Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms • Hacker News Board

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#191

Post by bryanlarsen » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 4:35 PM UTC

DrThunder wrote: post #189

bryanlarsen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LiFePO4 batteries don't use nickel either.

I see that now. Yes, they seem to be a better option than other batteries. However, you're still mining stuff from the earth and the idea that disposing of current vehicles (or other fossil fuel powered things) is better for the environment is just silly. You also didn't address the recyclable part. From what I can see LiFePO4 batteries are supposedly easier to recycle but I'm going to take that with a grain of salt.…

> Almost all the things they've told us are being recycled just get dumped in the ocean in China.

Post-consumer recycling is quite poor, but post-industrial recycling is much better because they don't have to sort out random junk. Many battery plants already recycle the batteries that fail validation.

Cars are recycled quite thoroughly. In the US: 99% of lead acid batteries are recycled. 95% of vehicles are recycled, and of those 95%, 80% of the materials in the vehicle are recycled. (mostly steel).

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#192

Post by alexfromapex » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 4:44 PM UTC

kennend3 wrote: post #143

alexfromapex wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may not be familiar with Socratic questioning. Your response also comes off as rude. The question was meant as a prompt for dialogue not because I didn’t already research this topic.

your post looks like it has been downvoted, so i guess no one was familiar with "Socratic questioning" and your post comes across as "anti-nuclear" without doing any research. as a leanring oppertunity, this is what Socratic questioning looks like: What is an example of Socratic questioning? What do you mean when you say X? Could you explain that point further? Can you provide an example? Is there a different point o…

Thanks for the “leanring oppertunity” … yeesh. I feel so much smarter now. Making vague generalizations like “no one is familiar” because one person saw my comment and downvoted is a fallacy my friend.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#193

Post by Manuel_D » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 5:46 PM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #160

Manuel_D wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, the cost of reactors built when there was large scale serial production was considerably cheaper than they are now: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... The "negative learning curve" both in France and in the USA happened as the pace of reactor construction slowed. The "negative learning curve" you're referring to is actually the loss of the economies of scale.

We had economies of scale in the 50s when it was the cheapest? Or was it because we had this attitude towards nuclear engineering? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident

It was in the 1960s and early 70s that it was cheapest. And the Demon Core incident was part of the nuclear weapons program, not nuclear electric power - this is a common pattern in misleading anti-nuclear rhetoric.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#194

Post by infamia » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #9

I feel like the fact that this plant coming online will raise the rates for Georgia electricity is basically the death-knell of nuclear power, at least in it's current form of large central power plants[1]. By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better." They don't run all the time, but they're cheap and relatively simple, if you screw up a unit then you get no power from that one unit, but the nat…

> By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better." > I know the HN crowd loves big engineering, and that in theory all these problems could be solved with enough investment and practice building plants etc., but I think in the messy world of reality micro generation is going to swamp everything else in the very long run.

Trying to get solar and wind to reliably provide baseload will likely be a big engineering project too (assuming it can be done). I also like the idea of smaller power generation sites. I think it would be really healthy if we had a mix of small nuclear, gas, and renewables, so we're not reliant on one thing. We need a bit more overlapping capacity in our grids.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#195

Post by coldpie » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 6:32 PM UTC

ElfinTrousers wrote: post #187

corbulo wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you work at the press office of the construction company? 20B is absolutely nothing? Holy crap

I think their point was not so much that 20B is nothing, but that somebody cough cough no names cough paid way too much for a used social media network.

No. My point is that $20B is nothing compared to the cost of climate change[1].

[1] https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/about-deloitte/article...

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#196

Post by jeffbee » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 7:33 PM UTC

coryrc wrote: post #152

jeffbee wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

52 entire dwellings on 250 acres? Thanks but no. You would literally need to pave America to make this happen. 50 dwellings on one acre is at the low end of the urban density scale.

First, that's literally not even close to true about paving. But I meant retrofit all existing housing stock with solar collectors and heat storage, neither of which require much room.

