Hacker News Reader

Comment by thathndude | Hacker News Reader

I’m all for wind. But concerns like running at 1% capacity due to no wind for a month bring me back to nuclear time and time again.

Like Elon says, we have this amazing thermonuclear reactor (the sun) that we can harness, among other resources. But we also have the ability to make thermonuclear reactors safely on the planet and harness 100x+ more of the energy from the reaction. Seems like a no brainer.

Just to provide a couple cites that OP didn’t:

A data center can use 100+ MW easily. https://energyinnovation.org/2020/03/17/how-much-energy-do-d... Nuclear Plants generate 500 MW- 1TW.

View on HN

> But we also have the ability to make thermonuclear reactors safely on the plane

We most certainly do not have the ability to make fusion reactors, at least not yet. Nuclear reactors on the other hand...

I'd take a hundred Chernobyls over the end of modern society.

Exactly. Since we've used a lot of the oil dinosaurs graciously gave us, there's not gonna be another chance at modern civilization if we fuck this up. At least for us humans.

I've heard that we've basically dug up all the easily accessible ores needed to jump-start a civilization, and all that's left now is something you need high-tech to access.

So, there may not be another chance at an advanced civilization on this planet at all.

There's geological timescales of course. But then, I don't think that helps given that we've dug everything up to the surface to oxidize.

Oil doesn't actually come from dinosaurs, but you're right about the difficulty of bootstrapping civilization without easily accessible fossil fuels. We'd best not forget our current capabilities.

I really wish hydro/wind/solar were enough to power our modern society, and I hope it gets there eventually, but the reality is that it isn't enough to meet our current (and expanding) demands.

The short term answer nobody seems to want to acknowledge is nuclear, and frankly I'm getting pretty damn tired of society not seeing it.

We need to start building out nuclear NOW so that we (and future generations) have time to figure out renewables and improved nuclear.

To twist the knife further some maniacs are now looking at hydro power and decrying it as too dangerous for wildlife. It popped in my YouTube recommend.

Like motherfucker (to the video maker). You think the salmon are going to exist if the acidity of ocean rises?

It's akin to burning in a house, fireman arrives with a hose and then I ask him, is the water iron free or not. I think I should have bigger concerns rn.

At this point, I am wondering if some of these videos are sponsored by oil associates.

I doubt these are sponsored. But some people would advocate less energy usage in general. Essentially saying we are poisoning and destroying the planet with energy usage.

I doubt people who advocate this see an acceptable way forward to reach what they want. I personally think there isn't such a way forward. But I can see arguing for a desired endstate without knowing exactly how to get there.

How is nuclear a short term answer?

It takes 20 years to build a nuclear plant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant).

I think the idea is that if we instead build alternatives we will not want those plants in 20 years.

By keeping currently running nuclear plants running.

Instead of replacing them withmore CO2 emitters.

Such as Germany and other countries taking all nuclear off line.

And for what reason? Historically, the concern has been what to do with the waste. But now, because we are investing in nuclear, we are finding that we can actually re-process the waste.

And, at the worst, once rocket launch has become trivial, we can always send the waste off into the void (or sun).

Its easier to shoot stuff out of the solar system than to shoot it into the sun.

> Historically, the concern has been what to do with the waste. But now, because we are investing in nuclear, we are finding that we can actually re-process the waste.

Reprocessing of nuclear waste is by no means a "new" finding. It's been known since nuclear power reactors have been a thing, but it is politically untenable. No country with nuclear capabilities is comfortable with other countries reprocessing spent fuel, as it is a portion of the process used to create material for nuclear weapons.

As much as I want to love nuclear as an amazing source of energy, the cost and issues that arise with nuclear waste are massive and frequently discounted by people encouraging additional nuclear power reactors.

I'm not dismissing the issues with the waste. Co2 however is a much larger issue in the short term.

Yeah. That’s all I’m trying to say. You said it far better than me.

Respectfully disagree. We can and have made economically impractical thermonuclear reactors. But they fail largely because we’ve sheepishly avoided advancing the technology for 70+ years.

I’m just beating the nuclear drum in general. We need to be investing like crazy here.

We can make fusion reactors here on earth. Efficiency remains the issue. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/us-fusion-reaction-generates...

I think you are confusing thermonuclear with fission. Thermonuclear means fusion. The first case you mention, the sun, is indeed thermonuclear.

However reactors are on earth not thermonuclear, they are regular fission. Fusion may be on the near or far horizon, depending on who you ask, but we certainly don’t have that ability yet.

My statement was less confused and more optimistic. We most definitely have the ability to make thermonuclear reactors on earth. The issue is making them work effectively for power generation.

See, for example, https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/us-fusion-reaction-generates...

I firmly believe we would have this cracked by now if we hadn’t foolishly wimped out on nuclear when there were some growing pains. Instead of investing we have countries running from nuclear. That’s a huge blunder in my opinion.

> I think you are confusing thermonuclear with fission. Thermonuclear means fusion.

Huh, TIL -- I'd always thought it meant both. Like, fission also generates heat from activity of the atomic nucleus, so it's also "thermo-nuclear" in that sense.

(So, if anyone knows: Where does the term come from -- is it from the immense heat needed for fusion ignition?)

wind alone can't.

But wind, solar, inter-continental connections, hydro, storage, and tidal probably can.

Now whether we put nuclear in there or not becomes a matter of cost rather than necessity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com