17 ms·
ThorCon: Cheap, reliable, CO2-free electric power
- blunte 5y agoThe linked page says little about how they do what they do. Even the Design page doesn’t explain how. This all appears to assume some knowledge of power generation or even their approach. Edit >> sorry! I read the hn linked page, and then I navigated to the design page. I did not also go to “home”. Perhaps the hn link could be for the home page.
- extrapickles 5y agoIts a molten salt thorium reactor. [0]: https://thorconpower.com/design/ https://thorconpower.com/design/
- philipkglass 5y agoWhat is ThorCon? ThorCon is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump and passively drained. This 500 MW fission power plant is encapsulated in a hull, built in a shipyard, towed to a shallow water site, ballasted to the seabed. Link to design page: https://thorconpower.com/design/ https://thorconpower.com/design/ As with any promising new idea for energy production, we'll see what the actual costs are once (if) it enters commercial production. Many concepts that work perfectly in the lab fail to succeed industrially.
- icegreentea2 5y agoThe actual home page says: "ThorCon is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump and passively drained. This 500 MW fission power plant is encapsulated in a hull, built in a shipyard, towed to a shallow water site, ballasted to the seabed." and "ThorCon is a straightforward scale-up of the successful United States Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)."
- PaywallBuster 5y agoIt's nuclear power based on Thorium instead of Uranium The tale goes that DoD was researching both options during the Cold War? and eventually shut down the Thorium research due to the warfare potential of enriched uranium It's becoming more popular last 10 years or so, with books being written about it and private companies picking up the development of the technology
- NumberWangMan 5y agoWhoops! I accidentally linked to the wrong page. I'd be fine with a moderator updating it to point to the home page.
- riffic 5y agothis reads like a too good to be true pitch, so I have to ask, what's the catch? edit: these are breeder reactors? aren't there still waste and other concerns here?
- philipkglass 5y agoThe catch is that no units have actually been built yet and the things that work well in theory may not work well in practice. Take it with the same tempered optimism as a startup pitch for a great new battery or solar cell design.
- nolroz 5y agoIt may be interesting to note that a similar design was built and operated continuously back in 1964 for 4 years successfully. There's some material science that needs to be ironed out for commercialization, but it's a viable technology for sure, IMHO.
- nicoburns 5y ago> There's some material science that needs to be ironed out for commercialization Worth noting that this is no small thing. Materials science is the limiting factor of all molten salt reactors, and has yet to be solved satisfactorily.
- p1mrx 5y agoI like how Moltex asked "wait, why are we pumping all this fuel around in the first place?" https://youtu.be/7qJpVClxzVM?t=536 https://youtu.be/7qJpVClxzVM?t=536
- ncmncm 5y agoMolten has a good point. Pumping, what, tens or hundreds of tons of highly radioactive, hot, corrosive liquid around puts a crushing demand on the perfection of your plumbing, heat exchanger, and pumps. What do you do when (not if, we know plumbing) it leaks?
- DennisP 5y agoMy brother works at the Pentagon on the Navy budget, and found the "tale of two ships" to be spot on.
- danielovichdk 5y agoIt was a great side story to the story. Found it very close to large scale top-down controlled "anything".
- waynecochran 5y agoThe fundamental flaw with wind power. Prosperous economies require reliable energy when needed, so power generation must be dispatchable on demand. Intermittent wind and solar source generators can temporarily supply low-cost electric power to the grid, but with a capacity factor of about 30%. This has created demand for redundant natural gas turbine generators to provide “back up” power when there is no wind or sun. The wind does not blow on demand and, currently in the Pacific Northwest, they store the wind energy in batteries! The neighboring hydroelectric dams can back up water when demand is low (e.g. at night) and increase flow when demand rises (e.g. during the day).
- powcontech 5y agoWhile dams certainly store energy I wonder how many actually have flexibility to change their output by 80% of rated capacity or more on the same timescales that wind and solar output can vary. I imagine there are a lot of environmental restrictions to keep the river flowing, avoid dewatering habitat for fish and otherwise impacting the ecosystem, and also supplying water to downstream users like farms and cities. Can’t stop the river completely!
