst to anywhere between 5kW and 10kW depending on appliances (AC + Freezer compressor + Oven baking a roast and boom you're at 10kW) As a result if you hook a thousand houses to a 1MW reactor you're going to get a crap ton of brownouts.
  - sib 5y ago
    <raises hand> Two EVs, electric oven, refrigerator, air conditioning here... We installed solar when we moved in but would need massive storage to handle peak loads "locally" at our house.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    Burst loads are the wrong number too. You still want to average over many households, but not average over wide swaths of time. Maybe you need to design for a peak of 75% of AC units plus 15% of ovens plus 20% of fridges being on simultaneously.
    - ChuckMcM 5y ago
      True, it is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One of my EE classes had us go out to a power plant to tour it and they talked about some of the complexity (because grid wide you get larger swings). They used to count on something like 80% of the households turning on the oven at 5PM while dinner was being prepared. They had actuarial staff that really dug into these numbers because some conditions would require starting up a 'peaker' plant and that took 3 - 4 hours to bring online from dead stop, about 1.5 hours from a "warm" start.
    - readthenotes1 5y ago
      I imagine the temperature probably doesn't vary enough for a 1k household size area to allow for only 75% turning on the AC when it hits 32C
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        There are duty cycles to take into account.
lwhi 5y ago
I've just read through the comments, and can't really see anyone else making this point .. so I'm assuming it will be unpopular. Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. -- With nuclear .. no matter how advanced the tech is now, I can't see how we're not robbing Peter to pay back Paul. The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. Accidents do — and most like will — happen. How will increasing the volume of reactors not increase this risk?
- sparker72678 5y ago
  I think it's more akin to putting out a structure fire with water. You stop the immediate threat and save lives and some property. And while some property damage will result because it's all getting soaked, it's still better to have something left than nothing, and while an un-burnable building would be nice, it doesn't exist yet.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Qualitatively, every choice is equal, because a qualitative argument can't distinguish between a big problem plus a small benefit and a big benefit plus a small problem. Quantitatively, you can make rational decisions. So, the answer to your questions are, "how much will building more reactors increase the accident risk," and "how much nuclear waste will be produced in the course of normal operation?"
  - lwhi 5y ago
    This is a good point, 'how much’ is an important question. But then, it seems society sometimes make the decision to take somethings off the table entirely. I look at the accident at Fukushima, and earlier (when I was small child) Chernobyl and I can't help wondering whether some risks aren't worth taking when there are alternatives available. I'm sure risk analysis was taken seriously in Japan. Often we miss things, and the people answering 'how much', quite frankly get it wrong.
- godelski 5y ago
  > Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? I'm not sure many people make this argument. Although the people that do are very vocal. But they are wrong. The general consensus around nuclear is that it adds to the number of solutions we can use. Considering the inhomogeneous nature of climate and regions nuclear may have advantages in certain areas, whereas other areas it may be unnecessary. Anyone claiming "one size fits all" is just selling snake oil. Essentially the argument comes down to "why time one hand behind your back when trying to solve an extremely important and challenging problem?" As for waste, it isn't as big of a deal as you might think. Though this is more difficult to understand without an expertise in the subject matter. Mostly this is due to the complexity of understanding the different types of waste, amounts, and the vastly different levels of radiation in those waste products. Most of these conversations are akin to people talking about rocket science without knowing Newtonian mechanics. Just listen to the experts and see what they are saying. You're on HN, so I trust you can understand the nuance that scientists use, though I know that sometimes this can get confusing to the public. Like how "disagreement" isn't much of a disagreement but more quibbling over minor details.
lgats 5y ago
Would these types of systems not be great for drop-in replacements in natural gas electricity generation facilities? Much like natural gas can replace coal through a plant upgrade.
- viernullvier 5y ago
  Not in its current iteration. The biggest advantage of natural gas generators is the possibility to ramp them up and down quickly, making them an ideal choice for peaker plants or load following. For nuclear, on the other hand, the options for throttling the output are quite limited - both physically and economically. As a mitigation, combining them with battery storage would be an option, but then again it would still be cheaper to use wind or solar instead of nuclear as the source of energy.

semi-extrinsic 5y ago

OTOH, power generation from industrial waste heat is an increasingly hot topic these days. Whether steam turbine or organic Rankine cycle, finding something compatible in the 1-10 MW scale should be quite straightforward.

