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

241–250 of 1001 posts

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

#241

Post by XorNot »

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…

Batteries are nowhere near able to meet any energy storage demands of the grid.

The simple question to ask yourself is why do battery installations always get quoted in units of power - GW - and not units of energy, GWH - which is what we actually use?

(The answer is: because they're terrible for it. Batteries hold about 3x they're rated power value as energy - which means the 10 GW or whatever someone quotes is good for about 3 hours at that output. Great for grid stability, expensive and useless for long term storage).

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

#242

Post by beders »

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…

There are whole countries who have built stable grids with wind, water, solar and battery alone.

Financially building nuclear power plants make absolutely no sense.

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

#243

Post by resolutebat »

MyFirstSass wrote: post #191
Turing_Machine wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country. At the moment, they have 21 new reactors under construction.

Interesting. 21 doesn't seem like much compared to the 300+ there's been in US, 330 in China, 170 in EU etc, until you see theres zero retired units in china compared to large amounts in the rest of the world. Still though. 21 seems to indicate they are actually betting on something else. https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-nuclear-powe...

China is betting on all the things at once: they're the world leader in building out new solar, new wind, new nuclear and new coal power simultaneously.

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

#244

Post by davkan »

hef19898 wrote: post #71
davkan wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 convince…

Just pointing out a benefit when it was said there was none, I agree with all your points here.

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

#245

Post by mp05 »

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.

I had a professor in an facilities course mention the improved level of industrialization of nuclear plant construction as a big reason why France managed to be successful with nuclear energy in a way that other countries have not. If so, is this one of those dreaded examples of the free market failing our actual best interests?

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

#246

Post by theLiminator »

wolverine876 wrote: post #157
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…

> an artificial problem caused by regulation Maybe it's a real problem caused by the physical realities of nuclear. Calling regulation an artificial cost is like calling sewage treatment an artificial cost of water. > Bloated regulatory agencies seem to have infiltrated and poisoned every aspect of society with no relief in sight. It's often repeated, including by a certain political grouping, but never established I…

> Maybe it's a real problem caused by the physical realities of nuclear. Calling regulation an artificial cost is like calling sewage treatment an artificial cost of water.

That's just plain wrong. I don't know whether regulations in this case are bloat or not, but you're basically saying that regulations are never bloated, which is abjectly false.

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

#247

Post by FireBeyond »

arcfour wrote: post #202
simonw wrote: post #147

This caught my eye: "Prior to Vogtle Unit 3, the last nuclear reactor to start in the United States was Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee. Construction on Watts Bar 2 began in 1973 but was suspended in 1985. Work resumed in 2007, and the reactor came online in 2016." More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_2

Jeez. Imagine walking into a construction site from 2 decades ago.

Check out Satsop, Washington: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WNP-3_and_WNP-5

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

#248

Post by Manuel_D »

hef19898 wrote: post #239
Manuel_D wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Given that we ship cargo in incredible amounts across all oceans, ranging from liquids, bulk to containers and cars everyday with zero nuclear-powered carho vessels, calling nuclear your only option is odd.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about carbon-free propulsion options. Batteries don't have the energy capacity required for long distance shipping, and their weight is a big issue for ships. 300 mile range is fine for an EV, it's not for a ship.

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

#249

Post by philipkglass »

orangepurple wrote: post #237
_aavaa_ wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s worth noting that the dichotomy you set up isn’t quite right. The land use for solar and wind isn’t an exclusionary zone. The area around a wind turbine can be used same as before (most often as farmland) without a negative impact on its productivity. And the same is true for solar. In fact, a growing number of agro-voltaic projects are seeing a net positive on crop yields from solar panels due to the increased…

Is it possible for solar panels to be semi-transparent so crops can still thrive underneath?

Yes it is: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/07/02/transparent-solar-pan...

“Combining two usage modes based on Insolight’s optical micro-tracking technology, these modules focus light on high-efficiency solar cells,” Insolight said in a press release. “When aligned, the optical system can generate energy (E-MODE), but it is also possible to unalign it to ‘leak’ the light (MLT-MODE). The solar modules therefore act like a ‘smart’ shade adjusting the amount of light they let through.”

This makes it possible to optimize the photosynthesis of plants during the seasons and reduce the negative impact of high summer heat on the yields and quality of agricultural products, while recovering the rest of the light in the form of electricity. Starting from July, the panels will be tested for four years on a 165-square-meter surface area. They will replace protective plastic tunnels on strawberries and raspberries.

“Dynamically adjusting the light transmitted to the plants paves the way for increased protection from climate variations and possible increases in crop yields thanks to the matching of the light to the needs of the plants and the lowering of the temperature during heat waves via the shading effect,” said Bastien Christ, head of the berries and medicinal plants group at Agroscope.

A similar project using different module technology: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/10/31/baywa-re-starts-build...

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

#250

Post by aurelwu »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #129
MyFirstSass wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country. At the moment, they have 21 new reactors under construction.

21 reactors under construction even with a short build time of 7 years is just 3 finished per year, and with China having ~15x the population of Germany that would amount to 0,2 reactors finishing per year in Germany. Multiplied with 1,4 GW that would add ~0,3 GW capacity resulting in about 2,5 TWh additional electricity generated per year which is 0,5% of annual current german demand. Do that for 20 years and you'd be at 10% of current electricity demand or about 5-7% of the demand in 20 years from now - or in other words micro-optimisation.
Post reply on HN