I get so frustrated reading anything in the popular press about nuclear power. Everyone commits the same fucking fallacy over and over again: measuring it against an absolute idea instead of anything in the real world. Even here in the HN comments, I see "if it can be made safe." In TFA, it's the explanation that people are afraid of a three mile island or Chernobyl event, that his killer feature is the impossibility of meltdowns.
Here in the real world, you have to measure options against other real world options. The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants emit much more radiation than nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more. Coal power is responsible for 800,000 deaths per year, WHEN IT'S WORKING PROPERLY. That's the bar nuclear, and any other alternative baseload power source, has to beat. It doesn't have to failure proof, it doesn't have to have zero deaths. It just has to be significantly better than the alternatives.
Refusing to consider a power source unless it has zero deaths, zero radiation, zero side effects for all time, is living in a fantasy world. It's the paradigm promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and bought hook line and sinker by the dumber end of the environmentalist movement. And it keeps us from ever decreasing our power generation carbon footprint.
> The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal.
Sure, but... will this be the same in 10 years? 20? 50? Within merely the past 3 years, the amount of battery energy storage has expanded by a few orders of magnitude.
Because when you build a nuclear power plant, it takes a minimum of a decade to go from on paper to operation, and the operational life, which pays off the capex at the beginning, is hopefully, at least 50.
Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission it in 100MW increments. A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a few dozen nuclear engineers. Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized decommissioning or waste storage costs.
I'm not trying to tell you nuclear doesn't have a future. What I am saying, with the likes of Tesla Energy and the rise in solar + battery storage, is that the energy grid is in for turbulent times in the next few decades. This makes the economics of nuclear questionable - we don't know if it is going to be economically viable in a few decades.
If I had $10b? I wouldn't touch the nuclear energy sector, personally.
> Coal plants emit much more radiation than nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more.
I don't fully understand this argument: A well-maintained nuclear power plant emits next to no radioactivity (compared to the natural background), so a coal plant that emits even a huge factor more radioactivity is still negligible.
I feel like the absolute number (x times more radioactive than nuclear) is really not helpful, if one of the numbers is (just as an example) 0.0001% of natural background, and the other is 0.001% of it.
Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted.
It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay, the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome, and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face value, that's faith--by definition.
They are mentioning doing a fusion reactor but there are no details. Lower down the page they mention that the startup will be actually using a fission-fusion process, so they are not talking about classic self sustained fusion that we haven't been able to maintain yet. They are using the fusion word a bit lightly. Fusion is a big deal.
They're probably using fusion neutrons to kick off fission reactions. People have talked about this idea for years but I don't think anyone's attempted it until now.
By adding uranium you don't need to get net power from fusion alone, which is really hard.
The extremely high-energy neutrons from D-T fusion can fission U238, not just the scarce U235, which means you don't need enrichment and you get very little long-term waste.
By having the fusion reactor as a neutron source, you can use subcritical amounts of uranium, so there's no chance of a runaway reaction. If something goes wrong with the fusion reactor it just stops, and without the fusion neutrons the fission shuts down too.
This may or may not be a Good Thing - I'm not qualified to make that call. But this article isn't doing the effort any favors. Labelling the technology _exclusively_ as "fusion" comes dangerously close to what's today called "fake news."
I understand from other peoples' comments that the project aims to commercialize some kind of fission-fusion hybrid technology where fission reactions kick-start fusion reactions. That's (potentially) cool, but I'd have expected the article to tell me this.
I'd imagine fusion is a better alternative to fission which in turn is a better alternative to coal.
I still feel sad for the morons who think that the end of the "war on coal" will bring any semblance of Glory back to coal towns. When all is said and done they still need help.
Speed and nuclear power plants don't typically go together: there's a lot of detail, and a lot of dilgence to be done, because the consequences are so awful if it screws up. NuScale just got their modular concept into the approval program, estimated conclusion of that, 2020.
Don't speedy startup types typically get frustrated when faced with the real world?
Sources describe most of X’s public projects — Project Loon, drones, robotics and wind energy kites — as rudderless. [...]
Mike Cassidy, who stepped down from Loon, ran the team “like a fire drill,” a former employee said.
The Wikipedia article "Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid" [1] provides some good background. I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long for someone to start talking about a commercial implementation rather than merely researching the idea.
I don't know much about the current nuclear reactors, but reading the wikipedia article about Integral fast reactors[0] paints them in a very positive light. Maybe there are better designs already, but why don't we have more of these?
That' a completely different thing, as it is based on nuclear fission ('normal' nuclear power), whereas the technology metnioned here is nuclear fusion ('what happens in the sun'). According to the German Wikipedia, Integral fast reactors (or breeders) have specific risks, e.g. they use a large amount of plutonium: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegen...