- hedora 5y agoAs I understand it, some hydro plants have a second, smaller reservoir downhill from the dam. It absorbs water from surge production, and even allows the water to be pumped back uphill.
- noselasd 5y agoyou can switch turbines on and off , leading water to a turbine or a bypass in minutes
- powcontech 5y agoYou can, but I wonder do the operating conditions of the river actually allow it for a great number of plants? Or are they hemmed in by needing to always have a certain flow in the river plus/minus 10%.
- antattack 5y agoI learned more about coal plant than the ThorCon itself. Was this published on April 1st :)
- jf 5y agoPrevious discussion (with comments from a ThorCon employee): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863535 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863535
- rob_c 5y agoit's not like academics and advisors have been saying this for years... glad industry is catching on even if big govt(s) won't...
- tromp 5y ago> The fission island Cans requires 700 tons of very high quality graphite, and 800 tons of SUS 316 and 304. SUS is the typical Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS) designation for stainless steel grades. It stands for “steel use stainless.”
- d--b 5y agoIs everybody supposed to know it’s a nuclear plant? It took 5 minutes to figure the fuel…
- NumberWangMan 5y agoMy fault. I meant to link to the home page, but linked to the "economics" subsection instead. Here's the home: https://thorconpower.com/ https://thorconpower.com/
- eurasiantiger 5y agoIt’s very different from current nuclear plants, though. Thorium molten salt reactors can be designed so that even a complete meltdown results in a safe and contained shutdown.
- legulere 5y agoAren't the difficulties dealing with molten salt like corrosion leading to huge costs? If you are already dealing with molten salt, then why not use concentrated solar power?
- panick21_ 5y agoMolten Salt has corrosion issues but they are nowhere near as extreme as people think they are. There are different methods and approaches taken by different companies. Moltex Energy is going with a traditional long running reactor core and basically puts bits of stuff into the salt that will corrode instead of the reactor vessel. Other companies like ThorCon or Terrestrial instead simply accept the corrosion and replace the core containment at a faster cycle. The expensive part of a nuclear plant in a molten salt reactor is not actually to core vessel because unlike with a PWR its not an gigantic pressure vessel that need to contain water that is ready to burst out. The reactor is working at atmospheric pressure. So in a PWR you have to deal with pressure, and also corrosion. In a MSR you got ride of the pressure (and thankfully the water).
- panick21_ 5y agoI think making a molten salt reactor work would be amazing. Doing so in a 3rd world country would be even better but it happening is really hard to see. I think more likely one of the companies working in Canada will get there first. Canada is the only international regulator of high standing who has a real strong program of trying to get such reactors actually certified. The US has woken up out of their deep, deep slumber in the last 5 years but the DoE changing policy is basically like watching a glacier. They have done some good things and hopeful they continue to cooperate with Canada. One of the biggest things holding back nuclear is that each country has a totally unique regulatory framework. And no market (except maybe the US) is large enough to justify the investment. This is also a problem in other spaces but getting your electronics certified is a lot cheaper then spending potentially 100s of millions on a certification process. To make nuclear commercial really happen international regulatory agency should exist or the nuclear regulator should cross license each other. ThorCon gets around that by working with a company that almost doesn't (or didn't) have a regulatory agency or a regulatory framework and they are building them together. The government is building the regulator, the company the product. I wish them the very, very best. If they are successful it could do more then almost any other project. Its far more important then getting a little bit more wind energy into Germany. Indonesia is one of the biggest countries in the world and coal is their only viable option right now. Edit: This is great video to understand what ThorCon is actually doing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx7kwZo4hQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZx7kwZo4hQ
- ethbr0 5y agoApparently the International Atomic Energy Agency spends ~10% of its budget on creating and sharing safety standards [0]. Unfortunately, its safety model flows through "and then allow nations to create their own standards." Ceding standards / regulation to an international-level organization for advanced reactors that meet some criteria (e.g. proliferation-resistant, under a certain power, fail-safe, minimal worst-case scenario) would do wonders for low-carbon energy transitioning. Imagine a micro-reactor that's deployable in any member country, because it's already been vetted and certified. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency#Nuclear_safety https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mtmmtm 5y agoThe article quotes a very old capacity-factor for wind-energy (30%). Today it is 60-64%. https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind/haliade-x-offshore-turbine https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore-wind... Also read this report regarding new types of nuclear power (a summary is that these new versions is probably a waste of money): https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/ucs-rpt-AR-3.21-web_Mayrev.pdf https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/ucs-rpt-A...
