3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_nuclear_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_nuclear_reac... - the difference in energy den

by roenxi 2y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_nuclear_reactions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#In_nuclear_reac... - the difference in energy density from coal to uranium alone is absurd, let alone if we have some breakthrough that taps in to a more exotic substance. It isn't that much harder to mine these fuels, the only problem is that we haven't really squeezed down the cost of building those honking great plants and focused on making the whole supply chain cheap. We're talking potentials like 6 orders of magnitude improvement over coal (which is currently competitive enough to run an industrial society). We should be giving the nuclear industry as many opportunities as possible to achieve breakthroughs, not limiting it.

kragen 2y ago
yes, clearly that is correct when it comes to spacecraft, where what matters is energy density; voyager 1 would not be transmitting to us today if it were powered by kerosene or solar panels. but, here on earth, operating power plants is generally not an expense in proportion to how much their fuel weighs. only about half of the cost of a coal power plant is the coal; the other half is the plant, with its spinning electromagnets, parsons turbines, deionized supercritical steam circuit, cooling towers, and so on. as long as you're using nuclear power as an alternative way to drive steam through the coal-plant machinery, the best you can do is knock the cost down by a factor of about 2, which is 0.3 orders of magnitude rather than 2+ also, by the way, if you can come up with a heat engine that's cheaper by one or more orders of magnitude, you can compete with photovoltaic power plants using not just nuclear energy but also concentrating solar and geothermal. that would be a huge boon
- roenxi 2y ago
  > but, here on earth... Well, yeah. If you assume we keep doing everything the same as we do right now, we'll get similar results to what we are getting right now. You've put your finger on the core issue with that paragraph, but I suspect not in the way you intended. What you're not dealing with is that the likelihood we figure out alternative ways of doing things is extremely high. Or it would be if we didn't have a brain-dead regulatory state in the West that blocks us from doing things differently. We're talking a fuel source where we can fit the energy equivalent of 10 trains of coal into an 2L ice cream container - assuming no improvements from using Uranium. There aren't any laws of physics saying it has to be expensive to turn that into useful energy. We haven't really tested any part of the industrial supply chain to see how low costs can go. And any ideas the academics are having aren't being put in to the practice - or at least they weren't until the best and brightest over in China started getting involved. Hopefully it works out. Not to mention that, as you point out, nuclear is also a technically superior form of energy in a bunch of specific applications where weight and volume are factors.
  - kragen 2y ago
    i agree!

by roenxi 2y ago

kragen 2y ago

yes, clearly that is correct when it comes to spacecraft, where what matters is energy density; voyager 1 would not be transmitting to us today if it were powered by kerosene or solar panels. but, here on earth, operating power plants is generally not an expense in proportion to how much their fuel weighs. only about half of the cost of a coal power plant is the coal; the other half is the plant, with its spinning electromagnets, parsons turbines, deionized supercritical steam circuit, cooling towers, and so on. as long as you're using nuclear power as an alternative way to drive steam through the coal-plant machinery, the best you can do is knock the cost down by a factor of about 2, which is 0.3 orders of magnitude rather than 2+ also, by the way, if you can come up with a heat engine that's cheaper by one or more orders of magnitude, you can compete with photovoltaic power plants using not just nuclear energy but also concentrating solar and geothermal. that would be a huge boon

roenxi 2y ago
> but, here on earth... Well, yeah. If you assume we keep doing everything the same as we do right now, we'll get similar results to what we are getting right now. You've put your finger on the core issue with that paragraph, but I suspect not in the way you intended. What you're not dealing with is that the likelihood we figure out alternative ways of doing things is extremely high. Or it would be if we didn't have a brain-dead regulatory state in the West that blocks us from doing things differently. We're talking a fuel source where we can fit the energy equivalent of 10 trains of coal into an 2L ice cream container - assuming no improvements from using Uranium. There aren't any laws of physics saying it has to be expensive to turn that into useful energy. We haven't really tested any part of the industrial supply chain to see how low costs can go. And any ideas the academics are having aren't being put in to the practice - or at least they weren't until the best and brightest over in China started getting involved. Hopefully it works out. Not to mention that, as you point out, nuclear is also a technically superior form of energy in a bunch of specific applications where weight and volume are factors.
- kragen 2y ago
  i agree!