4 ms·

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

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.

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.