4 ms·

The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.

by LatteLazy 5y ago

theli0nheart 5y ago
And it never will if people who are afraid of it remain in charge.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  Maybe. But until we have that first plant, it's too early to go for mass implimentiion. I wish Musk would take a shot at it. He's the only engineer/financier/crazy-person who I think could make an impact. Government's clearly aren't interested and no one else can get the cash together.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    As he’s said numerous times, solar is fusion at a distance and solar combined with batteries is the future, both of which can be safely recycled and manufactured rapidly at scale. Tesla’s entire business is selling batteries to store clean energy for later use (either in vehicles or stationary storage), and enough sunlight hits the earth every 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. Lithium is abundant in the world’s crust, and there are no proliferation risks. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34396787/elon-musk-sun-power-civilization/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34396787/elon-musk... (Elon Musk Says the Sun Can Power All of Civilization. Of Course He's Right.) “That free fusion reactor in the sky conveniently converts ~4 million tons of mass into energy every second. We just need to catch an extremely tiny amount of it to power all of civilization.” — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 16, 2020
    - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
      I don't disagree that there is abundant solar opportunity at the planet-level, but it's unrealistic to build infrastructure to funnel energy from eligible deserts to the rest of North America. Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much more complex than, say, having a few nuclear reactors in the state. Which work regardless of the weather.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        HVDC transmission, pumped storage where the geography allows for it, and grid interconnectors allow for moving power between geographies. Seasonal deltas are solved for with overbuilding renewables and curtailment when there is oversupply. If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management. I cannot stress enough (as an armchair energy analyst who tracks renewables and energy storage manufacturing and deployment rates) how fast solar PV, wind, and batteries are being deployed. Keep track at https://www.electricitymap.org https://www.electricitymap.org
        xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
        > If nuclear was easy, it’d be done It is done? It is easy? My power needs are completely served right now by hydroelectric and nuclear. Just because you don't have nuclear reactors in your neighborhood doesn't mean they're more out of reach than solar. HVDC is already widely available. Grid interconnects are mostly political. We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive.
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Existing nuclear is of course valuable as a zero carbon energy source, its new nuclear that can’t get built. We should continue to support existing nuclear as long as can be done safely so carbon intensive generation doesn’t fill in for those generators if they’re retired early (Illinois recently enacted policy to subsidize Exelon’s aging nuclear merchant fleet in the state so that generation wasn’t replaced with natural gas, for example).
        nullc 5y ago
        > We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive. That particular home design-- its siting, dimensions, energy usage, etc-- were just not viable in a particular energy environment. That doesn't mean that grid detached PV isn't viable-- many parties use it today-- it means it wasn't viable for that design. A mostly insulated home wouldn't be a viable design in the arctic but they're acceptable designs in places with mild climates. As the energy landscape changes some designs and locations that were viable in the past won't be viable anymore. There is no natural law entitlement for a given set of choices to work out. :)
  - afarrell 5y ago
    There are other skilled entrepreneurs than Musk. He’s already got his hands full running two companies. Its hard to be sufficiently attentive when you are doing multiple things at the same time. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58807212 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58807212
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      Are there any with that much engineering knowledge and the credibility to take on a multi year, multi billion dollar long project
goodpoint 5y ago
That would not solve risks around political instability or centralization of power or the environmental impact of the energy being created.
mabbo 5y ago
But the bar will always be set higher and higher. Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I <impossible scenario>? Then it might be dangerous! Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE. Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH. And to be clear, I think renewables are major important part of the solution. But waiting for them to meet the demand that nuclear can hit immediately means decades of dirty energy generation. We need to do both renewables and nuclear right now.
- LatteLazy 5y ago
  The bar hasn't really moved: * be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met) * no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met) * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)
  - harles 5y ago
    > * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably) This is a false dichotomy that’s always bugged me. I’d sure find living near a nuclear plant a lot less disturbing than living near a coal plant. And with nuclear plants, far fewer people would have to live near any power plant.
    - nitrogen 5y ago
      Having lived near a coal plant and coterie of oil refineries in the past, I will 100% agree that I'd take nuclear over coal in my backyard.
  - repsilat 5y ago
    One claim of moving the goalposts comes from https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop: >> Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable. >> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job. Basically the safety regulations (some of which are nonsensical -- the whole article is worth a read) preclude cost-effective nuclear. I won't address your point on waste, I think it's covered elsewhere on this page well enough.
pacman2 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
vlovich123 5y ago
We have so many nuclear power plants running and the amount of waste so comparatively negligible (compared with coal, oil, natural gas) that it's moving the goal posts to require it to hit everything. Humanity doesn't get better at doing something by doing it less. We need more power plants so that we build experience and costs go down. The market has to be there so that power plant design is invested in to drive down costs, improve efficiencies and reduce risks further.
- q1w2 5y ago
  This so much. One barrel per year per reactor means we can run the US on 100% nuclear and store all the waste for the next 1000 years in the one existing facility in Nevada.
- devonkim 5y ago
  Repeatedly building and improving is how South Korea and France have nuclear power plants that work pretty swell despite the massive political obstacles in their way. A great deal of the costs of nuclear come not from intrinsic technological or process costs but the bureaucracy setup that will almost guarantee non-viable economics. It thus becomes nearly impossible to compare nuclear and solar / wind sources in terms of cost efficiency honestly whatever you support. Costs of anything are a function of the technical, market, and political factors.

