Most active commenters
  • yellowapple(5)
  • DennisP(4)
  • bserge(3)

←back to thread

425 points nixass | 48 comments | | HN request time: 2.767s | source | bottom
Show context
philipkglass ◴[] No.26674051[source]
I hope that the federal government can provide incentives to keep reactors running that would otherwise close prematurely.

5.1 gigawatts of American reactors are expected to retire this year: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46436

It's a shame that the US is retiring working reactors while still burning fossil fuels for electricity. Reactors are far safer and cleaner than fossil electric generation. It's mostly the low price of natural gas that is driving these early retirements. Low gas prices have also retired a lot of coal usage -- which is good! -- but we'd make more climate progress if those low prices didn't also threaten nuclear generation.

Some states like New York already provided incentives to keep reactors running for climate reasons:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534

Federal policy could be more comprehensive.

replies(6): >>26674195 #>>26675068 #>>26675523 #>>26675557 #>>26679016 #>>26681646 #
DennisAleynikov ◴[] No.26674195[source]
if we are to come out the other side of this climate emergency we must keep our reactors online. the purity testing of what do we do with the waste is not helpful critique when we are still reliant on coal
replies(2): >>26674304 #>>26674654 #
snuxoll ◴[] No.26674304[source]
The ignorance of the externalities of fossil fuels and a bipolar hyper focus on those of nuclear energy is mind boggling at this point.

I’m all for developing renewables, but we cannot abandon the one good technology we have for generating massive amounts of energy our base loads demand without polluting our air.

replies(4): >>26674563 #>>26675442 #>>26675993 #>>26676267 #
1. SCHiM ◴[] No.26674563[source]
Indeed that is the strangest thing. By _any_ metric coal is far worse. Even the metric "amount of radioactive material that ended up in the atmosphere per watt of energy." (Coal contains trace amounts of radioactive material, that gets spread when burned).

The fact of the matter is, that we can dump all our waste on a couple of football fields worth of space. Or even better: store it in a cave somewhere deep and dark and away from rivers.

replies(5): >>26674746 #>>26674763 #>>26675485 #>>26675780 #>>26683896 #
2. Multicomp ◴[] No.26674746[source]
This is probably one of those hacker news comments where it sounds good for 1 second then when you stop to think about it it falls apart, bu here goes.

throw the waste in a bucket strong enough to survive hitting earth at terminal velocitty. place bucket in spacex falcon9 rocket. launch rocket into orbit with escape velocity. watch nuclear waste vanish into vacuum of space forever. if crash, collect bucket and restart with new rocket.

financially costly? yes. solves the 'what about in 5000 years when someone opens it or it leaks?' questions, yes.

replies(7): >>26674837 #>>26674878 #>>26674889 #>>26674925 #>>26674997 #>>26675319 #>>26678109 #
3. w0de0 ◴[] No.26674763[source]
Pay spaceX to shoot it into the sun, why not?
replies(6): >>26674943 #>>26675113 #>>26675969 #>>26676394 #>>26676994 #>>26678845 #
4. cperciva ◴[] No.26674837[source]
The standard answer is "there's too much of a risk that an explosion would spread nuclear waste through the atmosphere". These days I'm not sure if it's true -- we've learned a lot about building containers which are safe even during rapid unscheduled disassemblies, and used them e.g. when sending nuclear powered rovers to Mars -- but that's the usual concern.
replies(2): >>26674894 #>>26676043 #
5. shadowgovt ◴[] No.26674878[source]
Ironically perhaps, the best reason not to do this is "It is extremely likely that, given sufficient time, we will either figure out a way to use the waste besides high-yield weapons or a cheaper way to dispose of the waste."

Earth is huge. At the rate reactors create waste, the amount of land consumed by storing it is staggeringly low (the higher risks are transportation, which unfortunately the rocket idea doesn't solve unless we build a dedicated rocket site next to each reactor). Low enough to justify the risk-over-time of securely sequestering it instead of throwing it away.

6. whatshisface ◴[] No.26674889[source]
One hundred million years later, a tribe of evolved cats sees an asteroid streak through the sky...
replies(1): >>26675109 #
7. throwaway894345 ◴[] No.26674894{3}[source]
I mean we’re wishing for a bucket that can survive terminal velocity impact with the earth and is yet light enough to ride a rocket, why not add to that wish that it could survive explosion from said rocket?
8. yellowapple ◴[] No.26674925[source]
Another crazy idea would be to put nuclear reactors themselves in orbit, and then beam the energy down to the surface. Space is already pretty thoroughly radioactive, so a meltdown goes from "ZOMG WE'RE GONNA GROW EXTRA ARMS AND DIE OF CANCER" to "meh, just another Tuesday".
replies(6): >>26675218 #>>26675261 #>>26675262 #>>26675322 #>>26675390 #>>26675923 #
9. yellowapple ◴[] No.26674943[source]
Given unlimited money, this might be reasonable, but it's worth noting that the delta-V requirements for shooting something into the Sun are pretty astronomically (pun intended) high.
10. VT_Dude ◴[] No.26674997[source]
I'm torn on which one second response is best. Contenders are:

1. Reprocessing is a better technological solution.

2. That waste is much safer in it's current location in a dry cask in the back lot behind a power plant than it would be on even the safest rocket.

