←back to thread

160 points riordan | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
yawaramin ◴[] No.45954633[source]
It's nuclear fission. It's always been nuclear fission (well, at least since the '50s) and it will continue to be until we commercialize fusion reactors. Everything else is nice to have but it's like NIH syndrome.
replies(6): >>45954676 #>>45954881 #>>45956094 #>>45960416 #>>45961594 #>>45964607 #
toomuchtodo ◴[] No.45954676[source]
Geothermal is fission, and wind, solar, and batteries are fusion at a distance. In both cases, the failure scenarios are benign vs traditional fission generation. It's fine to keep striving for fusion humans control, but the problem (global electrification and transition to low carbon generation) is already solved with the tech we have today. It took the world 68 years to achieve the first 1TW of solar PV. The next 1TW took 2 years. Globally, ~760GW of solar PV is deployed per year (as of this comment), and will at some point hit ~1TW/year of deployment between now and 2030.

Geothermal is a great fit for dispatchable power to replace coal and fossil gas today (where able); batteries are almost cheaper than the cost to ship them, but geothermal would also help solve for seasonal deltas in demand vs supply ("diurnal storage").

https://reneweconomy.com.au/it-took-68-years-for-the-world-t...

https://ember-energy.org/data/2030-global-renewable-target-t...

I also love geothermal for district heating in latitudes that call for it; flooded legacy mines appear to be a potential solution for that use case.

Flooded UK coalmines could provide low-carbon cheap heat 'for generations' - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45860049 - November 2025

replies(4): >>45954879 #>>45958313 #>>45961395 #>>45961598 #
yawaramin ◴[] No.45954879[source]
Failure scenario in modern fission reactors is also benign. Reactors are designed to lock down to prevent any leaks.

We deploy solar PV capacity, this doesn't mean we actually get that much power from the deployments. Nuclear fission provides reliable, baseload power, and doesn't require huge battery arrays to compensate for the sun setting or winds calming.

replies(2): >>45954894 #>>45954905 #
Spooky23 ◴[] No.45954905[source]
Nuclear is great, but it does require wheelbarrows of cash, and we don’t have a solution for waste products.
replies(1): >>45955292 #
yawaramin ◴[] No.45955292[source]
Things are more expensive when we keep reinventing the wheel and trying to do new things instead of just reusing proven designs. Remember that solar power also used to cost wheelbarrows of cash back in the day. When you do something repeatedly, it becomes less expensive over time.

Nuclear is actually the leader in waste management. No other energy source has as complete a story. Eg what happens to solar panels when they EOL in 25 years? They go into landfills and leach toxic chemicals into the ground. These chemicals, like lead and cadmium are toxic forever. They have no 'half-life' in which their toxicity reduces.

replies(3): >>45955324 #>>45959720 #>>45961041 #
kragen ◴[] No.45961041[source]
Solar panels do not become useless in 25 years and need to be discarded, do not leach toxic chemicals, and do not contain cadmium. They do contain small amounts of lead, but leaching metallic lead out of landfills is very difficult and probably does not ever happen unintentionally.
replies(1): >>45967028 #
1. yawaramin ◴[] No.45967028[source]
'The most common reason that solar panels would be determined to be hazardous waste would be by meeting the characteristic of toxicity. Heavy metals like lead and cadmium may be leachable at such concentrations that waste panels would fail the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)'

https://www.epa.gov/hw/end-life-solar-panels-regulations-and...

'Today, roughly 90 percent of panels in the U.S. that have lost their efficiency due to age, or that are defective, end up in landfills because that option costs a fraction of recycling them.'

https://e360.yale.edu/features/solar-energy-panels-recycling

And for good measure: 'Recycling Lead for U.S. Car Batteries is Poisoning People'

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/11/18/world/africa/...

replies(1): >>45967131 #
2. kragen ◴[] No.45967131[source]
Yes, all of that is correct as far as it goes, and isn't in contradiction with what I said. You'll notice that the EPA page you linked https://www.epa.gov/hw/end-life-solar-panels-regulations-and... is mostly about an effort to reclassify solar panels as non-hazardous waste, which is specifically because of what I said. See for example https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147972... "About 8% of traditional PV samples exceed the 5 mg/L limit for Pb in TCLP tests. No modern PV samples exceed the 5 mg/L limit for Pb in TCLP tests."

But TCLP is already an extremely rigorous test, far worse than nearly all actual landfills, intentionally. It uses acetic acid, one of the very few acids that forms a soluble salt of lead, and none of the anions present in normal soils that normally immobilize lead, such as carbonate, phosphate, sulfate (!), and chloride.

And air pollution from pyrometallurgical recycling of the kilogram quantities of lead from car batteries is totally irrelevant to the safe containment of the milligram quantities of lead from (probably hydrometallurgical) recycling of solar panels. I am really struggling to imagine how your understanding of the issue could be so shallow that you thought it might be relevant.

Scrap lead is like US$1/kg. Nobody is going to recycle solar panels for that.