sroussey 5y ago

https://www.radiantnuclear.com/ https://www.radiantnuclear.com/

ChuckMcM 5y ago
I like these guys but get annoyed at the 1kWH == 1 Typical House. While a case can be made that over a 24h period a house may consume 24kWh the fact is that "typical" houses burst to anywhere between 5kW and 10kW depending on appliances (AC + Freezer compressor + Oven baking a roast and boom you're at 10kW) As a result if you hook a thousand houses to a 1MW reactor you're going to get a crap ton of brownouts.
- sib 5y ago
  <raises hand> Two EVs, electric oven, refrigerator, air conditioning here... We installed solar when we moved in but would need massive storage to handle peak loads "locally" at our house.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  Burst loads are the wrong number too. You still want to average over many households, but not average over wide swaths of time. Maybe you need to design for a peak of 75% of AC units plus 15% of ovens plus 20% of fridges being on simultaneously.
  - ChuckMcM 5y ago
    True, it is more complex than it might seem at first glance. One of my EE classes had us go out to a power plant to tour it and they talked about some of the complexity (because grid wide you get larger swings). They used to count on something like 80% of the households turning on the oven at 5PM while dinner was being prepared. They had actuarial staff that really dug into these numbers because some conditions would require starting up a 'peaker' plant and that took 3 - 4 hours to bring online from dead stop, about 1.5 hours from a "warm" start.
  - readthenotes1 5y ago
    I imagine the temperature probably doesn't vary enough for a 1k household size area to allow for only 75% turning on the AC when it hits 32C
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      There are duty cycles to take into account.

lwhi 5y ago

I've just read through the comments, and can't really see anyone else making this point .. so I'm assuming it will be unpopular. Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? Logically, renewable and storage on a microlevel seems to make more sense. -- With nuclear .. no matter how advanced the tech is now, I can't see how we're not robbing Peter to pay back Paul. The waste will be around for longer than we are. We have no solution other than 'lock it up'. Accidents do — and most like will — happen. How will increasing the volume of reactors not increase this risk?

sparker72678 5y ago
I think it's more akin to putting out a structure fire with water. You stop the immediate threat and save lives and some property. And while some property damage will result because it's all getting soaked, it's still better to have something left than nothing, and while an un-burnable building would be nice, it doesn't exist yet.
whatshisface 5y ago
Qualitatively, every choice is equal, because a qualitative argument can't distinguish between a big problem plus a small benefit and a big benefit plus a small problem. Quantitatively, you can make rational decisions. So, the answer to your questions are, "how much will building more reactors increase the accident risk," and "how much nuclear waste will be produced in the course of normal operation?"
- lwhi 5y ago
  This is a good point, 'how much’ is an important question. But then, it seems society sometimes make the decision to take somethings off the table entirely. I look at the accident at Fukushima, and earlier (when I was small child) Chernobyl and I can't help wondering whether some risks aren't worth taking when there are alternatives available. I'm sure risk analysis was taken seriously in Japan. Often we miss things, and the people answering 'how much', quite frankly get it wrong.
godelski 5y ago
> Why is nuclear the silver bullet that will save us? I'm not sure many people make this argument. Although the people that do are very vocal. But they are wrong. The general consensus around nuclear is that it adds to the number of solutions we can use. Considering the inhomogeneous nature of climate and regions nuclear may have advantages in certain areas, whereas other areas it may be unnecessary. Anyone claiming "one size fits all" is just selling snake oil. Essentially the argument comes down to "why time one hand behind your back when trying to solve an extremely important and challenging problem?" As for waste, it isn't as big of a deal as you might think. Though this is more difficult to understand without an expertise in the subject matter. Mostly this is due to the complexity of understanding the different types of waste, amounts, and the vastly different levels of radiation in those waste products. Most of these conversations are akin to people talking about rocket science without knowing Newtonian mechanics. Just listen to the experts and see what they are saying. You're on HN, so I trust you can understand the nuance that scientists use, though I know that sometimes this can get confusing to the public. Like how "disagreement" isn't much of a disagreement but more quibbling over minor details.

lgats 5y ago

Would these types of systems not be great for drop-in replacements in natural gas electricity generation facilities? Much like natural gas can replace coal through a plant upgrade.

viernullvier 5y ago
Not in its current iteration. The biggest advantage of natural gas generators is the possibility to ramp them up and down quickly, making them an ideal choice for peaker plants or load following. For nuclear, on the other hand, the options for throttling the output are quite limited - both physically and economically. As a mitigation, combining them with battery storage would be an option, but then again it would still be cheaper to use wind or solar instead of nuclear as the source of energy.