3. Even if we punt waste disposal or reprocessing to future generations, we are still better off stacking waste in dry casks in the back lot behind power plants than burning coal.

replies(1): >>26675689 #
11. secfirstmd ◴[] No.26675109{3}[source]
Haha. I've often said cats would likely take over.
12. _Microft ◴[] No.26675113[source]
From Earth, it is much easier to eject something from the solar system than to get it to fall into the sun by the way.

Well, not just Earth but from almost everywhere in the solar system (assuming being on an almost circular orbit).

replies(1): >>26675325 #
13. cpeterso ◴[] No.26675218{3}[source]
But then you have nuclear-powered space lasers, which will scare people.
replies(1): >>26675764 #
14. ed25519FUUU ◴[] No.26675261{3}[source]
How does one efficiency “beam down” gigawatts of energy? Or at all?
replies(2): >>26675314 #>>26675708 #
15. DennisP ◴[] No.26675262{3}[source]
I support nuclear but if you're beaming power from space, it might as well be from solar panels. In geostationary orbit you have power 24/7, with 5X more sunlight per day than panels on the ground. The only time your satellite goes into shadow is for a few minutes per day around the equinoxes, half an hour max. Capacity factor is still over 99%.
replies(3): >>26675346 #>>26675400 #>>26675463 #
16. cthalupa ◴[] No.26675314{4}[source]
Light. Focusing mirrors or lasers.

But as others have pointed out, why would you bother with building space based nuclear plants and then converting that energy to light when you could just use the sun?

17. BurningFrog ◴[] No.26675319[source]
There are a lot of schemes that will solve the factual problem.

But I think the real problem is emotional. People are afraid of mushroom clouds and mutants.

They don't say that because that's not how we're wired. We come up with better sounding arguments to believe. But what need to be solved is the emotional problem.

18. Keyframe ◴[] No.26675322{3}[source]
We already have that nuclear reactor beaming energy down for us to collect.
replies(1): >>26675713 #
19. eloff ◴[] No.26675325{3}[source]
You'd need to fire the rocket to slow down sufficiently to fall into the sun right?

Just imagining the solar system as a bowling ball at the center of a trampoline surrounded by fast moving billiard balls. The problem is probably the speed the earth is moving at, plus the speed we had to get the rocket up to, to get it off earth.

replies(1): >>26675481 #
20. 8note ◴[] No.26675346{4}[source]
With geostationary? Don't they track a location on the earth? Is the satellite not in the earth's shadow at night?
replies(1): >>26675413 #
21. bserge ◴[] No.26675390{3}[source]
Interesting idea, but my next thought was "how are you going to cool that thing?!" :D
replies(1): >>26675570 #
22. bserge ◴[] No.26675400{4}[source]
Basically Gundam 00 haha. I was young when it aired, but it left a long lasting impression of what the future of space exploration might be like. Space elevators and massive solar arrays around the planet.
replies(1): >>26684446 #
23. mikepurvis ◴[] No.26675413{5}[source]
Geostationary is super far out— you're effectively in constant sun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit

Except, as the parent noted, very briefly during the equinoxes.

replies(1): >>26676371 #
24. stjohnswarts ◴[] No.26675463{4}[source]
It's too easy for space junk to destroy it, also a single point of failure or attack. It's a terrible solution as long as we remain a warlike species.
replies(1): >>26675888 #
25. pdonis ◴[] No.26675481{4}[source]
> You'd need to fire the rocket to slow down sufficiently to fall into the sun right?

Yes, which is around 30 km/s of delta-v, as compared with only 12 km/s delta-v to boost an object from Earth's orbit (assuming you launch it in the same direction that Earth is traveling) to escape velocity from the solar system.

26. lainga ◴[] No.26675485[source]
I'm going to sound tinfoil-y, but coal doesn't have dual strategic purposes which made it in the Soviet Union's best interests to focus opposition on it. Look into what happened to funding for the CND in Britain after 1991.
27. kelnos ◴[] No.26675570{4}[source]
Not sure in which direction you're joking, but heat dissipation can actually be a difficult problem in space, at least as close to the sun as Earth is, while outside Earth's atmosphere. For example: https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/a...
replies(1): >>26675621 #
28. bserge ◴[] No.26675621{5}[source]
That's exactly what I meant. Running a nuclear fission reactor (along with the high power beams to Earth) in vacuum might prove... problematic.
29. numpad0 ◴[] No.26675689{3}[source]
4. “Actually, giving up nuclear and politics on Earth and using said rockets to start building space habitat on L2, L4, L5, Moon surface and so on and do life and society and nuclear up there makes far more sense”
30. DennisP ◴[] No.26675708{4}[source]
Microwaves. Ground station has to be several square kilometers, but it's cheap and birds can fly through the beam without harm.