This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean, safe, limitless energy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60... ). It has been researched for ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it would be a big thing.
We don't have them because the Clinton administration cancelled the program shortly before completion, and because the NRC makes life extremely difficult for anything besides conventional light-water reactors.
I wonder if this is based on the Bussard polywell design. The Navy was soliciting for bids on development of that as recently as 2008 (1), and Bussard presented at Google at in 2006 (2). A decade seems about right to get from small prototype that blew up to stable prototype. Indeed, other people think this too (3).
In any reactor that contains U238, present day reactors and the hybrid reactors from the article, a neutron is absorbed to form U239. This quickly beta decays into Np239 (23.5 minute half-life). This then beta decays into Pu239 (2.3 day half-life). So, anyplace there is U238 and a bunch of neutrons, you are producing the best material known for the fission explosion that initiates a fusion explosion. At the end of the life cycle of a normal Uranium fuel pellet most of the energy is actually coming from Plutonium. Why do you think there was a push to have Iran's Uranium enriched outside the country? So it could be salted to make the Pu239 unusable with Pu240.
I just think the production of Pu239 should enter the rational discussion of nuclear energy.
Fast fission reactors don't leave much plutonium behind, because they fission it much more efficiently. Hybrid reactors would be even better, because fusion neutrons have such high energy that they fission U238 directly.
The Pu-240 production happens as a side reaction so low-burnup is required. IAEA safeguards have never been exploited, and some include designing reactors to prohibit frequent refuelling.
Nobody has mentioned nuclear waste disposal as far as I can tell. Everybody is basically saying "yeah, as long as we avoid explosions, nuclear is great", but has disposal been solved? Or is it not as big of a problem as I'm thinking?
It's not as big of a problem as you're thinking. "Waste" can be used in breeder reactors to generate energy. This burns up >90% of the material. The remainder decays relatively quickly, not over geological time scales. Volume wise it's really not much. The entire nuclear industry so far has produced less than a 100kT of waste, a cube with a side length of about 30 meters. This is before putting the stuff in a breeder reactor.
I wish some of these companies would go into fusion/fission for the research of it. Sure, going for a commercially viable model gives you more investment, but all these silicon valley rich guys trying to save the world should also invest on some research.
I get it, you can't start a fusion company without R&D so there will be some anyways, but I feel like the research angle needs some love too. I am pretty sure we haven't understood everything there is to understand, and it won't hurt.
Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics?
As rich as they are, not many have the funds to build a nuclear reactor. Even one's that have been fully designed and based on traditional design still cost billions to build.
Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but there definitely are a lot of bears on the road.
I hope he succeeds! This is far better than having the landscape littered with bird killing windmills and solar farms that incenerate birds.
Nuclear is the best source of large scale energy IF safety were guaranteed. The safety of nuclear energy seems like a solvable engineering problem -- a difficult problem certainly, but then again so was manned space flight.
I am not saying solar and wind are worse than fossil fuels -- but I am saying that nuclear could be the future. Combining nuclear generation with advanced batteries seems to be an ideal energy future.
[+] [-] ohthehugemanate|9 years ago|reply
Here in the real world, you have to measure options against other real world options. The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants emit much more radiation than nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more. Coal power is responsible for 800,000 deaths per year, WHEN IT'S WORKING PROPERLY. That's the bar nuclear, and any other alternative baseload power source, has to beat. It doesn't have to failure proof, it doesn't have to have zero deaths. It just has to be significantly better than the alternatives.
Refusing to consider a power source unless it has zero deaths, zero radiation, zero side effects for all time, is living in a fantasy world. It's the paradigm promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and bought hook line and sinker by the dumber end of the environmentalist movement. And it keeps us from ever decreasing our power generation carbon footprint.
[+] [-] lukealization|9 years ago|reply
Sure, but... will this be the same in 10 years? 20? 50? Within merely the past 3 years, the amount of battery energy storage has expanded by a few orders of magnitude.
Because when you build a nuclear power plant, it takes a minimum of a decade to go from on paper to operation, and the operational life, which pays off the capex at the beginning, is hopefully, at least 50.
Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission it in 100MW increments. A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a few dozen nuclear engineers. Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized decommissioning or waste storage costs.
I'm not trying to tell you nuclear doesn't have a future. What I am saying, with the likes of Tesla Energy and the rise in solar + battery storage, is that the energy grid is in for turbulent times in the next few decades. This makes the economics of nuclear questionable - we don't know if it is going to be economically viable in a few decades.
If I had $10b? I wouldn't touch the nuclear energy sector, personally.
[+] [-] wohlergehen|9 years ago|reply
I don't fully understand this argument: A well-maintained nuclear power plant emits next to no radioactivity (compared to the natural background), so a coal plant that emits even a huge factor more radioactivity is still negligible.
