8 ms·

This is great. I've always thought that the reaction to Fukushima should not have been "get rid of nuclear power generation because it's too dangerous", but rat

This is great. I've always thought that the reaction to Fukushima should not have been "get rid of nuclear power generation because it's too dangerous", but rather: "using a handful of giant reactors is too dangerous, scale them down and spread them out so that a local disaster has limited ability to cause catastrophic harm".

kibwen 12y ago
I'm curious about the tech behind these new reactors, such as the specific design and the reactants involved. Specifically it would be great if we could obviate any energy-related excuse to produce reactants that could double as the fuel for nuclear weapons.
- soperj 12y ago
  There have been reactors available for a long time that don't use enriched uranium. The CANDU reactor was invented in the 60s and is the only type of reactor in use in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
- maaku 12y ago
  The fuel process used by nearly every reactor in existence is used specifically because it can provide weapons-grade material. It is not the reaction chain you would choose if you were merely interested in generating electricity. Besides the CANDU reactor mentioned by the sibling comment, there is also thorium reactors, which react an element far more abundant than Uranium, and doesn't result in weapons grade products.
- pjscott 12y ago
  Standard, boring light water reactor with unusually good passive cooling. The exciting part is the modular, assembly-line nature of how it's produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power
Turing_Machine 12y ago
I agree with your larger sentiment, but disagree that current reactors are too dangerous. Let's look at what happened at Fukushima: 1) Massive earthquake 2) Massive tsunami 3) Devastating fire 4) Complete loss of power to all control circuitry An extreme worst-case scenario if there ever was one, and yet no one died.
- rosser 12y ago
  ...and yet no one died. Yet. EDIT: Don't mistake; I'm (conditionally) very pro-nuclear power. But the fallout (pun not intended) from Fukushima is far from over, so to be all, "Welp, dodged that one" is a little disingenuous.
  - Turing_Machine 12y ago
    Burning coal leads to increased cancer rates, too. Also lots of dead miners from both accidents and long-term health effects.
    - rosser 12y ago
      That's no small part of why I'm pro-nuclear. Burning coal dumps more radioactive crud into the atmosphere every year than all the nuclear accidents that have ever happened, combined.
      - bayesianhorse 12y ago
        And yet, irradiated sea life was only seen after Fukushima...
        Turing_Machine 12y ago
        Sorry, that's simply not correct. For one thing, the Soviet Union dumped all of their scrapped reactors into the ocean whole. For decades.
  - maaku 12y ago
Zigurd 12y ago
Using reactor designs we would no longer allow to be built, way past their designed lifespan is the problem. Nuclear power has to have a straightforward approach to being affordable, not by endangering lives and property by extending the life of old plants. This is a high priority because being able to build nuclear power plants quickly, and operating them safely, is really the only way to have a soft landing after the oil age.
- bayesianhorse 12y ago
  What I see is companies/societies/lawmakers unwilling or unable to shut down perfectly fine reactors just because they are too old. What I also see is democratic countries struggling to agree on safe sites to even store nuclear wast mid-term, much less long term. Better uses or treatments for nuclear waste may be possible, but are not even close to becoming practical.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deepinsand 12y ago
I've heard that one of the major hurdles to smaller scale deployments is security (easier to secure a larger facility than many small ones).
jessaustin 12y ago
Scaled-down nuclear reactors will not see wide use because neither governments nor investors will fund them. Governments fund big stuff that generates kickbacks and weapons fuel. Investors fund stuff that could conceivably make a profit.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers have expelled so much hot air on this thread obfuscating about cancer rates (they aren't dead yet, and if so you have to name them!), coal (because we all love coal!), and the Three Gorges (TIL shoving a new powerplant down the throats of an unwilling populace isn't cool when the Chinese do it), and haven't had the chance to consider the dire economic case for nukes. As in, the fact that no nuclear power plant anywhere has been built or operated without government funding and coercion. They get us coming and going: there will be a plant here, and the deadly waste it produces will go there, the opinions of residents and electricity consumers be damned. The industry didn't have to balance its books, as long as it kept enough nuke-happy retired generals lobbying for the nuclear-death-war option. Now that that's not such a wonderful priority anymore, suddenly we're seeing all this "innovation". From the same industry that likes to put backup safety pump generators in a subbasement dug next to the Pacific Ocean. Pull the other one. Your lack of meaningful response is delicious.
  - dang 12y ago
    > I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers We all know how frustrating it is to see what one regards as obviously wrong views get advocated on Hacker News, but gratuitous accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed here. It destroys too many community health points to let it become a thing. It isn't that astroturfing never happens, it's that the destruction of civility isn't worth the small chance that you're right. The vast majority of these cases are explicable by HN users sincerely holding opposing views. That doesn't mean you should do nothing. If you or anyone suspect astroturfing in an HN thread, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data. We've banned accounts for astroturfing in the past, and we'll do so again, but only when we find evidence. I wrote about this in a couple of other recent threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9115965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9115965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9122086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9122086 That's because we've noticed an uptick in people making this charge on HN, and it seems worth it to invest in some serious descriptions of what the norm is here, and why.