For economic reasons you pretty much have to use phased array transmitters, with a reference signal from the ground to make it coherent, so if the beam gets repointed it gets a lot more diffuse than that.

replies(1): >>26676008 #
31. DennisP ◴[] No.26675713{4}[source]
It's just too bad the planet keeps getting in the way.
replies(1): >>26676373 #
32. yellowapple ◴[] No.26675764{4}[source]
Yeah, but if people don't like it, what are they gonna do? Complain? That'll just draw the attention of the nuclear-powered space lasers :)
33. dls2016 ◴[] No.26675780[source]
> Even the metric "amount of radioactive material that ended up in the atmosphere per watt of energy."

My old man worked at TMI. We moved to a new house and one day he set off the radiation monitors going into work. Turns out we had a radon problem. This part of PA isn't exactly coal country, but close enough.

My bro was an auxiliary operator at TMI until a few months ago... shut down.

replies(1): >>26675831 #
34. effie ◴[] No.26675831[source]
Please define you acronyms. What is TMI and PA?
replies(1): >>26675925 #
35. DennisP ◴[] No.26675888{5}[source]
I hate to break it to you but most of our power stations are vulnerable to attack already. Certainly anything near the coast could be taken out by our major adversaries, even with conventional attack.

For a lot of plants, an anonymous cyberattack could probably do it. That'd be way worse than an attack to geostationary, which very few actors could manage, and probably nobody could pull off anonymously.

Space junk seems a more serious problem:

https://physicsworld.com/a/space-debris-threat-to-geosynchro...

I've seen various proposals to clean it up but it'd take some work.

36. panzagl ◴[] No.26675923{3}[source]
Or it could blow away the Van Allen belts and fry everything else in orbit, then drop plutonium somewhere.
37. complexworld ◴[] No.26675925{3}[source]
Three mile island, Pennsylvania
38. notriddle ◴[] No.26675969[source]
As long as you're sure it'll actually go into space and not just explode in the upper atmosphere.
39. zdragnar ◴[] No.26676008{5}[source]
I've seen how this plays out in SimCity. No thank you!
40. perardi ◴[] No.26676043{3}[source]
I think there’s a few orders of magnitude difference in the amount of radioactive material in an RTG in a probe bounds for Mars, and the total radioactive daughter particle output of a nuclear reactor.
41. yellowapple ◴[] No.26676371{6}[source]
And even that seems "easy" to circumvent by having redundant satellites, such that during the equinoxes (equinoxen?) only a fraction of said satellites are shadowed out at once. Alternately, a massive battery or capacitor bank could give the receiver enough buffer to hold out through an equinox-induced shadowing.
42. yellowapple ◴[] No.26676373{5}[source]
And sometimes the moon.
43. ldbooth ◴[] No.26676394[source]
Why not? Because the environmental cost of a failed launch is massive. It's radioactive roulette. Where it lands... Depends on which way the wind is blowing.
44. w0de0 ◴[] No.26676994[source]
You people are atrocious pedants.
45. Blackthorn ◴[] No.26678109[source]
Nuclear waste is a lot more than spent fuel. It's water, piping, tubes, maintenance tools...basically anything that went through or was part of a reactor.

The fuel itself is just a small part of it.

46. AngryData ◴[] No.26678845[source]
Too dangerous to send up in a rocket, especially considering we can reprocess and concentrate our nuclear waste into a absolutely tiny amount and bury it so far down that it will never reach the surface of the earth ever again. But of course without a large stable nuclear industry there is no demand/profit to be made from nuclear reprocessing when you can't get the materials to reprocess long term. We also have to deal with a bunch of old and outdated rules that give hard no's to certain reprocessing technology which was decided before we understood how most if it even worked.
47. redwall_hp ◴[] No.26683896[source]
I've always said that if coal's waste was conveniently in solid form instead of destroying the entire planet's ability to host mammalian life, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It's the pinnacle of "perfect is the enemy of good."

48. snuxoll ◴[] No.26684446{5}[source]
It’s not the worst idea, but we kind of need to get the whole orbital elevator but done first before the massive planet-spanning solar array.

Truth though: I think Gundam 00 showed a shockingly plausible future (sans mechas, most likely) for our planet if we do not get over our reliance on fossil fuels. Global conflict on a scale that makes WW2 look like child’s play is an inevitability if we cannot mitigate the environmental impact and eventual depletion of fossil fuels, and that includes support to help less developed nations move away from them.