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

211–220 of 1001 posts

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

#211

Post by slashdev »

hackyhacky wrote: post #106
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…

If there's any area to not skimp on safety regulations, I'd say nuclear is it. I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact. Or maybe I'm wrong. You seem to know a lot about nuclear regulation. Can you tell us a specific, unnecessary burdensome regulatory rule that you feel is holding back progress?

What world do you live in that you don't see the burdensome regulation everywhere. Don't know anyone with a business? Never investigated how zoning works? Never filed taxes? Never used the healthcare system?

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

#212

Post by Manuel_D »

wolverine876 wrote: post #170
fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear might not be able to compete in the U.S. and Europe, but that’s largely because of a ridiculous regulatory regime and has very little to do with the actual tech.

People love to say it, but is there evidence? I've never seen it - which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that this claim needs it.

Nuclear was much cheaper in the 1970s and early 80s: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C...

This wasn't just due to regulatory influence, it was also due to economies of scale. But the two are related, more regulation results in fewer builds. Fewer builds reduces economies of scale and thus increases costs. Which results in even fewer nuclear builds, and so on.

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

#213

Post by kragen »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #138
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not automatically true. As the price continues to drop even over building renewables can be cheaper than other options. Nuclear is very expensive so there’s a lot of wiggle room.

> not automatically true It very obviously is. Solar power (and wind) are constrained by the planet’s insolation. Even assuming perfect efficiency, we start approaching diminishing returns based on power input within a century. Now assume imperfect efficiency and resource constraints, and you see that cliff approach within decades. This is fine. It’s the law of diminishing marginal returns. It’s why a diversity of so…

your projection that human world marketed energy consumption will increase by a factor of 1000× within a century may be correct, but it is far outside the range of mainstream predictions, and far faster than current growth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consum... shows total energy supply (excluding agriculture) growing from 8700 million toe in 01990 to 14500 million toe in 02021, a 67% increase, or 1.66% per year. extrapolating that until 02123 we get only a factor of 5.4× growth, not the 1000× you're predicting

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

#214

Post by loeg »

Gare wrote: post #164
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. Or we've researched it and understand the basics of solar technology. In sunny California solar has a capacity factor of around 25%. In Germany, which is prone to many cloudy days this drops to around 10%. So yes cloudy days have an impact but do not entirely eliminate solar from contention and ce…

You both raise good points. Yes solar is getting cheaper but economical and environmentally friendly long term storage (order of several days or even a month worth of energy for a hundred million people) is far from a solved problem. > In sunny California solar has as capacity factor of around 25%. In Germany, which is prone to many cloudy days this drops to around 10%. So yes cloudy days have an impact but do not en…

> In summer we get up to 300 hours of sunlight per month, in winter less than 50. So yes, on paper the capacity might be enough, but one needs to have the ability to store the massive amount of energy inter-seasonally.

Or overbuild by a factor of 6x or whatever relative to summer loads, which is probably less expensive than long term battery storage.

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

#215

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

cm2187 wrote: post #165
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. Or we've researched it and understand the basics of solar technology. In sunny California solar has a capacity factor of around 25%. In Germany, which is prone to many cloudy days this drops to around 10%. So yes cloudy days have an impact but do not entirely eliminate solar from contention and ce…

Cost of solar in isolation is meaningless. You need to factor in the cost of dealing with its intermittency, i.e. no power at night, variable power during daylight.

That is what capacity factor captures.

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

#216

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

loeg wrote: post #195
cm2187 wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost of solar in isolation is meaningless. You need to factor in the cost of dealing with its intermittency, i.e. no power at night, variable power during daylight.

Yeah, "1W" of solar generation and 1W of nuclear generation are not interchangeable. There is a subtle sleight of hand in GP's argument.

That is what capacity factor captures.

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

#217

Post by bumby »

corethree wrote: post #205
bumby wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Machinery" (not including airplanes) is still one of the largest exports of the US. The list [1] of exports by size is: Mineral fuels including oil: US$378.6 billion Machinery including computers: $229.6 billion Electrical machinery, equipment: $197.7 billion Vehicles: $134.9 billion Aircraft, spacecraft: $102.8 billion Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $99.1 billion Gems, precious metals: $92.5 billion Pharmac…

Yes but Asia dominates the "building" category overall by a massive margin. It's just true. Pharmaceuticals, medical and gems are off topic. I'm sure there's other small niches the US dominates in. But overall what I said is the objective truth no matter how much you desire it to be not true. If Asia doesn't dominate a niche yet they are aggressively on track to dominate in the near future.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by "building"? It's a nebulous term. If you mean building infrastructure, that's true, but also partly because the US invested heavily in the same type of infrastructure a generation or two prior. I would disagree with the pharmaceuticals because that is a manufacturing-intensive industry.

Throwing out gems (because that probably isn't a good case, like you said), it still amounts to over $1.2 trillion in exports. I'm sure other countries would love that kind of "niche" business.

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

#218

Post by kevincox »

cableshaft wrote: post #133
kranke155 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From the linked article, we get how much power it generates 1,114 MW (or 1.114 Gigawatts), how long it took to build that reactor (started in 2009, so 14 years), and how much it cost (planned $14 billion, final $30 billion): > The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor > Construction at the two new reactor sites began in 2009. Originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) a…

It is quite hard to compare $60-70 for year-round super stable power to $30-60 for bursty power.

That being said, unless there is a huge regulatory shift it seems like nuclear won't get much cheaper and solar and wind will continue to do so, so comparing those numbers will get easier to compare as the costs spread further.

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

#220

Post by Manuel_D »

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.

The NS Savannah [1] was indeed a marketing stunt. But in the 1960s climate change wasn't really an issue. If you have to ship bulk cargo across the Pacific, nuclear is largely your only option. Hydrogen is another potential choice, but you'd need a carbon neutral way of producing that option. Electrolysis isn't efficient, and steam reformation emits carbon dioxide.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

Post reply on HN