←back to thread

160 points riordan | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hodgehog11 ◴[] No.45954362[source]
I've always been curious why a cost-effective widespread implementation of geothermal energy has never been considered a holy grail of energy production, at least not in the public debate. Much of the discussion is so focussed on nuclear fusion, which seems so much harder and less likely to be reliable.
replies(11): >>45954476 #>>45954489 #>>45954493 #>>45954510 #>>45954566 #>>45954710 #>>45954804 #>>45955903 #>>45956518 #>>45957024 #>>45959700 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45954493[source]
Drilling is one of those things which used to be extremely expensive but has very gradually come down in price. Thanks, ironically, to the oil industry. It's unsexy because there's no "silver bullet" waiting in the wings.

It's also quite hard to find suitably hot rocks suitably close to the surface.

Focusing on fusion .. I think that's a legacy of 60s SF, when the fission revolution was still promising "energy too cheap to meter".

replies(4): >>45954670 #>>45954863 #>>45955663 #>>45957872 #
buu700 ◴[] No.45955663[source]
To be fair, that promise of fission made sense from a purely scientific and mathematical perspective, before running into the practical realities of how its externalities interact with real-world politics. Fission is expensive because in practice it turns out we care quite a lot about proper waste management, non-proliferation, and meltdown prevention.

In a world where anyone could just YOLO any reactor into production with minimal red tape, consequences be damned, fission energy would actually be extremely cheap. Hence the optimism around fusion. The promise of fusion is an actualization of last century's idealistic conception of fission. It can be a silver bullet for all intents and purposes, at least once it's established with a mature supply chain.

replies(1): >>45957034 #
psunavy03 ◴[] No.45957034[source]
I fully understand that waste management of fission reactors is a Very Big Deal. But I still stand behind the argument that opposing nuclear power in the 70s and onward is possibly the biggest own goal the environmental movement has ever achieved.

At worst, nuclear waste contaminates a discrete section of the Earth. Climate change affects literally everywhere. The correct answer would have been to aggressively roll out fission power 40-50 years ago and then pursue renewables. You can argue that other solutions would make fission power obsolete, but we would have been in a much better spot if it'd at least been a stepping stone off fossil fuels. Instead, we have 40-50 years of shrieking and FUD from environmentalists over an issue that can be kept under control with proper regulation. The US Navy has operated reactors for over 60 years without incident, proving it can be done with proper oversight.

TL;DR nuclear has issues, but I'd take it over coal every day and twice on Sundays, at least until something better can scale.

replies(4): >>45957384 #>>45957892 #>>45959396 #>>45962622 #
pjc50 ◴[] No.45959396[source]
Back then, it affected everyone in two ways, which were the things Greenpeace campaigned against: nuclear weapons, especially overland testing, and dumping waste at sea.

Chernobyl took out Welsh farming for years, and in a few places decades, because it spread a thin layer of bioaccumulative poison over the whole of Europe.

replies(1): >>45959566 #
1. psunavy03 ◴[] No.45959566{3}[source]
Neither of these have anything to do with running a well-regulated nuclear power program. Chernobyl happened because of the apathy and incompetence endemic to any Marxist-Leninist system, not because a modern democratic state is incapable of regulating the nuclear power industry.

Know what else spreads a thin layer of poison over the whole of the world? Coal power.

replies(1): >>45962904 #
2. ben_w ◴[] No.45962904[source]
While I agree about the coal thing:

Democracy just as lazy and apathetic is whatever the USSR counts as; the point of capitalism (which is different to democracy) redirect the laziness into something more productive — this works to an extent, but depends on competition which is greatly reduced in the case of nuclear reactors.

That it's a different axis than democracy-communism is also why the not-at-all-democratic military reactors around the world seem to be doing fine.