
Former Google VP Starts a Company Promising Clean and Safe Nuclear Energy - mmettler
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-03/former-google-vice-president-starts-a-company-promising-clean-and-safe-nuclear-energy
======
ohthehugemanate
I get so frustrated reading anything in the popular press about nuclear power.
Everyone commits the same fucking fallacy over and over again: measuring it
against an absolute idea instead of anything in the real world. Even here in
the HN comments, I see "if it can be made safe." In TFA, it's the explanation
that people are afraid of a three mile island or Chernobyl event, that his
killer feature is the impossibility of meltdowns.

Here in the real world, you have to measure options against other real world
options. The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale
are fossil fuels, primarily coal. Coal plants emit much more radiation than
nuclear plants - even old ones. There's lots of research about HOW MUCH more
radioactive coal power is, but we're talking about anywhere from 50-200% more.
Coal power is responsible for 800,000 deaths per year, WHEN IT'S WORKING
PROPERLY. That's the bar nuclear, and any other alternative baseload power
source, has to beat. It doesn't have to failure proof, it doesn't have to have
zero deaths. It just has to be significantly better than the alternatives.

Refusing to consider a power source unless it has zero deaths, zero radiation,
zero side effects for all time, is living in a fantasy world. It's the
paradigm promoted by the fossil fuel industry, and bought hook line and sinker
by the dumber end of the environmentalist movement. And it keeps us from ever
decreasing our power generation carbon footprint.

~~~
lukealization
> The other real world options we have for baseload power on this scale are
> fossil fuels, primarily coal.

Sure, but... will this be the same in 10 years? 20? 50? Within merely the past
3 years, the amount of battery energy storage has expanded by a few orders of
magnitude.

Because when you build a nuclear power plant, it takes a minimum of a decade
to go from on paper to operation, and the operational life, which pays off the
capex at the beginning, is hopefully, at least 50.

Nuclear power isn't agile. It has poor reactivity to future market changes. It
costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular. You can't commission
it in 100MW increments. A solar power plant requires a dozen handy men and a
couple of electrical engineers to maintain, a nuclear power plant requires a
few dozen nuclear engineers. Solar power doesn't have publicly socialized
decommissioning or waste storage costs.

I'm not trying to tell you nuclear doesn't have a future. What I am saying,
with the likes of Tesla Energy and the rise in solar + battery storage, is
that the energy grid is in for turbulent times in the next few decades. This
makes the economics of nuclear questionable - we don't know if it is going to
be economically viable in a few decades.

If I had $10b? I wouldn't touch the nuclear energy sector, personally.

~~~
paganel
> It costs billions to get up and running, and isn't modular.

One of my primary concerns with nuclear power is that it's very much dependent
on the actual order of things carrying on as usual, meaning stable
Governments, skilled technicians available etc. What would have happened if
Syria (a secular state until not that long ago) had had civilian nuclear
plants? Answer: they would most probably have fallen under the hands of either
ISIS or an Al-Qaida offshoot. We had the same issue after the Soviet Union
collapsed. Had the political uncertainty and power vacuum continued for much
longer into the '90s then nobody knows what could have happened to their civil
nuclear plants.

~~~
boomboomsubban
How is this more concerning than the raw amount of weapons that a lying around
everywhere? Giving them access to cheap power or a potential local weapon
doesn't seem like that pressing of an issue.

~~~
mikepurvis
The concern for me is that a nuclear power plant and its associated spent fuel
storage pools are a facility that requires an unwavering commitment to
maintenance and upkeep by highly specialized personnel—not just for as long as
you want power out of it, but for decades beyond.

Coal isn't like this. If you stop needing power, you stop feeding it coal, and
the machinery can sit there idle, doing no further harm.

I'm not a coal-booster, but I absolutely see the concern about regime change
and commitment to the safety of a nuclear installation. Between Trump and
Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations are capable of
taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?

~~~
Recurecur
"Between Trump and Brexit, how confident are we that even first world nations
are capable of taking on the long term responsibility for such a project?"

Extremely.

~~~
dukeluke
This post did nothing to advance the conversation. There's nothing thought
invoking, no statistics, and no argument. Please provide substance to your
posts in the future.

