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

First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

eia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 1001 posts

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#31

Post by gustavus »

MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

It seems to me that having a couple of nuclear reactors as base load spread throughout the country would be more useful than having a massive spread out battery & solar infrastructure.

I mean as an example many companies, especially PG&E can't maintain adequate powerlines, who is banking on the fact that they'll do an even better job when we quintuple the amount of infrastructure and they have to develop a whole new domain of expertise based in battery technology.

Not to mention even the supposedly clean, solar and batteries, still have an enormous amount of carbon emissions involved in their supply chain, and need to be replaced on a fairly regular basis.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#32

Post by sonotathrowaway »

BoiledCabbage wrote: post #24
Exoristos wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely much of the crippling cost is due to hostile lawfare and regulation.

Damn, if only we didn't have to build them safely we could make them so cheaply.

We build planes safely, but those same parts are 3x the cost. Safety isn’t the reason why it’s more expensive.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#34

Post by RandallBrown »

rjbwork wrote: post #7
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. Ideally we'd keep building them and develop the expertise and make it a more repeatable scalable process. I worry instead that the lesson taken from this will be "nuclear is too expensive and ineffective".

I sometimes imagine how cool it would be if some of the worlds biggest billionaires got together and just did some crazy mega project and didn't care about profits.

This nuclear plant cost ~$34 billion USD. What if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and a few others just got together and built 10 or so nuclear power plants? I wonder if that could actually bring down the price to build them.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#36

Post by UberFly »

Exoristos wrote: post #20
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

Surely much of the crippling cost is due to hostile lawfare and regulation.

This is the case for all public works projects. The red-tape overhead is crazy. Regulation is necessary but the bureaucratic maze that has to be negotiated is a huge problem. I worked on a public rail system and the down-time waiting for permission on everything was draining.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#37

Post by stetrain »

UberFly wrote: post #23
MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

I would take that bet. Nuclear tech will also continue to improve.

Nuclear does not seem to be on the mass production curve that solar and batteries are.

Even if you could design a reactor that itself can be mass produced at that scale, you still need to do the same with selecting and getting environmental and public safety approval for installation sites and production, transportation, and disposal of the fuel and waste.

I'm not against nuclear from a technological perspective, but I just don't see it being economically competitive with effectively printable devices like solar and batteries given the current direction of the cost curves on each.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#38

Post by matthewdgreen »

FredPret wrote: post #21
matthewdgreen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are we going to build reactors non-stop? Is there either private-sector funding for this, or government subsidies to make it happen?

Yes, of course. Power demand increases. Technology improves. Installed capacity ages out. There will always be a need to build new plants, might as well lean into it and be proactive.

I found this list which shows "under construction", "planned" and "proposed". It does not look like the US is planning to build a lot of reactors. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#39

Post by philipkglass »

evilos wrote: post #35

We paid the first-of-a-kind costs, we should reap the Nth-of-a-kind rewards. Replace all the coal capacity with AP1000s.

There's no Federal agency that can decree that sort of policy. Coal generator retirement happens on a state-by-state or even business-by-business basis.

Some states are going to cling to coal power past its economically rational lifespan because important parts of state politics are linked to coal businesses. States where coal retires for economic reasons will go for least-cost replacement (a blend of solar, wind, and natural gas). States where environmental concerns trump cost concerns have little if any coal generating capacity left to replace at this point.

Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation

#40

Post by hef19898 »

RandallBrown wrote: post #34
rjbwork wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. Ideally we'd keep building them and develop the expertise and make it a more repeatable scalable process. I worry instead that the lesson taken from this will be "nuclear is too expensive and ineffective".

I sometimes imagine how cool it would be if some of the worlds biggest billionaires got together and just did some crazy mega project and didn't care about profits. This nuclear plant cost ~$34 billion USD. What if Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, and a few others just got together and built 10 or so nuclear power plants? I wonder if that could actually bring down the price to build them.

Money, at that scale at least, is pretty good at calculating business cases. And the money is on renewables, especially solar. And the solar Wp cost for modules is, with some special cause exceptions, following Moores law. Nuclear not so much, all those plants have is delays and cost over-runs.
Post reply on HN