4 ms·

This would be so cool, hopefully this helps get nuclear off the ground.

pstuart 3y ago
I'm 110% for renewables as a path forward, but the promise of nuclear power is still tempting. Small Modular Reactors seem to be the only way to make it work in an cost-effective manner. There's enough players to give one hope this might come to pass: https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modular-reactor-companies/ https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modul... That said, there needs to be brutally transparent examination of operational safety and possible contingencies (e.g., terrorism, earthquakes, tidal waves, heat waves, etc).
- keep_reading 3y ago
  Are you implying that nuclear is not renewable? Tidal wave energy usage would cause us to lock with the moon in 1000 years https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/tide.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/tide.html
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Wow. Good thing it hasn't caught on and shows no promise of doing so.
  - tmtvl 3y ago
    Why doI suddenly hear the Majora's Mask music?
  - jannyfer 3y ago
    Rebuttal on 1000 years claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383283
    - keep_reading 3y ago
      "Energy consumption has decoupled from population growth rates and economic growth." and no citations... Every bit of human progress we make is through more energy usage. Are we reducing the rate we build infrastructure? Are we building and manufacturing fewer things? Have we reduced transportation of people, goods, and services? No, it always goes up. How are we going to dig ourselves out from under the weight of oil? Building renewables. They require massive amounts of energy. It's all energy. The more energy you can harness the more comfortable your life will be. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44095 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44095 https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/energy-supply/global-outlook/energy-demand https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/energy-supply/gl...
- thwarted 3y ago
  That said, there needs to be brutally transparent examination of operational safety and possible contingencies (e.g., terrorism, earthquakes, tidal waves, heat waves, etc). Exactly how much examination and experience do we need to have with nuclear before we start using it more?
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Moving to SMRs are "new" and it would imply a lot more reactors out there as well in possibly more "casual" environments (e.g., sticking them in existing coal plants to leverage the existing infra). Then getting third parties to vet designs/operational plans to look for weaknesses... My point is simply that as promising as it is (very), we need a belt and suspenders approach to safety.
- mbostleman 3y ago
  I’ve always wondered why, if we can safely propel hundreds of people in an aluminum tube, 35k feet in the air, at hundreds of miles per hour ground speed, thousands of time day in and day out - why is safely generating power from nuclear so often dismissed as unachievable? It makes me wonder if we as a culture have lost our courage to tame insanely dangerous things.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    It is achievable, but we've yet to see it come in at its promised cost. It didn't help that the industry made some easily avoidable mistakes. I think the key problems are the size (big projects always exceed budgets and timelines), as well as the bespoke nature of each power plant. That's why SMRs are attractive -- they address both of those issues.
  - cesarb 3y ago
    > if we can safely propel hundreds of people in an aluminum tube, 35k feet in the air, at hundreds of miles per hour ground speed, thousands of time day in and day out - why is safely generating power from nuclear so often dismissed as unachievable? The level of safety is different. There have been plenty of total loss accidents in aviation; a similar number of accidents of that severity would be unacceptable in nuclear power. Nuclear power plants need (and, AFAIK, have) a much higher safety factor than airplanes.
cripblip 3y ago
Always wondered why having the military running submarine units for commercial power has not happened. They have the experience of running safely in more challenging conditions.
- thunderbird120 3y ago
  Because submarine style high enrichment pressurized water reactors are both a nuclear proliferation concern due to their fuel type (i.e. much closer to weapons grade uranium than normal reactors use) and INCREDIBLY expensive. The reactors built for nuclear submarines are performant, not economical.
  - cripblip 3y ago
    Thanks! I knew someone would have the details. Are there alternatives you think would work in a distributed model like this that address these concerns ?
    - unsung 3y ago
      There's a push these days to move towards HALEU fuel in the US; it's basically downblended submarine fuel stock [0]. It'll take about a decade to really start the downblending and distribution process at commercial scale in earnest [1], and there's some projects for instrumentation, transport containment, and so on in the works. Once commercial scale feedstock production is proven out, we'll start seeing shovels breaking ground on new reactor sites. [0] https://www.nrc.gov/materials/new-fuels/haleu.html https://www.nrc.gov/materials/new-fuels/haleu.html [1] https://www.orano.group/usa/en/our-portfolio-expertise/advanced-reactors/haleu https://www.orano.group/usa/en/our-portfolio-expertise/advan...
  - avar 3y ago
    A HN comment chain claiming the opposite of what you're arguing here, that they're much cheaper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348839