------
tambourine_man
“I believe that global warming is real and I believe we are just dumping tons
and tons of CO2 into our atmosphere that is heating up the globe,”

That kind of phrasing always bothers me. It's not a matter of belief, it's
science.

I'd wager a climate change doubter has no faith crisis when relying on
relativity to get an acurate GPS location for their Uber.

~~~
alphapapa
_It 's not a matter of belief, it's science._

Unless you have performed all of the science yourself, all the way "down to
the turtles," belief--faith--is involved. You have faith that the chain of
science is complete, that each person along the chain has done their part
correctly, and that nothing significant has been omitted.

It's especially a matter of belief if you are relying on computer models--nay,
the claims about computer models. You trust that these models were written by
people with integrity, who would not adjust them to achieve a desired outcome,
and who are competent enough to do it correctly. Or do you have access to the
source code, and a huge cluster to run it on? If you take these claims at face
value, that's faith--by definition.

~~~
TillE
1) We're releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

2) This CO2 does not magically disappear. We can measure it.

3) We know how CO2 interacts with infrared radiation. You can test it yourself
with an FTIR machine.

This is all _extremely_ simple. The computer models are just about getting
some precision about the broad cause and effect which is utterly obvious to
anyone who knows a little physics.

~~~
alphapapa
Regarding 1, how much CO2 does humanity emit compared with how much CO2 the
oceans emit?

~~~
bluesign
why does this matter? We are breaking the equilibrium.

~~~
alphapapa
_why does this matter?_

Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2. It's like
sneezing into the wind: it does not change the direction of the wind.

 _We are breaking the equilibrium._

What equilibrium? Equilibrium would imply a stable climate, but the climate
has been changing for millions of years, long before humans arrived. Are you
saying that the climate wouldn't change without humans?

~~~
yongjik
> Because anthropogenic CO2 is a tiny fraction of oceanogenic CO2.

Really?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink)

> Oceans are at present CO2 sinks, and represent the largest active carbon
> sink on Earth, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that
> humans put into the air.

Next time you want to equivocate, at least try something that can't be
falsified by ten seconds of Googling.

~~~
alphapapa
Global Natural and Anthropogenic Sources and Absorption of Greenhouse Gases in
the 1990s

    
    
        |                                  |         | Sources    |         |
        | Gas (million metric tons of gas) | Natural | Human-Made | Total   |
        |----------------------------------+---------+------------+---------|
        | Carbon Dioxide                   | 770,000 | 23,100     | 793,100 |
    

Source: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, _Climate Change 2001: The
Scientific Basis_ (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 39.

~~~
yongjik
FYI: When you quote source A, which quotes source B for raw data, it is
customary to reference A instead of B.

So I found your table in Table 3 of here:

[http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2...](http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~keller/courses/esm202/DOE_US_GHG2005.pdf)

And you seemed to have cut off two more columns:

    
    
        Absorption | Annual Increase in Gas in the Atmosphere
        -----------------------------------------------------
        781,400    | 11,700
    

I.e., nature is absorbing about half of anthropogenic CO2. I stand by my
previous remark.

~~~
alphapapa
FYI: When someone posts factual data, it is poor etiquette to downvote them.
Notice that I have not downvoted you even though I disagree with your
conclusions. I am not afraid to debate the matter, so I feel no need to try to
censor opponents.

I cut them off because they are irrelevant. My point remains: anthropogenic
CO2 emissions are approximately 3% of natural emissions. Natural variation in
natural emissions utterly dwarfs human emissions. Were the climate so
sensitive to +/\- 3%, we would not even exist today, because the climate would
have gone to an extreme and stayed there millions of years ago. This is a very
simple matter of scale and historical data that grossly exceeds human
timescales. To think that human CO2 emissions are breaking the planet is
ludicrous.

------
lifty
They are mentioning doing a fusion reactor but there are no details. Lower
down the page they mention that the startup will be actually using a fission-
fusion process, so they are not talking about classic self sustained fusion
that we haven't been able to maintain yet. They are using the fusion word a
bit lightly. Fusion is a big deal.

