4 ms·

We’re facing a catastrophe. I and others have described elsewhere that the path we’re on is much, much worse than even the most dire of predictions the IPCC mak

We’re facing a catastrophe. I and others have described elsewhere that the path we’re on is much, much worse than even the most dire of predictions the IPCC makes. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30947756 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30947756 Teller et al anticipated your objection. It’s why the reactor is supposed to dig into sold rock. If there’s a catastrophic failure then it’s yet another subsurface nuclear test. And the more advanced designs considered for Project Plowshare produce minimal residual radioactivity. All of the products dissipate within 6 months. So, in the worst case scenario, the facility gets buried under tons of rocks, far away from any water. And the residual radioactive products rapidly decay into being harmless with 6 months. Any induced radioactivity from the neutrons produced during the explosion will follow a fairly predictable pattern as well. This can be done. In exchange we get a reactor that creates nearly limitless power for entire countries.

tlb 4y ago
The same line of reasoning says that we should build conventional light- or heavy-water reactors. The risk is minimal. And they're (a) tested and (b) much cheaper than PACER.
- jandrese 4y ago
  The advantage of a PACER setup is that you get a lot more bang (heh) per kg of uranium than you do out of a fission reactor. But the cost of uranium is not currently a problem with our fission reactors. We do have a problem with radioactive waste, but even that is way more political than it is technical. I wonder which two senators are going to be ok with detonating 32 bombs in their state every day? This isn't the 50s, NIMBYs know how to make your life a living hell when trying to do anything nuclear.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    Future fission reactors both don't need uranium (thorium reactors) and use less of it while waste that isn't radio active for long (breeder reactors).
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Thorium turns out not to be the solution to any problem.
      - tlb 4y ago
        One problem it solves is making reactors that can't produce material for nuclear weapons. That's pretty important if we want to deploy reactors outside the few countries that already have them.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        I live near Indian Point, recently shut down. They tried thorium back when it was new. It cost too much then. Nukes of any stripe are not competitive now, and get less so every year. Thorium cannot save them. Solutions that rely on a steam turbine generally lose to those that do not. A need to fool with fuel and security cost even more. Account for the disaster insurance subsidy and decommissioning cost, and they come out a marked drag on society. That is, if you manage to complete one before it gets cancelled because renewables are already doing the job more cheaply than it can. We do better not to spend the initial $billions on what will never produce any marketable power. No such money is ever returned. A nuke that runs only at night costs almost twice as much per kWh.
        tlb 4y ago
        It's possible the economics have changed since the 50s. The non-proliferation argument certainly has: in the US in the 50s, making plutonium was considered a useful feature of power reactors.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        That does happen, but has not in this case.
barkingcat 4y ago
I suspect worst case scenarios are more about earthquakes either natural or human induced
cogman10 4y ago
Or we could chose a number of WAY safer fission reactors for the same cost and same power output (Pick your favorite Gen IV reactor). We also don't end up creating a literal nuclear weapons manufacturing plant in every nation that wants to use this (since the "fuel" for this reactor is constantly detonating nukes).
- cinntaile 4y ago
  Why not Gen III+, these are ready to go whereas most Gen IV reactors are still in the drawing board possibly early prototype phase.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    I'm fine with either to be frank. I like that Gen IV reactors should have much cheaper deployment strategies. Anything is better than the "drop a nuke in the hole" plan. Both Gen III+ and Gen IV reactors can hit the market before all the red tape is cut for prototyping the hole bomb.
cinntaile 4y ago
> We’re facing a catastrophe. I and others have described elsewhere that the path we’re on is much, much worse than even the most dire of predictions the IPCC makes. There are a lot of processes we don't fully understand so your claim is hard to substantiate. Also, if that was the case then a lot of people would probably just accept their fate.
jandrese 4y ago
Worst case scenario is you blow the doors off of the facility and tons of superheated radioactive fluoride salts are blasted into the air, along with the vaporized particles of all of the workers and the fissile material in all of the bombs in the staging areas.

tlb 4y ago

The same line of reasoning says that we should build conventional light- or heavy-water reactors. The risk is minimal. And they're (a) tested and (b) much cheaper than PACER.

jandrese 4y ago
The advantage of a PACER setup is that you get a lot more bang (heh) per kg of uranium than you do out of a fission reactor. But the cost of uranium is not currently a problem with our fission reactors. We do have a problem with radioactive waste, but even that is way more political than it is technical. I wonder which two senators are going to be ok with detonating 32 bombs in their state every day? This isn't the 50s, NIMBYs know how to make your life a living hell when trying to do anything nuclear.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Future fission reactors both don't need uranium (thorium reactors) and use less of it while waste that isn't radio active for long (breeder reactors).
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Thorium turns out not to be the solution to any problem.
    - tlb 4y ago
      One problem it solves is making reactors that can't produce material for nuclear weapons. That's pretty important if we want to deploy reactors outside the few countries that already have them.
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        I live near Indian Point, recently shut down. They tried thorium back when it was new. It cost too much then. Nukes of any stripe are not competitive now, and get less so every year. Thorium cannot save them. Solutions that rely on a steam turbine generally lose to those that do not. A need to fool with fuel and security cost even more. Account for the disaster insurance subsidy and decommissioning cost, and they come out a marked drag on society. That is, if you manage to complete one before it gets cancelled because renewables are already doing the job more cheaply than it can. We do better not to spend the initial $billions on what will never produce any marketable power. No such money is ever returned. A nuke that runs only at night costs almost twice as much per kWh.
        tlb 4y ago
        It's possible the economics have changed since the 50s. The non-proliferation argument certainly has: in the US in the 50s, making plutonium was considered a useful feature of power reactors.
        ncmncm 4y ago
        That does happen, but has not in this case.

barkingcat 4y ago

I suspect worst case scenarios are more about earthquakes either natural or human induced

cogman10 4y ago

Or we could chose a number of WAY safer fission reactors for the same cost and same power output (Pick your favorite Gen IV reactor). We also don't end up creating a literal nuclear weapons manufacturing plant in every nation that wants to use this (since the "fuel" for this reactor is constantly detonating nukes).

cinntaile 4y ago
Why not Gen III+, these are ready to go whereas most Gen IV reactors are still in the drawing board possibly early prototype phase.
- cogman10 4y ago
  I'm fine with either to be frank. I like that Gen IV reactors should have much cheaper deployment strategies. Anything is better than the "drop a nuke in the hole" plan. Both Gen III+ and Gen IV reactors can hit the market before all the red tape is cut for prototyping the hole bomb.

cinntaile 4y ago

> We’re facing a catastrophe. I and others have described elsewhere that the path we’re on is much, much worse than even the most dire of predictions the IPCC makes. There are a lot of processes we don't fully understand so your claim is hard to substantiate. Also, if that was the case then a lot of people would probably just accept their fate.

jandrese 4y ago

Worst case scenario is you blow the doors off of the facility and tons of superheated radioactive fluoride salts are blasted into the air, along with the vaporized particles of all of the workers and the fissile material in all of the bombs in the staging areas.