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

51–60 of 1001 posts

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

#51

Post by dexwiz »

applied_heat wrote: post #19
perihelions wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sc/pr/top-westinghouse-nuclear-... ( "Top Westinghouse Nuclear Executive Charged with Conspiracy, Fraud in 16-Count Federal Indictment" ) That's the failed project OP blithely elided over as: - "Two other Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were planned for a nuclear power plant in South Carolina, but construction was halted in 2017." I'm really, really strongly in favor of nuclear fis…

Elon to the rescue ?

Sure, let his companies blow up a few to learn how to build them. /s

Rockets and cars are one thing. But that risk equation doesn’t work for nuclear.

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

#52

Post by hef19898 »

colmmacc wrote: post #49
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.

Nuclear power seems like a good option for non-military boats too, like container ships and oil tankers. It's already a very well proven maritime technology.

That was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea. Too expensive and no real benefit over ship engines. By the way, tha vast majority of military ships and boats are not nuclear powered.

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

#53

Post by willis936 »

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.

Safety and bureaucracy are orthogonal. Bureaucracy is a slowing force, which is sold as being correlated with safety. The more layers of abstraction needlessly added, the more likely there will be systems engineering failures.

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

#54

Post by erngkejr »

I was a nuclear engineer for eight years and I left the industry because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Every time someone says "nuclear is the only practical solution for climate change, it's not possible to build solar or wind fast enough or cheaply enough", you can point them to this press release. All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry.

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

#55

Post by internetter »

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.

One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet.

Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak energy consumption, and storage is very difficult, so realistically we'll need a wide variety of energy options to fully transition to renewables. Nuclear is reliable and to some degree adjustable, helping to alleviate the storage issue. Basically, it's my opinion that nuclear works well with other renewable sources, and a full renewable transition will certainly involve more of it.

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

#56

Post by mgaunard »

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.

Too cheap for "American nuclear" to compete.

Chinese nuclear can compete just fine.

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

#57

Post by jillesvangurp »

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.

> The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor joins two existing reactors

It's indeed not a lot. At a great cost. That kind of is the point. Nuclear is very costly.

Solar, wind, battery storage, and other cheap alternatives are indeed being rolled out at a plural orders of magnitude larger scale.

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

#58

Post by davkan »

hef19898 wrote: post #52
colmmacc wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power seems like a good option for non-military boats too, like container ships and oil tankers. It's already a very well proven maritime technology.

That was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea. Too expensive and no real benefit over ship engines. By the way, tha vast majority of military ships and boats are not nuclear powered.

Aside from the environmental benefit right? Don’t lots of large ships burn cheaper fuel higher in pollutants when on unregulated wafers?

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

#59

Post by kranke155 »

erngkejr wrote: post #54

I was a nuclear engineer for eight years and I left the industry because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Every time someone says "nuclear is the only practical solution for climate change, it's not possible to build solar or wind fast enough or cheaply enough", you can point them to this press release. All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of…

Could you elaborate? Having read the press release I’m not sure what you mean

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

#60

Post by s1artibartfast »

icelancer wrote: post #11
api wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a very strong impression that the perpetual money pits of California (rail, the amount spent on homelessness without progress, etc.) aren’t bugs but features… for someone. That money is going into someone’s pocket.

As usual it's some from Column A and B. Hard to tell sometimes what is graft and what is incompetence.

A little of A, B, and C.

A) Idealistic voters with little interest in detail or execution.

B) Hard working state employees executing in an ineffective way because they are working on over constrained problems with conflicting and sometime impossible goals.

C) A number of opportunists that take advantage of poor rulemaking and bureaucratic disorganization.

For what it is worth, I dont think corruption is a major driver of problems, but bad policy detached from the practical considerations.

One simple example is SF parks maintenance:

The city wants to keep invasive species out, so it has staff to remove them. The city also believes in livable wages, so the workers make >100K. Residents dont like pesticides, so the workers must hand weed. Hand weeding doesnt work, so the City periodically also pays outside consultants to come in and take care of the invasives (with pesticides and low paid workers).

Post reply on HN