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

71–80 of 1001 posts

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

#71

Post by hef19898 »

davkan wrote: post #58
hef19898 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

So? The industry, shipping, agreed on standards and a plan to reduce CO2 emissions. And if you think nuclear power plants on civilian cargo vessels are a good idea,consider the following:

- costs for a single ship reactor (shipping is extremely price and cost sensitive)

- time, and lost revenue (a ship not carrying cargo is only costing money, see above) for refuelling

- piracy and terrorism (I am not really convinced risking having some pirate group somewhere capture nuclear reactor is a good idea)

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

#72

Post by adonovan »

internetter wrote: post #55
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 ene…

Perhaps I fail to understand, but doesn't this comparison depend on a number of parameters such as the total reactor fuel load and enrichment, the burn rate, the cost of nuclear fuel, the cost of solar PV, the lifetimes of each system, and the relative process efficiencies (notably the cost of decommissioning nuclear)?

Otherwise you might as well say a teaspoon (or whatever) of water has as much potential fusion energy as 1 Kg U235 at a fraction of the price. ;-)

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

#74

Post by slashdev »

klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Batteries are not for riding out winter, they're for evening out the daily load.

You have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation, as well as make long-distance interconnects. Pumped hydro is also extremely interesting for obvious reasons.

Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation. Can we solve that without sacrificing safety? Can we even solve it at all? Bloated regulatory agencies seem to have infiltrated and poisoned every aspect of society with no relief in sight.

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

#75

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea

We only did a demo ship, which was combination cargo and passenger. The principal cost was being rejected from ports for their lacking acceptance procedures, a first-mover cost. Nuclear shipping has never been “found to be a stupid idea.” It was simply never explored.

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

#76

Post by gosub100 »

mgaunard wrote: post #56
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.

[flagged]

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

#77

Post by JumpCrisscross »

slashdev wrote: post #74
klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Batteries are not for riding out winter, they're for evening out the daily load. You have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation, as well as make long-distance interconnects. Pumped hydro is also extremely interesting for obvious reasons. Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation. Can we solve that without sacrificing safety? Can we…

> have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation

At which point it ceases to be as cheap.

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

#78

Post by hedora »

klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Even in the SF Bay Area, there were widespread power outages coupled with extended storms/clouds last spring.

Lots of solar + battery systems got propane generator upgrades this year.

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

#79

Post by evilos »

jerry1979 wrote: post #42
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.

I have head that molten salt is much safer but also more expensive. Would there be a reason not to go with molten salt?

It will likely take a minimum of ten years to get a non light water reactor certified by the NRC. And that is very optimistic. Then you have to build the first of a kind plant which is always more expensive and takes longer. Then you have to get good at operating these new kinds of plants.

It's true that MSR and Breeder reactors have lots of potential benefits over traditional LWRs but the truth is, LWRs are more than good enough for right now and we literally can't build enough of them if even if we tried.

You wouldn't want to power all of human society off of LWRs simply because they only access ~5% of the energy in the fuel. But we're so far away from that being a constraint. Build LWRs today and keep developing Breeder/MSR tech.

Post reply on HN