Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Meanwhile, "The energy in nuclear waste could power the U.S. for 100 years, but the technology was never commercialized":

> There is enough energy in the nuclear waste in the United States to power the entire country for 100 years, and doing so could help solve the thorny and politically fraught problem of managing spent nuclear waste.

> That’s according to Jess C. Gehin, an associate laboratory director at Idaho National Laboratory, one of the government’s premier energy research labs.

* https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power...

View on HN

Yes. Fast breeders are not new. But they are even more difficult than plain nuclear reactors. France built some, but gave up on the technology.

Yeah. The UK tried too, with a prototype reactor at Dounreay. We had all kinds of operational problems and gave up when it became apparent that the falling level of new nuclear installations meant that we weren't going to be short of uranium as a primary fuel. The economics, without a fuel shortage, were awful.

You could also reprocess the fuel, and use normal reactors.

At even greater expense. But even at best they are not competitive.

Not competitive with mining fuel, yes. But if people are worries about waste, it represents more than an order of magnitude reduction in produced waste.

We have an overwhelmingly better way to reduce the amount of waste produced: not make it.

Cheaper, too.

Nuclear remains the only carbon-free dispatchable source of energy, besides geographically limited options like hydroelectricity and geothermal power. Any realistic plan to decarbonize energy grids has large proportions of nuclear power. The ones that don't assume some some form of extremely efficient form of storage will come along and make storage costs negligible.

The real plans recognize numerous cheap forms of storage are already well known, and will be built out after there is something to charge them from other than burning carbon.

Efficiency has become much less important than capital cost because solar and wind have become so cheap.

Curiously, despite being "already well known" and "numerous" you neglect to actually mention any such storage system. Because then you'd actually have to defend the claims of such miraculously cheap storage. We've been down this road plenty of times before: we have no known way of storing energy at the required scales, your plan essentially amounts to "hope compressed air, hydrogen, or some other exotic form of storage becomes nearly-free".

>But it was never economical enough to develop at scale.

Come on, please read things before citing them...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com