6 ms·

I'm close with someone who was offered a position at a nuclear startup NuScale, that aims to manufacture cookie-cutter, modular nuclear reactors, where you scal

I'm close with someone who was offered a position at a nuclear startup NuScale, that aims to manufacture cookie-cutter, modular nuclear reactors, where you scale the power plant by adding more reactors over time as your needs change, and ship the old spent ones off. As I understand it, part of the problem in hiring is that for a nuclear startup you really need experienced engineers as you go into producing working prototypes. Depending on the position, they don't necessarily need explicit nuclear experience - my relative didn't have it - but they do need a proven track record of not majorly screwing up ever, and that requires experience you can usually only get working for years in real engineering environments. There can be no 'oops, we messed up the privacy requirements' apology or people die, meltdowns happen, and the company gets the biggest of red flags. That's not to say you need to be old to start a nuclear company, but that you will probably need to work with older engineers, who are harder to hire, settled in their jobs, and scattered across the US, with mortgages, families, and the like.

wisty 15y ago
This is why I don't think nuclear power is the future. Renewable power can afford to be innovative. Nuclear power will never innovate as fast. Even if it's better than wind right now, you can't have people hack on it, or manufacture in the cheapest country (I hope), or have small countries regulate its use in a cost efficient way. Of course, it's great for the countries who already have it up and running, and those countries should also look at the latest generations, and the next generation which are being designed (which should be better and safer in every way that the old ones which meltdown when a tsunami hits them). I love asking pro-nuclear Australians which level of government (federal or state) should regulate nuclear power, and who should be the minister in charge.
- jeltz 15y ago
  Same goes for some renewable power sources like hydroelectric plants. Bursting dams are more dangerous than meltdowns and have killed way more than nuclear disasters. Some of the more famous hydroelectric accidents: * 1959, about 2000 deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaiont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaiont_Dam * 2009, 75 deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_hydroelectric_power_station_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenska... * 1975, about 171,000 deaths (of those 26,000 immediate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
- demian 15y ago
  Besides the point brought up by jeltz about what "renewable" includes, I fail to see how the speed of innovation, or the fact that people can "hack it", will determine which energy source is "the future". Argentina, a developing country with a history of social turmoil and a relatively high level of goverment corruption, has been using nuclear power efficently since the '70s. Probably "the future" will need mixed energy generation. It won't be only nuclear nor only renewable.
  - wisty 15y ago
    Given the life expectancy of reactors, we'll probably not live to see the last nuclear reactors decommissioned (unless we end up as cyborgs). We'll probably need more of it in the next 20 years (what's the alternative? gas is running out, coal is just dirty, and renewables have issues). But I see renewable power getting a lot cheaper than nuclear. It's easier to cut costs. It's easier to experiment with new stuff. More automation will bring the costs down, while nuclear tends to be one-off projects (note, modular nuclear might level the playing field a bit, but you can bet that they won't be laser-focused on bringing the price right down). Energy is all about costs. Nuclear power is unlikely to drop in cost as much as solar and wind.
- dstorrs 15y ago
  The problem with this view is that if you look at the energy demand curve for the human race, there are only two long-term sources that can even potentially satisfy the demand: nuclear and space-based solar. Wind, geothermal, ground-based solar, tidal...there just isn't enough energy there to satisfy the demands, especially once you factor in the inefficiencies of power transmission. The reason it's a problem, of course, is because the both methods are politically difficult and require significant engineering (if not research) and capital investment to make them practical.

wisty 15y ago

This is why I don't think nuclear power is the future. Renewable power can afford to be innovative. Nuclear power will never innovate as fast. Even if it's better than wind right now, you can't have people hack on it, or manufacture in the cheapest country (I hope), or have small countries regulate its use in a cost efficient way. Of course, it's great for the countries who already have it up and running, and those countries should also look at the latest generations, and the next generation which are being designed (which should be better and safer in every way that the old ones which meltdown when a tsunami hits them). I love asking pro-nuclear Australians which level of government (federal or state) should regulate nuclear power, and who should be the minister in charge.

jeltz 15y ago
Same goes for some renewable power sources like hydroelectric plants. Bursting dams are more dangerous than meltdowns and have killed way more than nuclear disasters. Some of the more famous hydroelectric accidents: * 1959, about 2000 deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaiont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaiont_Dam * 2009, 75 deaths: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenskaya_hydroelectric_power_station_accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Sayano%E2%80%93Shushenska... * 1975, about 171,000 deaths (of those 26,000 immediate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
demian 15y ago
Besides the point brought up by jeltz about what "renewable" includes, I fail to see how the speed of innovation, or the fact that people can "hack it", will determine which energy source is "the future". Argentina, a developing country with a history of social turmoil and a relatively high level of goverment corruption, has been using nuclear power efficently since the '70s. Probably "the future" will need mixed energy generation. It won't be only nuclear nor only renewable.
- wisty 15y ago
  Given the life expectancy of reactors, we'll probably not live to see the last nuclear reactors decommissioned (unless we end up as cyborgs). We'll probably need more of it in the next 20 years (what's the alternative? gas is running out, coal is just dirty, and renewables have issues). But I see renewable power getting a lot cheaper than nuclear. It's easier to cut costs. It's easier to experiment with new stuff. More automation will bring the costs down, while nuclear tends to be one-off projects (note, modular nuclear might level the playing field a bit, but you can bet that they won't be laser-focused on bringing the price right down). Energy is all about costs. Nuclear power is unlikely to drop in cost as much as solar and wind.
dstorrs 15y ago
The problem with this view is that if you look at the energy demand curve for the human race, there are only two long-term sources that can even potentially satisfy the demand: nuclear and space-based solar. Wind, geothermal, ground-based solar, tidal...there just isn't enough energy there to satisfy the demands, especially once you factor in the inefficiencies of power transmission. The reason it's a problem, of course, is because the both methods are politically difficult and require significant engineering (if not research) and capital investment to make them practical.