- civilized 5y agoI skimmed the summary of that UCS report and it seems very thorough and balanced. I would be interested in a rebuttal if an effective one is possible. I was especially encouraged to see that they didn't advocate the complete dismantling of nuclear, only focusing efforts on improving proven light water reactor designs.
- KennyBlanken 5y agoIn the US in 2020, decommissioned nuclear generating capacity was replaced by six times as much wind and solar capacity. That only accounts for grid-scale capacity, not commercial projects like rooftop systems on large warehouses, or residential systems. That tells you all you need to know. The people who make money off selling electricity are buying wind and solar. Attention is focused on grid infrastructure improvements like HVDC, and battery storage systems. Battery systems are even being deployed privately; for example, it's a lot easier to locate an EV DC fast charging station if it sucks down a continuous ~20kW to charge its own power reservoir, than if it needs 300-400kW to directly charge two EVs at full speed.
- acidburnNSA 5y agoMonthly averages vary between 20% and 45% in the USA. As the most windy sites are built on first, these numbers could fall in deep decarbonization plans that rely on building in areas that have less wind. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.php?t=epmt_6_07_b https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...
- megaman821 5y agoNext generation nuclear or fusion would be amazing, but looking how things stand today, I would bet on cheap and reliable grid-storage batteries coming first. Pairing renewables with cheap batteries solves energy for 80% of the world. Things like sodium-ion batteries look like they are getting close production, and don't contain hard-to-acquire materials.
- mcbishop 5y agoIron-air batteries are another potential low-cost option for long-duration storage (e.g. https://formenergy.com/technology/ https://formenergy.com/technology/)
- megaman821 5y agoFlow batteries look interesting, but they have moving parts. That is probably fine for large utilities who can staff people to maintain these batteries. It is probably not fine for a small solar and battery install house or village.
- panick21_ 5y agoI don't think Form is making flow batteries. Alternatively you can use liquid metal batteries, they can be placed anywhere and need nothing with very low chance of fire. https://ambri.com/ https://ambri.com/
- adgjlsfhk1 5y agoif big batteries are cheap, you don't need small ones. the reason small batteries are common now is that they are price competitive. if new batteries are developed that are cheap, but need large sizes, the cost of moving the power around is negligible.
- ncmncm 5y agoAnd, similarly for other storage methods.
- barathr 5y agoI understand the interest in baseload generation but don't see why there's so much interest in nuclear when low-tech concentrated solar in the desert can get the job done and scaling it up (and ensuring it's 100% safe) isn't a matter of R&D but just basic manufacturing. It strikes me a lot of the nuclear focus is (understandable, if not justifiable) interest in cool new technology. Ironically, with concentrated solar, going lower tech, even at the expense of efficiency, might decrease costs because the materials would amount to cheap mirrors/collectors and steel pipes. Saul Griffith's classic talk highlighted that there's probably no meaningful manufacturing limit to building concentrated solar with existing industrial infrastructure: https://longnow.org/seminars/02009/jan/16/climate-change-recalculated/ https://longnow.org/seminars/02009/jan/16/climate-change-rec...
- gameswithgo 5y ago
- jupp0r 5y agoTo answer your question: the sun doesn’t shine at night, that’s why we can’t do solar only (without enough energy storage to get us through the night).
- ncmncm 5y agoWe will build out storage, and transmission lines, to "get us through the night".
- xyzzyz 5y agoNow do the math on how much storage would be needed, and how much would it cost, then show your work. Investors have done exactly that, which is why large scale storage is not happening yet.