It is though. This is a net 5 acres per dwelling, there are only ~300 million arable acres in the USA and there are 200 million households.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#197

Post by coryrc » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 12:04 AM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #196

coryrc wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, that's literally not even close to true about paving. But I meant retrofit all existing housing stock with solar collectors and heat storage, neither of which require much room.

It is though. This is a net 5 acres per dwelling, there are only ~300 million arable acres in the USA and there are 200 million households.

This is a tangent. Only the garage roofs have solar thermal collectors on them. Every existing suburban area in the USA regardless of density has enough building roof volume to fully supply a Drake Landing-type thermal system and eliminate heating inputs. Drake Landing shows it will work even in the exurbs. I would guess it could provide enough heating for low-rise apartments and row houses as they have reduced heat loss compared to SFH to make up for the lower available roof area. They cover the deep bore thermal system with dirt and make it a park. I would expect you could put a building over it too. It literally doesn't need to take up any additional land area, so the fact that Drake Landing is an exurb does not mean the system would only work there.

What I haven't read enough about is whether it's limited to a certain geology. I assume it wouldn't work in Florida, but it's not needed there.

Back to your tangent, Drake Landing isn't a giant paved area: the vast majority of the area is not paved or building. I also don't know why you're counting only arable acres as they're houses not farms. Since the system only needs a large-garage-roof-sized thermal collector and the average house roof is larger than that (and if the roof is even smaller so is the thermal load) it's completely irrelevant.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#198

Post by adev_ » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 2:36 PM UTC

adev_ wrote: post #159

jfengel wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas peaker plants solve the problem, with no additional costs. We don't have to get carbon production to zero. If we run the gas plants even as much as 10% of the time for no-sun-no-wind-flat-batteries conditions, you've still cut 90% of carbon emissions. At that point it would be much cheaper to look elsewhere for more improvements. There's no need to invent a reason for massive new energy infrastructure. The gas pl…

> Gas peaker plants solve the problem, with no additional costs. > We don't have to get carbon production to zero. If we run the gas plants even as much as 10% of the time for no-sun-no-wind-flat-batteries conditions, you've still cut 90% of carbon emissions. And now instead of paying for the expense nuclear power plant, you have to pay: - Pay for 3x the raw capacity of the plant in solar and wind because they never…

Ah downvoted. In front of mathematical evidence, the anti-nuclear run away and downvote ? Or you are working for the gas industry maybe ?

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#199

Post by DrThunder » Thu, Mar 09, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

7952 wrote: post #190

DrThunder wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're strawmanning again. The issue here is everyone knows green energy can't provide enough energy on it's own and yet governments and sjw's every seem to think it's a good idea to pull the rug out of the average middle class person and force them onto green power by taxation, social pressure etc.

And your "everyone knows" is an "appeal to the people" falacy. The grid operator in the UK certainly thinks it is possible to have a 100% renewable grid. Although I guess that the political situation in the USA precludes a rational policy. Every argument turns into a culture war sooner or later. The opposition is criticised for moral weakness (child slave battery) whilst your own side are blameless victims.

WOW you're going to use the UK as an example for renewable energy right now??? Have you been paying attention at all?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/oct/05/uk-prepares...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uk-wind-solar-builde...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/01/uk-effor...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/21/energy-cris...

https://e360.yale.edu/features/africa-europe-solar-wind-powe...

I'm actually surprised you had the gall to even make this comment.

This ISN'T a political side argument. It's a reality argument and it's time for you to wake up. I'm choosing the side that keeps my family I alive during the winter. When/If renewables do that I'll embrace them, right now they aren't cutting it.

The hilarity here is you've chosen some cult type rational to convince yourself "renewables" are your Jesus and you'll never stop praying to your renewable "God" even when it strikes you down over and over again. Stop drinking the koolaid bud.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#200

Post by flangola7 » Fri, Mar 10, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

slackfan wrote: post #188

flangola7 wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmmm I don't see what famine has to do with nuclear power.

The famine killed more people than nuclear power ever did, yet green activists are all for killing off nuclear power and not socialism.

I still don't see anyone else talking about "green activists" or famines. Your comment reads like a non sequitur.