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

321–330 of 361 posts

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

#321

Post by pfdietz »

coldpie wrote: post #318
pfdietz wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person you are quoting in [1] is a chronic bad faith actor. Examine his arguments with great skepticism. The argument he is making there is obviously wrong -- he's implying (without justification) that battery production cannot be greatly expanded, and ignores non-battery storage.

I don't agree with that characterization, but regardless, that was just a handy link. There's plenty of well-justified skepticism regarding storage out there. Either way, I'd love to see the analysis I suggested. If it's that clear-cut, surely it's not too hard for someone better informed than me to put together the numbers.

I think if you really dig into the arguments he is making, you will spot the evasions and non sequiturs, and conclude he's not arguing in good faith.

There is so much peer reviewed work saying the opposite of what he claims that you should default to skeptical about him. It's the same way one should treat a creationist.

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

#322

Post by pfdietz »

XorNot wrote: post #274
jaredhallen wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reading through the linked article, I don't think that's the way it's designed to be used. It can completely empty itself in 8 hours. That sounds like it's specifically designed to augment renewables at night and charge during the day, cycling every 24 hours.

That's absolutely how it's going to be used because it's cost efficient for the owner. But if you're electrical grid doesn't mostly have always on sources to backstop it, if you were all renewables and storage, then how much storage would you need to guarantee supply - 24/7/365 days a year.

So, you're saying it would be stupid to use 8 hours capacity pumped hydro for long term storage.

Thanks for the observation, Mr. Obvious.

You also seem to be implying longer term storage of some form isn't feasible. If so, you are incorrect.

Note that I pointed to this project to debunk the falsehood that the locations for PHES are scarce, not to claim that PHES is good for long term storage.

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

#323

Post by philipkglass »

Manuel_D wrote: post #256
pfdietz wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seawater extraction is even less plausible than breeders. The polyamidoxime fibers that article discusses do not have sufficiently long service lives. Also, if the uranium were to be burned in PWRs, the effective power per ocean area of uranium collectors would be much less than the effective power/area from photovoltaics. Uranium is a small fraction of nuclear's cost at current uranium prices. But eventually that ru…

Again, the energy density of uranium is such that even if seawater extraction remains expensive, it has negligible impact on nuclear power costs: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_p... > The cost of raw uranium contributes about $0.0015/kWh Even if this increases by an order of magnitude, this is not significantly impacting the cost of nuclear power. Heck, even two orders of magnitude still a…

If $0.0015/kWh is the current fuel cost, a 100x increase would bring it up to $0.15/kWh. That's 15 cents per kilowatt hour, not a fraction of a cent. It would make nuclear power among the most expensive of electricity sources from fuel cost alone.

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

#324

Post by azinman2 »

rationalist wrote: post #319
azinman2 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It seems like you're implying that many of them cannot make the transition. Why do you think they cannot?

Well for one there have been gov efforts before under Obama but it didn’t result in a big shift (for whatever reason). But also I think it’s very elitist and with a lot of hubris to suggest an entire population should easily be able to shift from one thing they’ve done for decades with all of the structural support in a community of it, to something else. Most people are not so fluid, both in capability but also receptive to change. Throughout history change gets resisted.

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

#325

Post by tracker1 »

Retric wrote: post #22
tracker1 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly agree... though I think Solar tech still needs to improve a bit. Nuclear power is definitely needed for the grid, though preferably more inland in places less likely to be affected by natural disaster. I get why the NY plant was closed. I also hope that the build and cost timelines can be shortened. I think the push for electric cars is a bit of a miss in this, only because the grid needs to improve dramatical…

EV’s have a fairly trivial impact on the grid. Cars last 25+ years so even if everyone all new cars where EV’s we are talking less than 1% increase in total electricity demand per year. The grid has expanded dramatically faster at several points. Even more importantly we can shift most of that demand to cheaper times of the day or even day of the week.

I'm not sure about most cars lasting 25+ years... that said, even a 25-30x increase in EV usage in the next 15-20 years is still a massive increase. And it's not even the total load, it's load to the houses, the charging stations, etc. A lot of homes are regularly facing brownouts and rolling blackouts in the summers as-is.