The first person to build a safe, economic, waste free reactor will be a billionaire. But so far that hasn't happened.

theli0nheart 5y ago

And it never will if people who are afraid of it remain in charge.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Maybe. But until we have that first plant, it's too early to go for mass implimentiion. I wish Musk would take a shot at it. He's the only engineer/financier/crazy-person who I think could make an impact. Government's clearly aren't interested and no one else can get the cash together.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  As he’s said numerous times, solar is fusion at a distance and solar combined with batteries is the future, both of which can be safely recycled and manufactured rapidly at scale. Tesla’s entire business is selling batteries to store clean energy for later use (either in vehicles or stationary storage), and enough sunlight hits the earth every 30 minutes to power humanity for a year. Lithium is abundant in the world’s crust, and there are no proliferation risks. https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34396787/elon-musk-sun-power-civilization/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a34396787/elon-musk... (Elon Musk Says the Sun Can Power All of Civilization. Of Course He's Right.) “That free fusion reactor in the sky conveniently converts ~4 million tons of mass into energy every second. We just need to catch an extremely tiny amount of it to power all of civilization.” — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 16, 2020
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
    I don't disagree that there is abundant solar opportunity at the planet-level, but it's unrealistic to build infrastructure to funnel energy from eligible deserts to the rest of North America. Here where the sky is cloudy as much as it is sunny, and clear even less, and where it snows, solar works but isn't reasonable to replace all power needs at an individual, county or state level. The logistics involved are much more complex than, say, having a few nuclear reactors in the state. Which work regardless of the weather.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      HVDC transmission, pumped storage where the geography allows for it, and grid interconnectors allow for moving power between geographies. Seasonal deltas are solved for with overbuilding renewables and curtailment when there is oversupply. If nuclear was easy, it’d be done, but it isn’t because it is the more complex, more expensive technology. The sun is free and requires no human management. I cannot stress enough (as an armchair energy analyst who tracks renewables and energy storage manufacturing and deployment rates) how fast solar PV, wind, and batteries are being deployed. Keep track at https://www.electricitymap.org https://www.electricitymap.org
      - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
        > If nuclear was easy, it’d be done It is done? It is easy? My power needs are completely served right now by hydroelectric and nuclear. Just because you don't have nuclear reactors in your neighborhood doesn't mean they're more out of reach than solar. HVDC is already widely available. Grid interconnects are mostly political. We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive.
        toomuchtodo 5y ago
        Existing nuclear is of course valuable as a zero carbon energy source, its new nuclear that can’t get built. We should continue to support existing nuclear as long as can be done safely so carbon intensive generation doesn’t fill in for those generators if they’re retired early (Illinois recently enacted policy to subsidize Exelon’s aging nuclear merchant fleet in the state so that generation wasn’t replaced with natural gas, for example).
        nullc 5y ago
        > We looked at installing PV on a semi-remote home and it was not feasible. The roof was only large enough for a few panels and significant tree removal would've been necessary. The cost was prohibitive. That particular home design-- its siting, dimensions, energy usage, etc-- were just not viable in a particular energy environment. That doesn't mean that grid detached PV isn't viable-- many parties use it today-- it means it wasn't viable for that design. A mostly insulated home wouldn't be a viable design in the arctic but they're acceptable designs in places with mild climates. As the energy landscape changes some designs and locations that were viable in the past won't be viable anymore. There is no natural law entitlement for a given set of choices to work out. :)
- afarrell 5y ago
  There are other skilled entrepreneurs than Musk. He’s already got his hands full running two companies. Its hard to be sufficiently attentive when you are doing multiple things at the same time. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58807212 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58807212
  - LatteLazy 5y ago
    Are there any with that much engineering knowledge and the credibility to take on a multi year, multi billion dollar long project

