Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 361 posts

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#291

Post by preisschild »

chroma wrote: post #149
pfdietz wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NRC was established just about when the first nuclear buildout collapsed under the weight of its own foolishness. Massive cost overruns did nuclear no favors whatsoever, clearly inadequate safety (especially on those first generation BWRs; hello Fukushima), and (most devastatingly) the deregulation of the US electricity grid, with PURPA (in 1978) and later steps opening grids to non-utility providers. Nuclear pro…

Fukushima shows that even early nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. You take an aging plant based on an outdated design, construct it in an unsafe location, then hit it with the fifth-largest earthquake ever recorded, then hit it with a 20 foot high tsunami, and then it explodes ... and what were the casualties? One worker and maybe 50 early deaths due to cancers. A typical coal power plant kills more people every…

> maybe 50 early deaths due to cancers

No long term deaths have been recorded yet.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#292

Post by lost_tourist »

chroma wrote: post #50

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established in 1975. Since then, no plant license that was initially submitted to the NRC has started operations. Plant Vogtle was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor to the NRC). Their license was grandfathered in. Building this reactor required a new reactor license (not plant license). Shortly after the reactor design was approved and construction started…

There is no doubt that NRC needs to be completely revamped. Maybe we can use a more productive model like the French have.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#293

Post by preisschild »

fluxem wrote: post #94
chroma wrote: post #50

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was established in 1975. Since then, no plant license that was initially submitted to the NRC has started operations. Plant Vogtle was approved by the Atomic Energy Commission (the predecessor to the NRC). Their license was grandfathered in. Building this reactor required a new reactor license (not plant license). Shortly after the reactor design was approved and construction started…

It’s brings a lot confidence that a nuclear power was built through a legal loophole.

I mean it makes sense, if the Atomic Energy Commission already licensed the plant site, why shouldnt they be able to reuse it?

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#294

Post by lost_tourist »

d_sem wrote: post #155
chroma wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fukushima shows that even early nuclear reactors are incredibly safe. You take an aging plant based on an outdated design, construct it in an unsafe location, then hit it with the fifth-largest earthquake ever recorded, then hit it with a 20 foot high tsunami, and then it explodes ... and what were the casualties? One worker and maybe 50 early deaths due to cancers. A typical coal power plant kills more people every…

People often fail to compare the opportunity cost of alternative methods to nuclear power. At that time the alternative to nuclear was coal power plants. Radioactive carbon isotopes have harmed many times more people than Nuclear.

How many people have died in coal mines, had black lung, died from coal pollution etc. It's really no comparison. People are just flat out afraid radioactivity from nuclear because of movies and bad information campaigns. It -is- scary, invisible, can give you a death sentence in moment if you get a LOT of the right kind. I think human civilization dying out is a alot scarier to me.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#295

Post by preisschild »

cycomanic wrote: post #152
glimshe wrote: post #21

One project in 30 years doesn't benefit from economies of scale. Nuclear is the only hope we have to make up for the gaps in generation for solar and wind. Solar and Wind should be used whenever possible, but they are not 100% of our solution mix, even if they are the majority. If we want to mitigate the impact of climate change, we need to invest in decreasing Nuclear costs and building many more plants in the US.

Large infrastructure projects (and nuclear is certainly one) don't benefit from economies of scale. Half of a nuclear power plant is essentially the same as a coal plant and they have not gone down in price either. The reality is even assuming that we can not overcome shortages in solar and wind by overprovisioning and storage (and studies say otherwise), it does not make any sense to build nuclear instead of solar/w…

Large infrastructure projects (and nuclear is certainly one) don't benefit from economies of scale.

If you do them regularly, then sure they do. You already have trained workers, an intact supply chain and contact with the regulators.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#296

Post by lost_tourist »

azinman2 wrote: post #268
reducesuffering wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, what if that labor went into nuclear construction instead? How many 6 figure construction jobs is many multi-billion $ nuclear plants?

What percent of coal miners do you think could make that transition?

Coal miners are human too, they can adapt, people can pick up new skills.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#297

Post by preisschild »

jemmyw wrote: post #206
cycomanic wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large infrastructure projects (and nuclear is certainly one) don't benefit from economies of scale. Half of a nuclear power plant is essentially the same as a coal plant and they have not gone down in price either. The reality is even assuming that we can not overcome shortages in solar and wind by overprovisioning and storage (and studies say otherwise), it does not make any sense to build nuclear instead of solar/w…

If half is the same as a coal plant could existing coal plants be converted to nuclear? They would be in the right places for power generation and it would be a win by reducing coal and not having to build a whole new plant.

Thats already the plan for some coal sites. TerraPower (Bill Gates is the Chairman) wants to convert the first one in Wyoming.

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/doe-report-finds-hundreds...

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#298

Post by lost_tourist »

pfdietz wrote: post #172
d_sem wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People often fail to compare the opportunity cost of alternative methods to nuclear power. At that time the alternative to nuclear was coal power plants. Radioactive carbon isotopes have harmed many times more people than Nuclear.

Coal contains no significant radioactive carbon. All the radioisotopes of carbon have half life many orders of magnitude smaller than the age of coal deposits. Coal contains other radioactive elements, though. However, the quantity of these is still usually less than the quantity that needs to be mined to power a light water reactor.

The point has always been that coal dumps far more radioative substance out to the environment that nuclear ever has, to tamp down illogical radiation scare information about nuclear power.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#299

Post by preisschild »

Manuel_D wrote: post #145
forrestthewoods wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydro isn’t clean (extreme ecosystem damage, both up and down stream); and if we dammed every river it’s a drop in the bucket of what we need. I don’t know how far solar/wind can get us. But hydro sucks more than most people realize.

Hydro is only source of renewable power that generates >50% of any country's electricity grid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_renewable... Wind caps out at 42% with Denmark, solar at 15% in Australia. Many countries have nearly 100% of their electricity coming from hydroelectricity. Besides nuclear power, hydroelectricity is one of the few non-intermittent sources of renewable energy - sure, rainf…

Nuclear is renewable and generates more than 50% of many countries electricity.

Re: First new US nuclear reactor in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia

#300

Post by lost_tourist »

cauch wrote: post #189
jychang wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear plants produce 68% of the energy in France. If that’s not statistically relevant, doubling the number wouldn’t be statistically relevant either. For that matter, even in the USA, nuclear power produces about 10% of all electricity. Multiply that by 10 and that’s the entire population as a sample.

That's not at all the point. Imagine the following game: you throw three dices. If the three dices are not ending on 1, you win 1 dollar. If they are ending on three 1, you lose 100'000 dollars. If you throw the dice ten times, you will, with high probability, not have three 1 (the probability of appearing is 0.5% per throw). You will probably need to throw more then 10 times before loosing. But when loosing, you wil…

Global warming is 100% snake eyes when you get down to the bottom line of "why nuclear?"
Post reply on HN