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

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

Post by mk89 »

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 heard or read somewhere that in China they had the same issue - like in every mega project, there are deadlines and ... well it doesn't really fare well. So the issue is real.

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

#112

Post by epistasis »

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.

Chinese nuclear is not competing very well. There's a minuscule amount of it planned, only like 50GW over the coming decades. This is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what China are doing with batteries, wind, and solar.

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

#113

Post by applied_heat »

dexwiz wrote: post #51
applied_heat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He has shook up and revitalized two industries and proven his ability to execute and get people motivated to do significant work with physics and manufacturing and project management that are complex. It doesn’t seem that far fetched to me and aligns with his sustainable energy focus but downvoters seem to disagree!

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

#114

Post by malfist »

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…

Power is easily transmitted and losses are minimal. There's no reason to think you need local solar power generation in a cloudy region.

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

#115

Post by evilos »

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…

I mean, we know we can build nuclear plants quickly because we've done it before. It is physically possible. China and Korea can still do it today.

If you just mean the bureaucracy is impossible to defeat, it would just take political will. Which we are seeing more and more of recently. The first of a kind build is always slow.

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

#116

Post by sanxiyn »

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.

"In 1989, Korea began construction on their first domestically developed OPR-1000 design... Twelve reactors of this standard design began construction between 1989 and 2008, and their costs declined in a stable manner... representing a 13% cost decline (1% annualized)." (Lovering 2016)

The problem is, even after reaping this cost decline, totaling 50%, nuclear power is still noncompetitive in South Korea. They were built for energy independence after oil shock, not for cheap electricity.

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

#117

Post by MyFirstSass »

jdewerd wrote: post #93
slashdev wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When nuclear takes off in China but not the USA, we'll figure it out. But not until then.

Why hasn't nuclear taken off in China?

I keep hearing that it's not cost effective anymore, to slow etc. but if it's actually mostly regulation that's hindering the built out (regardless of the risks) shouldn't China with their impressive portfolio of warpspeed megaprojects have been an ideal example of scaling the next generation of this tech?

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

#118

Post by conjecTech »

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…

Nuclear is already about 20% of US electricity generation. I don't think many people are suggesting taking that offline. When people are talking about being all solar, wind and storage they are talking about _new_ generation. So the eventual solution would still be a mix of all of those.

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

#119

Post by tonyhb »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #108
internetter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Nuclear is baseload and is the exact opposite of "instantly fired up". Best tech for that is gas or battery.

Cant control rods can be lifted or inserted to meet demand?

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

#120

Post by hef19898 »

hedora wrote: post #88
erngkejr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

France is past tense so, they have one reactor under conszruction and 6 proposed and not even planned...
Post reply on HN