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

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by wongarsu »

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…

The US doesn't lack space. But investors like a quick return on investment; meanwhile nuclear reactors only make sense if you bet on high electricity prices for the next ~70 years. The time a nuclear plant spends on construction and decommissioning is about the same as the total lifetime of a solar installation.

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

#82

Post by gretch »

I see a lot of the arguments from all sides on “the future is X, it cannot be Y!”

To me, this is a false dichotomy.

In my opinion energy is one of the most important pillars of society. It is so important that it must be hedged.

I don’t think we can afford to put all of eggs in 1 basket, no matter how confident we are in a single basket.

I support all forms of sustainable energy advancement and research.

We need more nuclear plants AND more solar/wind. And probably also geothermal, and tidal, and other things I don’t even personally know about.

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

#83

Post by jdewerd »

erngkejr wrote: post #47
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".

[flagged]

Studying history. The cost of nuclear was low until we stopped building 50 years ago.

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u...

It's a pity -- if we had kept up the pace, we'd already have completely decarbonized our grid, but instead we are barely starting. Ah well. At least solar and wind finally became economical. Any path forward is a good path, even if it's 50 years late.

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

#84

Post by DerSaidin »

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.

What are other options for ships if fossil fuels were phased out?

Big batteries? https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-28/making-waves-e...

Hydrogen fuel? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship

Yeah, those options seem simpler.

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

#85

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zbrozek wrote: post #25
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.

Our electeds simply don't care what anything costs, and as a result we have (probably) the worst cost disease on the planet.

> electeds simply don't care what anything costs

California has a referendum system. That so few referendums focus on cutting costs says something about its voters’ priorities.

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

#86

Post by ZeroGravitas »

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…

The people saying that might live far from the equator, where wind power helps balance solar in winter but people in general live fairly near it and energy intensive industry will migrate in that direction to follow the cheap power.

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

#87

Post by throwjnkjk »

stetrain wrote: post #37
UberFly wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Slave labor is always cheap. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ILAB/images/storyboar...

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

#88

Post by hedora »

erngkejr wrote: post #47
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".

[flagged]

Perhaps they were in France, where the plants are neither bespoke nor expensive.

They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.

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

#89

Post by stetrain »

the8472 wrote: post #61
stetrain wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1129876/china-nuclear-po...

How do costs compare? What's the site approval process like in China vs the US?

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

#90

Post by api »

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?

MSRs look nice on paper but we don’t have any experience building them. It would take a gigantic up front investment to work out the real world issues and commercialize a technology that has a lot of novel aspects like handling radioactive molten salt.

Meanwhile that same money would buy loads more power in solar/wind and batteries, which are proven technologies that are getting progressively cheaper.

An alternate timeline where we do MSRs in the 1950s and phase out coal by 1990 would have been possible but we didn’t do that and there are better alternatives now.

Post reply on HN