- ncmncm 5y agoStorage cost is plummeting even faster than solar or wind cost ever did. A renewable dollar is still better spent today on generating capacity, and will be for several more years, most places. Waiting, you get more storage for your money, and you then already have overcapacity to charge it from. Until the share of renewables approaches enough to destabilize the power grid, building out renewable generating capacity displaces more carbon from entering the atmosphere, and so is a better use of capital. At the same time, decreasing load factor of nukes and fossil plants, as they become too expensive to win bids, will drive them offline in favor of much cheaper storage methods as fast as that comes online. The enormous industrial and export value of synthetic hydrogen and ammonia production, after local tankage is full, make them the compelling choice for long-term storage. Initially, those will be burned in gas turbines as they edge out natural gas, both locally and abroad, but improving fuel cells will finally displace turbines.
- ncmncm 5y agoMore nuke promotion. It doesn't matter how you spin nukes, they will always end up costing way, way more than renewables + storage. Diverting capital to nukes slows our response to global climatic catastrophe, perhaps enriching a few at the expense of the whole world.
- gameswithgo 5y ago
- joss82 5y agoCitation very much needed here. This is nuke bashing.
- worik 5y ago"Most people will automatically scoff at the claim that a nuclear power plant should cost less to build than a coal plant. It is received wisdom that nuclear plants are outrageously expensive. And most recent nuclear projects confirm that belief. But why" Because of the potential of catastrophic failure. Duh! That and these people are not counting the discounted cost, over 200,000 years, of storing their long term waste and maintaining the site. Nuclear power looks cheap if you completely discount the future - and you are unethical enough to make future generations pay for current consumption. (Ditto coal)
- NumberWangMan 5y agoI think that the cost of maintaining a site over 200,000 years is a fair point. That said...is it better or worse than coal? Because practically speaking, that's what the choice is here, as far as I can tell. I'd love to say we can quickly convert the whole world to pure renewables, but it's very likely that we can cut our GHG emissions fastest using a mix of multiple approaches rather than ruling out the good in favor of the best. And note that when you consider costs of something that you have to make a payment on in perpetuity, we don't calculate that as an infinite cost[1]. To say that we'll have to safeguard this nuclear waste in, say year 100,000 of its lifetime, is a lot less of an ask, simply because we have no idea how advanced human technology will be then, maybe making the problem trivial, or whether humans will be completely gone, etc. I agree it's important to think about future generations and to have a very long term view, but the problem of nuclear waste seems much less urgent than the rapidly mounting costs of climate change. Even if we end up using nuclear for, say, 100 years while we transition to completely sustainable, renewable energy, that would be a win over continuing to use fossil fuels. And I don't think it would even add that much to the existing burden of dealing with nuclear waste. Maybe in 200 years we find a spot and put all the waste there with big warning signs etched in stone, and then the main cost is only one of ensuring that we main translations and records of the danger of the site as language evolves. Dealing with solid waste, however careful you need to be with it, seems much easier than trying to collect gases that have mixed into the atmosphere. [1] https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/finance/perpetuity/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/fi...
- 5y ago
- tiku 5y agoWhy can't we store the gasses from burning fuel/coal, under high pressure, for generating power once more between two tanks for example?
- eurasiantiger 5y agoBecause of Maxwell’s demon.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago8 minute is selling solar + storage for 4cents/kWh. Nuclear can't compete with that. https://www.8minute.com/solar-projects/ https://www.8minute.com/solar-projects/
- NumberWangMan 5y agoDoesn't the economics page on the ThorCon site say it'll produce at 3 cents / kWh? *edit -- I'm a bit confused about 8-minute. Do you know what kind of storage they use? Seems neat but the website is a bit sparse on details.
- ncmncm 5y ago8-Minute are probably using batteries for load-leveling. ThorCon would have to promise that. We have no way to know if they can deliver on it.
- zdragnar 5y agoIs it 4 cents anywhere outside of deserts in California, such as up by the Canadian border? Nuclear can work anywhere.
- noduerme 5y agoFrom their Design page, under the "Overview" subheader: >> ThorCon is a molten salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump, and passively drained in the event of a casualty. Casualty? Huh?