I'm 110% for renewables as a path forward, but the promise of nuclear power is still tempting. Small Modular Reactors seem to be the only way to make it work in an cost-effective manner. There's enough players to give one hope this might come to pass: https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modular-reactor-companies/ https://c3newsmag.com/five-of-the-worlds-leading-small-modul... That said, there needs to be brutally transparent examination of operational safety and possible contingencies (e.g., terrorism, earthquakes, tidal waves, heat waves, etc).

keep_reading 3y ago
Are you implying that nuclear is not renewable? Tidal wave energy usage would cause us to lock with the moon in 1000 years https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/tide.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/zjl/tide.html
- pstuart 3y ago
  Wow. Good thing it hasn't caught on and shows no promise of doing so.
- tmtvl 3y ago
  Why doI suddenly hear the Majora's Mask music?
- jannyfer 3y ago
  Rebuttal on 1000 years claim: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383283 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37383283
  - keep_reading 3y ago
    "Energy consumption has decoupled from population growth rates and economic growth." and no citations... Every bit of human progress we make is through more energy usage. Are we reducing the rate we build infrastructure? Are we building and manufacturing fewer things? Have we reduced transportation of people, goods, and services? No, it always goes up. How are we going to dig ourselves out from under the weight of oil? Building renewables. They require massive amounts of energy. It's all energy. The more energy you can harness the more comfortable your life will be. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44095 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=44095 https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/energy-supply/global-outlook/energy-demand https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/what-we-do/energy-supply/gl...
thwarted 3y ago
That said, there needs to be brutally transparent examination of operational safety and possible contingencies (e.g., terrorism, earthquakes, tidal waves, heat waves, etc). Exactly how much examination and experience do we need to have with nuclear before we start using it more?
- pstuart 3y ago
  Moving to SMRs are "new" and it would imply a lot more reactors out there as well in possibly more "casual" environments (e.g., sticking them in existing coal plants to leverage the existing infra). Then getting third parties to vet designs/operational plans to look for weaknesses... My point is simply that as promising as it is (very), we need a belt and suspenders approach to safety.
mbostleman 3y ago
I’ve always wondered why, if we can safely propel hundreds of people in an aluminum tube, 35k feet in the air, at hundreds of miles per hour ground speed, thousands of time day in and day out - why is safely generating power from nuclear so often dismissed as unachievable? It makes me wonder if we as a culture have lost our courage to tame insanely dangerous things.
- pstuart 3y ago
  It is achievable, but we've yet to see it come in at its promised cost. It didn't help that the industry made some easily avoidable mistakes. I think the key problems are the size (big projects always exceed budgets and timelines), as well as the bespoke nature of each power plant. That's why SMRs are attractive -- they address both of those issues.
- cesarb 3y ago
  > if we can safely propel hundreds of people in an aluminum tube, 35k feet in the air, at hundreds of miles per hour ground speed, thousands of time day in and day out - why is safely generating power from nuclear so often dismissed as unachievable? The level of safety is different. There have been plenty of total loss accidents in aviation; a similar number of accidents of that severity would be unacceptable in nuclear power. Nuclear power plants need (and, AFAIK, have) a much higher safety factor than airplanes.

cripblip 3y ago

Always wondered why having the military running submarine units for commercial power has not happened. They have the experience of running safely in more challenging conditions.

thunderbird120 3y ago
Because submarine style high enrichment pressurized water reactors are both a nuclear proliferation concern due to their fuel type (i.e. much closer to weapons grade uranium than normal reactors use) and INCREDIBLY expensive. The reactors built for nuclear submarines are performant, not economical.
- cripblip 3y ago
  Thanks! I knew someone would have the details. Are there alternatives you think would work in a distributed model like this that address these concerns ?
  - unsung 3y ago
    There's a push these days to move towards HALEU fuel in the US; it's basically downblended submarine fuel stock [0]. It'll take about a decade to really start the downblending and distribution process at commercial scale in earnest [1], and there's some projects for instrumentation, transport containment, and so on in the works. Once commercial scale feedstock production is proven out, we'll start seeing shovels breaking ground on new reactor sites. [0] https://www.nrc.gov/materials/new-fuels/haleu.html https://www.nrc.gov/materials/new-fuels/haleu.html [1] https://www.orano.group/usa/en/our-portfolio-expertise/advanced-reactors/haleu https://www.orano.group/usa/en/our-portfolio-expertise/advan...
- avar 3y ago
  A HN comment chain claiming the opposite of what you're arguing here, that they're much cheaper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348839 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26348839