~~~
Grangar
I'm no nuclear physicist, but they might use the fission reaction as a primer
for the fusion?

~~~
alexfarran
This article in Popular Mechanics explains it a bit better
[http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo...](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a25922/apollo-
fusion-startup-googler-nuclear-power/)

------
Elrac
This may or may not be a Good Thing - I'm not qualified to make that call. But
this article isn't doing the effort any favors. Labelling the technology
_exclusively_ as "fusion" comes dangerously close to what's today called "fake
news."

I understand from other peoples' comments that the project aims to
commercialize some kind of fission-fusion hybrid technology where fission
reactions kick-start fusion reactions. That's (potentially) cool, but I'd have
expected the article to tell me this.

~~~
0xfeba
Fake news is "Hillary buries dead FBI agent under pizza restaurant."

Misleading/sensationalized news articles are just normal "news", as judged by
the past 200 years.

------
pooper
I'd imagine fusion is a better alternative to fission which in turn is a
better alternative to coal.

I still feel sad for the morons who think that the end of the "war on coal"
will bring any semblance of Glory back to coal towns. When all is said and
done they still need help.

------
tehlike
mike cassidy is a brilliant man.

he is strong promoter of speed when developing business:
[https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-
speed...](https://www.slideshare.net/dmc500hats/best-strategy-is-speed-
startup2startup-may-2008?src=embed)

I am looking forward to what he achieves with his new journey.

~~~
andygates
Speed and nuclear power plants don't typically go together: there's a lot of
detail, and a lot of dilgence to be done, because the consequences are so
awful if it screws up. NuScale just got their modular concept into the
approval program, estimated conclusion of that, 2020.

Don't speedy startup types typically get frustrated when faced with the real
world?

~~~
tehlike
Hah, that's what i kind of was thinking - i think the final product won't
necessarily be a nuclear plant. maybe it will, though, who knows?

------
curtis
The Wikipedia article "Nuclear fusion–fission hybrid" [1] provides some good
background. I'm kind of surprised it's taken this long for someone to start
talking about a commercial implementation rather than merely researching the
idea.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion%E2%80%93fission_hybrid)

------
a_imho
I don't know much about the current nuclear reactors, but reading the
wikipedia article about Integral fast reactors[0] paints them in a very
positive light. Maybe there are better designs already, but why don't we have
more of these?

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor)

~~~
f_allwein
That' a completely different thing, as it is based on nuclear fission
('normal' nuclear power), whereas the technology metnioned here is nuclear
fusion ('what happens in the sun'). According to the German Wikipedia,
Integral fast reactors (or breeders) have specific risks, e.g. they use a
large amount of plutonium:
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegen...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutreaktor#Gefahren_und_Gegenma.C3.9Fnahmen)

This startup is about nuclear fusion, which may be able to deliver 'clean,
safe, limitless energy" (
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/after-60-years-
is-nuclear-fusion-finally-poised-to-deliver) ). It has been researched for
ages, but it was unclear whether it can deliver. If that works eventually, it
would be a big thing.

~~~
a_imho
Well, the article says hybrid fusion/fission but maybe it is still a big leap
forward.

Point is, according to my reading the IFR promised clean energy which is _much
safer_ than light water reactors in 1994 not X years into the future.

------
killjoywashere
I wonder if this is based on the Bussard polywell design. The Navy was
soliciting for bids on development of that as recently as 2008 (1), and
Bussard presented at Google at in 2006 (2). A decade seems about right to get
from small prototype that blew up to stable prototype. Indeed, other people
think this too (3).

1)
[https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11...](https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8e59e11465cc26d4079ac9201008f960)

2)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk6z1vP4Eo8)

3) [http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-
gets-i...](http://www.thepolywellblog.com/2017/04/silicon-valley-gets-in-
fusion-game.html)

------
c517402
In any reactor that contains U238, present day reactors and the hybrid
reactors from the article, a neutron is absorbed to form U239. This quickly
beta decays into Np239 (23.5 minute half-life). This then beta decays into
Pu239 (2.3 day half-life). So, anyplace there is U238 and a bunch of neutrons,
you are producing the best material known for the fission explosion that
initiates a fusion explosion. At the end of the life cycle of a normal Uranium
fuel pellet most of the energy is actually coming from Plutonium. Why do you
think there was a push to have Iran's Uranium enriched outside the country? So
it could be salted to make the Pu239 unusable with Pu240.