I feel like the absolute number (x times more radioactive than nuclear) is really not helpful, if one of the numbers is (just as an example) 0.0001% of natural background, and the other is 0.001% of it.
[+] [-] tambourine_man|9 years ago|reply
That kind of phrasing always bothers me. It's not a matter of belief, it's science.
I'd wager a climate change doubter has no faith crisis when relying on relativity to get an acurate GPS location for their Uber.
[+] [-] alphapapa|9 years ago|reply
Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted.
It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay, the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome, and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face value, that's faith--by definition.
[+] [-] logancg|9 years ago|reply
It also potentially engages people who continue to think it's a subject of belief. That may provide an opportunity to educate them.
[+] [-] hyperbovine|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lifty|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DennisP|9 years ago|reply
By adding uranium you don't need to get net power from fusion alone, which is really hard.
The extremely high-energy neutrons from D-T fusion can fission U238, not just the scarce U235, which means you don't need enrichment and you get very little long-term waste.
By having the fusion reactor as a neutron source, you can use subcritical amounts of uranium, so there's no chance of a runaway reaction. If something goes wrong with the fusion reactor it just stops, and without the fusion neutrons the fission shuts down too.
[+] [-] Grangar|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Elrac|9 years ago|reply
I understand from other peoples' comments that the project aims to commercialize some kind of fission-fusion hybrid technology where fission reactions kick-start fusion reactions. That's (potentially) cool, but I'd have expected the article to tell me this.
[+] [-] 0xfeba|9 years ago|reply
Misleading/sensationalized news articles are just normal "news", as judged by the past 200 years.
[+] [-] pooper|9 years ago|reply
I still feel sad for the morons who think that the end of the "war on coal" will bring any semblance of Glory back to coal towns. When all is said and done they still need help.
[+] [-] tehlike|9 years ago|reply
he is strong promoter of speed when developing business: https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-speed...
I am looking forward to what he achieves with his new journey.
[+] [-] andygates|9 years ago|reply
Don't speedy startup types typically get frustrated when faced with the real world?
[+] [-] benzible|9 years ago|reply
Sources describe most of X’s public projects — Project Loon, drones, robotics and wind energy kites — as rudderless. [...] Mike Cassidy, who stepped down from Loon, ran the team “like a fire drill,” a former employee said.
[+] [-] deepGem|9 years ago|reply
21/4: 8.15 AM pitch DFJ 4 pm get term sheet. Dev team gives notice to current jobs.
Wow am truly amazed.
[+] [-] dirtyaura|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curtis|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...
[+] [-] a_imho|9 years ago|reply
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
[+] [-] f_allwein|9 years ago|reply
This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean, safe, limitless energy" ( https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60... ). It has been researched for ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it would be a big thing.
[+] [-] DennisP|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Beltiras|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] killjoywashere|9 years ago|reply
1) https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11...
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8
3) http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-gets-i...
[+] [-] c517402|9 years ago|reply
I just think the production of Pu239 should enter the rational discussion of nuclear energy.
EDIT: fixed grammar
[+] [-] DennisP|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wbl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tronje|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adrianN|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Recurecur|9 years ago|reply
That is a very good thing!
[+] [-] itchyjunk|9 years ago|reply
I get it, you can't start a fusion company without R&D so there will be some anyways, but I feel like the research angle needs some love too. I am pretty sure we haven't understood everything there is to understand, and it won't hurt.
Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics?
[+] [-] lokimedes|9 years ago|reply
Absolutely, its an integrated part of anything from physics analysis to detector alignment and accelerator control.
Tools of the trade: https://root.cern.ch http://tmva.sourceforge.net (Former particle physicist at CERN)
[+] [-] tinco|9 years ago|reply
Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but there definitely are a lot of bears on the road.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] hossbeast|9 years ago|reply
The article is about new companies which are trying to develop nuclear fusion tech. Doesn't that completely change the cost benefit analysis?
[+] [-] briandear|9 years ago|reply
Nuclear is the best source of large scale energy IF safety were guaranteed. The safety of nuclear energy seems like a solvable engineering problem -- a difficult problem certainly, but then again so was manned space flight.
I am not saying solar and wind are worse than fossil fuels -- but I am saying that nuclear could be the future. Combining nuclear generation with advanced batteries seems to be an ideal energy future.
[+] [-] throwaway6556|9 years ago|reply
Are you for real?
[+] [-] GlennS|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuzzfactor|9 years ago|reply
Maybe not enough funds were invested, too bad their runway was so short.
They almost delivered.
[+] [-] jlebrech|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukealization|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cowardlydragon|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]