goodpoint 5y ago

That would not solve risks around political instability or centralization of power or the environmental impact of the energy being created.

mabbo 5y ago

But the bar will always be set higher and higher. Oh, it's safer than all other reactors ever designed? Yeah, but it isn't PERFECT, is it? What if I <impossible scenario>? Then it might be dangerous! Oh, it has 1/10th the nuclear waste of all other reactors ever? But it STILL MAKES NUCLEAR WASTE. Oh, it can be built at half the cost of previous reactors for twice the energy? THAT'S STILL WAY TOO MUCH. And to be clear, I think renewables are major important part of the solution. But waiting for them to meet the demand that nuclear can hit immediately means decades of dirty energy generation. We need to do both renewables and nuclear right now.

LatteLazy 5y ago
The bar hasn't really moved: * be cheaper than other reliable sources (never met) * no waste that takes >100y to decay (never met) * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably)
- harles 5y ago
  > * don't disturb the neighbours (not met reliably) This is a false dichotomy that’s always bugged me. I’d sure find living near a nuclear plant a lot less disturbing than living near a coal plant. And with nuclear plants, far fewer people would have to live near any power plant.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Having lived near a coal plant and coterie of oil refineries in the past, I will 100% agree that I'd take nuclear over coal in my backyard.
- repsilat 5y ago
  One claim of moving the goalposts comes from https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop: >> Excessive concern about low levels of radiation led to a regulatory standard known as ALARA: As Low As Reasonably Achievable. What defines “reasonable”? It is an ever-tightening standard. As long as the costs of nuclear plant construction and operation are in the ballpark of other modes of power, then they are reasonable. >> This might seem like a sensible approach, until you realize that it eliminates, by definition, any chance for nuclear power to be cheaper than its competition. Nuclear can‘t even innovate its way out of this predicament: under ALARA, any technology, any operational improvement, anything that reduces costs, simply gives the regulator more room and more excuse to push for more stringent safety requirements, until the cost once again rises to make nuclear just a bit more expensive than everything else. Actually, it‘s worse than that: it essentially says that if nuclear becomes cheap, then the regulators have not done their job. Basically the safety regulations (some of which are nonsensical -- the whole article is worth a read) preclude cost-effective nuclear. I won't address your point on waste, I think it's covered elsewhere on this page well enough.

pacman2 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

vlovich123 5y ago

We have so many nuclear power plants running and the amount of waste so comparatively negligible (compared with coal, oil, natural gas) that it's moving the goal posts to require it to hit everything. Humanity doesn't get better at doing something by doing it less. We need more power plants so that we build experience and costs go down. The market has to be there so that power plant design is invested in to drive down costs, improve efficiencies and reduce risks further.

q1w2 5y ago
This so much. One barrel per year per reactor means we can run the US on 100% nuclear and store all the waste for the next 1000 years in the one existing facility in Nevada.
devonkim 5y ago
Repeatedly building and improving is how South Korea and France have nuclear power plants that work pretty swell despite the massive political obstacles in their way. A great deal of the costs of nuclear come not from intrinsic technological or process costs but the bureaucracy setup that will almost guarantee non-viable economics. It thus becomes nearly impossible to compare nuclear and solar / wind sources in terms of cost efficiency honestly whatever you support. Costs of anything are a function of the technical, market, and political factors.