I just think the production of Pu239 should enter the rational discussion of
nuclear energy.

EDIT: fixed grammar

~~~
DennisP
Fast fission reactors don't leave much plutonium behind, because they fission
it much more efficiently. Hybrid reactors would be even better, because fusion
neutrons have such high energy that they fission U238 directly.

~~~
c517402
Good to know

------
tronje
Nobody has mentioned nuclear waste disposal as far as I can tell. Everybody is
basically saying "yeah, as long as we avoid explosions, nuclear is great", but
has disposal been solved? Or is it not as big of a problem as I'm thinking?

~~~
adrianN
It's not as big of a problem as you're thinking. "Waste" can be used in
breeder reactors to generate energy. This burns up >90% of the material. The
remainder decays relatively quickly, not over geological time scales. Volume
wise it's really not much. The entire nuclear industry so far has produced
less than a 100kT of waste, a cube with a side length of about 30 meters. This
is before putting the stuff in a breeder reactor.

~~~
Ericson2314
> a cube with a side length of about 30 meters.

This is what annoys me so much. We fuck over a cubic mile and never have to
worry about energy for like a million years.

[ ((1 mile)^3) / ((30 meters)^3) = 154 377.105 according to google ]

------
itchyjunk
I wish some of these companies would go into fusion/fission for the research
of it. Sure, going for a commercially viable model gives you more investment,
but all these silicon valley rich guys trying to save the world should also
invest on some research.

I get it, you can't start a fusion company without R&D so there will be some
anyways, but I feel like the research angle needs some love too. I am pretty
sure we haven't understood everything there is to understand, and it won't
hurt.

Tangential thought, CERN has crazy amount of data. Do you think Machine
Learning has any role in nuclear/particle physics?

~~~
tinco
As rich as they are, not many have the funds to build a nuclear reactor. Even
one's that have been fully designed and based on traditional design still cost
billions to build.

Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but
there definitely are a lot of bears on the road.

~~~
pm90
> Of course, they also said that about rockets and look where SpaceX is, but
> there definitely are a lot of bears on the road.

Ehhhhhh....I hate to bring this up repeatedly but SpaceX _would not exist
without NASA_. Which brings us to the role of government in research: its not
necessarily to own everything, but it is provide incentives in one way or the
other. To create a Market where none existed previously.

------
hossbeast
90% of this thread seems to be taking about current nuclear tech, I.e.
fission.

The article is about new companies which are trying to develop nuclear fusion
tech. Doesn't that completely change the cost benefit analysis?

------
briandear
I hope he succeeds! This is far better than having the landscape littered with
bird killing windmills and solar farms that incenerate birds.

Nuclear is the best source of large scale energy IF safety were guaranteed.
The safety of nuclear energy seems like a solvable engineering problem -- a
difficult problem certainly, but then again so was manned space flight.

I am not saying solar and wind are worse than fossil fuels -- but I am saying
that nuclear could be the future. Combining nuclear generation with advanced
batteries seems to be an ideal energy future.

~~~
throwaway6556
> the landscape littered with bird killing windmills and solar farms that
> incenerate birds.

Are you for real?

~~~
iraklism
I'm hoping there is an invisible /s there.

~~~
pvaldes
It seems that some solar energy mills act as 'furnaces' that reflect massive
amounts of heat and can burn birds and anything flying over them, yes.

[http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-
dea...](http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-solar-bird-
deaths-20160831-snap-story.html)

------
fuzzfactor
Westinghouse always promised clean & safe nuclear energy themselves.

Maybe not enough funds were invested, too bad their runway was so short.

They almost delivered.

------
jlebrech
why not invest in LFTR?
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY)

~~~
lukealization
Because we want an energy source that can be operational tomorrow, not one
that will be operational 20 years from now.

~~~
camillomiller
Any nuclear effort started now would be realistically operative in 10 years
(best case scenario)

That's not really a good reason not to invest in something potentialy world-
changing

~~~
pm90
Probably, but if you invest in not just one, but many, that might
decrease/keep decreasing.

