TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Back to the Future – Advanced Nuclear Energy

67 点作者 markmassie超过 10 年前

7 条评论

melling超过 10 年前
China is producing 60 new nuclear plants while the U.S. is making 5. Everything in China is happening much faster and on a larger scale. We should recognize this fact and more actively work with them to further develop nuclear energy.<p>A couple other examples of China&#x27;s ability:<p>* This week China opened 32 new high-speed rail stations: <a href="http://rt.com/business/212719-china-opens-high-speed-train/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;rt.com&#x2F;business&#x2F;212719-china-opens-high-speed-train&#x2F;</a><p>Their current 10,000 miles of track probably cost them only 3x-5x what the high-speed train in California will cost when it&#x27;s done.<p>* A decade ago, they built a 20 mile maglev train for $1.2 billion: <a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Maglev_Train" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Shanghai_Maglev_Train</a><p>* More airports:<p>&quot;According to the Chinese government’s 12th five-year plan, the total number of airports is set to expand from 175 in 2010 to 230 in 2015.&quot;<p><a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/fedb9308-8501-11e3-8968-00144feab7de.html#axzz3LhN82SLn" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ft.com&#x2F;intl&#x2F;cms&#x2F;s&#x2F;2&#x2F;fedb9308-8501-11e3-8968-00144...</a><p>---<p>China simply has the ability to move much faster and cheaper than the U.S.
评论 #8740929 未加载
评论 #8741123 未加载
评论 #8742344 未加载
评论 #8740988 未加载
评论 #8740801 未加载
phasetransition超过 10 年前
Regardless of how much you hate (or love) nuclear power, it is important to remember that radioactive decay is a stochastic process that doesn&#x27;t give a crap about politics, policy, or nation states. As such, any prudent forward looking nuclear path needs to include methodology to transmute the unfortunate nuclide spectrum left over from light water reactors (LWR) into shorter lived species that don&#x27;t need storage measured in epochs. New nuclear reactor technology with different neutron spectrums is likely the most prudent approach to effect this transmutation at scale.<p>The &quot;green movement&quot; anti-nuclear camp cannot seem to see the scientific need to continue with nuclear fission at least long enough to clean up most of the mess we&#x27;ve already created. A coherent &quot;full stop&quot; nuclear policy should still include reprocessing and transmutation of the existing waste stockpile. Stopping short of this makes the extant waste problem catastrophically worse.<p>---<p>I took radiochemistry in graduate school several years before the the origin story in the Brooking&#x27;s article, and the appeal of molten salt reactors was well known then, albeit with more conventional fuel loads.<p>The engineer in me gravitates towards the elegance of the proposed &quot;Gen IV+&quot; nuclear technologies, but the convoluted realities of nuclear power in today&#x27;s form makes it hard for me to justify continuing the current path towards bigger and bigger light water reactors.<p>My personal opinion is that we need to diverge from, or stop, the building of ever larger LWR. Because these reactors operate at elevated pressure, and have multi-megawatt levels of decay heat, accidents are always a specter.<p>Research energy must then be diverted into technologies that will consume most of the long lived TRU waste. By the time the existing waste is transmuted, the performance of the transmuting reactor systems will be established enough that retaining or shuttering of those systems should be more clear. There will also be a long enough stretch of time in parallel to ascertain the asymptotic maturity state of the various renewable energy technologies.
评论 #8741781 未加载
crdoconnor超过 10 年前
&gt;Compare that to the amount of electricity produced by the other main non-emitting sources of power, the so-called “renewables”—hydroelectric (6.8 percent), wind (4.2 percent) and solar (about one quarter of a percent). Not only are nuclear plants the most important of the non-emitting sources, but they provide baseload—“always there”—power, while most renewables can produce electricity only intermittently, when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining.<p>He neglected to mention that renewables are cheaper:<p><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/13/wind-power-is-cheapest-energy-unpublished-eu-analysis-finds" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;environment&#x2F;2014&#x2F;oct&#x2F;13&#x2F;wind-powe...</a><p>Of course, since the piece seems designed to promote nuclear subsidies of some kind, this isn&#x27;t entirely surprising.
评论 #8741521 未加载
评论 #8743464 未加载
MrBuddyCasino超过 10 年前
The usual TerraPower and Transatomic stuff. An interesting aspect is that the molten salt reactor can chew up large parts of the light water nuclear waste. So even if we decide that nuclear power is not the way forward, and even if we have a working fusion reactor - is there a case to be made for reducing nuclear waste by processing it in such a reactor?
评论 #8741129 未加载
olau超过 10 年前
The nuclear dream. Is it coming back - or not?<p>There was an interesting article some time ago: <a href="http://thebulletin.org/2013/march/how-close-us-nuclear-industry-do-nothing" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thebulletin.org&#x2F;2013&#x2F;march&#x2F;how-close-us-nuclear-indus...</a><p>Unfortunately it is now paywalled.<p>I personally doubt a come back - costs have gone up while the competition (wind, solar) is getting cheaper. When you factor in the time and associated costs to develop new nuclear designs and field test them, it doesn&#x27;t seem to me that it can work out.
评论 #8741208 未加载
评论 #8741833 未加载
cjslep超过 10 年前
&gt; More than 1,164 nuclear engineering degrees were awarded in 2013—a 160 percent increase over the number granted a decade ago.<p>&gt; So what, after a 30-year drought, is drawing smart young people back to the nuclear industry? The answer is climate change.<p>I am one of those 1,164 and graduated in a class of ~100 for a Bachelor&#x27;s Degree. (About a third of my classmates upon graduation went straight to Navy Power School in Charleston, SC or other Navy schools -- so climate change probably was not their motivator)<p>I would argue that the <i>climate change</i> implied by the article is the incorrect one that motivated a lot of people in our class. There were far more dicussions about the (USA) <i>political</i> climate than the <i>weather</i> climate and how to properly dispel myths without misinforming people.<p>EDIT: Formatting<p>EDIT2: Reading other comments, it does seem like a consistent theme within the nuclear industry is to properly educate the public -- being honest about the physics and challenges without getting too technical, but with enough detail to understand the significance and consequences of the problems.
panzi超过 10 年前
Meanwhile barrels of nuclear waste that are supposed to last for thousands of years are rusting, leaking or are all together missing. We really need that fusion thing to get going. All the waste from fission power is a disaster waiting to happen.
评论 #8740950 未加载
评论 #8741651 未加载