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

#326

Post by pfdietz »

preisschild wrote: post #293
fluxem wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Laws have changed a lot since the AEC existed.

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

#327

Post by locallost »

yodelshady wrote: post #88
Retric wrote: post #4

“seven years late and $17 billion over budget. At its full output of 1,100 megawatts of electricity” Ignoring interest for those 7 years and all other costs just the overage is insane. 17 billion / ( 1,100,000 kW * 90% capacity factor * 24 hour * 365 days * 50 years) = 4 cents per kWh. Add interest etc and someone lost an incredible amount of money on this project.

If you ever doubt that the US has a simply fucking insane advantage in primary resource extraction and consumption, consider your comment. You think $40 per MWh is expensive . Wholesale rates in Europe hit SIX HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE EUROS PER MWh last year because of gas supply issues and unfavorable weather . Spot prices have gone higher still, over one order of magnitude higher actually, those were futures contra…

Germany's coal use is at an all time low. If you're really going to conferences, you need to be better informed. I've posted the data many times here, but if you can post so many words without bothering to do a brief check for easy to find data, then I'll spare myself the time.

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

#328

Post by Retric »

tracker1 wrote: post #325
Retric wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EV’s have a fairly trivial impact on the grid. Cars last 25+ years so even if everyone all new cars where EV’s we are talking less than 1% increase in total electricity demand per year. The grid has expanded dramatically faster at several points. Even more importantly we can shift most of that demand to cheaper times of the day or even day of the week.

I'm not sure about most cars lasting 25+ years... that said, even a 25-30x increase in EV usage in the next 15-20 years is still a massive increase. And it's not even the total load, it's load to the houses, the charging stations, etc. A lot of homes are regularly facing brownouts and rolling blackouts in the summers as-is.

Average car in the US is 12.2 years old. To offset cars purchased yesterday someone needs to be driving a 24.4 year old car to average 12.2 years.

As to electric demand, “The average miles driven per year is 13,489 in 2021.” Efficiency varies, at say 4 miles per kWh that’s 3,372 kW per year, we’re talking roughly 0.38 kW bump that to 0.4kW per car * all 762,883 EV’s sold in 2022 and your up to 305 MW nationwide. Meanwhile this single reactor is putting out 1,100 MW so ~3.5 years of EV sales at the current rate.

Critically unlike watching TV people have a great deal of flexibility when can charging EV’s and therefore mostly use cheap energy Aka when other demand is low therefore minimizing risks of brownouts.

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

#329

Post by dragonwriter »

Retric wrote: post #328
tracker1 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure about most cars lasting 25+ years... that said, even a 25-30x increase in EV usage in the next 15-20 years is still a massive increase. And it's not even the total load, it's load to the houses, the charging stations, etc. A lot of homes are regularly facing brownouts and rolling blackouts in the summers as-is.

Average car in the US is 12.2 years old. To offset cars purchased yesterday someone needs to be driving a 24.4 year old car to average 12.2 years. As to electric demand, “The average miles driven per year is 13,489 in 2021.” Efficiency varies, at say 4 miles per kWh that’s 3,372 kW per year, we’re talking roughly 0.38 kW bump that to 0.4kW per car * all 762,883 EV’s sold in 2022 and your up to 305 MW nationwide. Mean…

> Average car in the US is 12.2 years old. To offset cars purchased yesterday someone needs to be driving a 24.4 year old car to average 12.2 years.

12.2 was a year ago [0], 12.5 now [1], but you could also get to that with 9 at 13.9 years for each one today, instead of one at 25.

[0] https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/avera...

[1] https://fortune.com/2023/05/15/average-age-of-cars-on-u-s-ro...

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

#330

Post by thatswrong0 »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #184
sidewndr46 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it isn't "localized ecosystem damage". Building dams absolutely fucking destroys the ecosystems upstream and downstream. It's the civil engineering of burning the crops when you retreat. The "new" ecosystem has nothing in common with the prior ecosystems.

I'd rather some species of fish die out than the ocean boils, personally

Yeah. And dams can be removed (and as far as I can tell, nature is relatively adaptable and can recover).
Post reply on HN