kibwen 12y ago

I'm curious about the tech behind these new reactors, such as the specific design and the reactants involved. Specifically it would be great if we could obviate any energy-related excuse to produce reactants that could double as the fuel for nuclear weapons.

soperj 12y ago
There have been reactors available for a long time that don't use enriched uranium. The CANDU reactor was invented in the 60s and is the only type of reactor in use in Canada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
maaku 12y ago
The fuel process used by nearly every reactor in existence is used specifically because it can provide weapons-grade material. It is not the reaction chain you would choose if you were merely interested in generating electricity. Besides the CANDU reactor mentioned by the sibling comment, there is also thorium reactors, which react an element far more abundant than Uranium, and doesn't result in weapons grade products.
pjscott 12y ago
Standard, boring light water reactor with unusually good passive cooling. The exciting part is the modular, assembly-line nature of how it's produced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power

Turing_Machine 12y ago

I agree with your larger sentiment, but disagree that current reactors are too dangerous. Let's look at what happened at Fukushima: 1) Massive earthquake 2) Massive tsunami 3) Devastating fire 4) Complete loss of power to all control circuitry An extreme worst-case scenario if there ever was one, and yet no one died.

rosser 12y ago
...and yet no one died. Yet. EDIT: Don't mistake; I'm (conditionally) very pro-nuclear power. But the fallout (pun not intended) from Fukushima is far from over, so to be all, "Welp, dodged that one" is a little disingenuous.
- Turing_Machine 12y ago
  Burning coal leads to increased cancer rates, too. Also lots of dead miners from both accidents and long-term health effects.
  - rosser 12y ago
    That's no small part of why I'm pro-nuclear. Burning coal dumps more radioactive crud into the atmosphere every year than all the nuclear accidents that have ever happened, combined.
    - bayesianhorse 12y ago
      And yet, irradiated sea life was only seen after Fukushima...
      - Turing_Machine 12y ago
        Sorry, that's simply not correct. For one thing, the Soviet Union dumped all of their scrapped reactors into the ocean whole. For decades.
- maaku 12y ago

Zigurd 12y ago

Using reactor designs we would no longer allow to be built, way past their designed lifespan is the problem. Nuclear power has to have a straightforward approach to being affordable, not by endangering lives and property by extending the life of old plants. This is a high priority because being able to build nuclear power plants quickly, and operating them safely, is really the only way to have a soft landing after the oil age.

bayesianhorse 12y ago
What I see is companies/societies/lawmakers unwilling or unable to shut down perfectly fine reactors just because they are too old. What I also see is democratic countries struggling to agree on safe sites to even store nuclear wast mid-term, much less long term. Better uses or treatments for nuclear waste may be possible, but are not even close to becoming practical.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

deepinsand 12y ago

I've heard that one of the major hurdles to smaller scale deployments is security (easier to secure a larger facility than many small ones).

jessaustin 12y ago

Scaled-down nuclear reactors will not see wide use because neither governments nor investors will fund them. Governments fund big stuff that generates kickbacks and weapons fuel. Investors fund stuff that could conceivably make a profit.

jessaustin 12y ago
I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers have expelled so much hot air on this thread obfuscating about cancer rates (they aren't dead yet, and if so you have to name them!), coal (because we all love coal!), and the Three Gorges (TIL shoving a new powerplant down the throats of an unwilling populace isn't cool when the Chinese do it), and haven't had the chance to consider the dire economic case for nukes. As in, the fact that no nuclear power plant anywhere has been built or operated without government funding and coercion. They get us coming and going: there will be a plant here, and the deadly waste it produces will go there, the opinions of residents and electricity consumers be damned. The industry didn't have to balance its books, as long as it kept enough nuke-happy retired generals lobbying for the nuclear-death-war option. Now that that's not such a wonderful priority anymore, suddenly we're seeing all this "innovation". From the same industry that likes to put backup safety pump generators in a subbasement dug next to the Pacific Ocean. Pull the other one. Your lack of meaningful response is delicious.
- dang 12y ago
  > I'm shocked, shocked, that the pro-nuke astroturfers We all know how frustrating it is to see what one regards as obviously wrong views get advocated on Hacker News, but gratuitous accusations of astroturfing aren't allowed here. It destroys too many community health points to let it become a thing. It isn't that astroturfing never happens, it's that the destruction of civility isn't worth the small chance that you're right. The vast majority of these cases are explicable by HN users sincerely holding opposing views. That doesn't mean you should do nothing. If you or anyone suspect astroturfing in an HN thread, please email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at the data. We've banned accounts for astroturfing in the past, and we'll do so again, but only when we find evidence. I wrote about this in a couple of other recent threads: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9115965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9115965 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9122086 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9122086 That's because we've noticed an uptick in people making this charge on HN, and it seems worth it to invest in some serious descriptions of what the norm is here, and why.