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

271–280 of 1001 posts

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

#271

Post by willis936 »

bumby wrote: post #178
willis936 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety and bureaucracy are orthogonal. Bureaucracy is a slowing force, which is sold as being correlated with safety. The more layers of abstraction needlessly added, the more likely there will be systems engineering failures.

> more layers of abstraction needlessly added I think you're betraying your bias here with the added term "needlessly". There is some (maybe even most) bureaucracy that is inefficiently applied, for sure. But it is meant to address some risk. Maybe it's a risk that you (personally) don't care about, or aren't even cognizant of, and that's when it becomes easy to declare it "needless." We should be looking to streamli…

You're betraying your bias by insinuating I suggested throwing out risk mitigation. I advocated for streamlined risk mitigation by highlighting the risk of unnecessary complexity.

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

#272

Post by XorNot »

hedora wrote: post #137
jdewerd wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At the moment, coal and probably gas is more expensive than solar, purely due to the turbines and generators. Nuclear relies on the same subsystems, and it’s unlikely they’ll get significantly cheaper any time soon. Having said that, I think nuclear could be made cost-competitive with coal and natural gas, at least in theory. Also, it’s unclear that we’ll be able to build a reliable, net carbon negative power grid wi…

Solar cannot provide reliable power. It's cheaper because it doesn't solve a massive part of the problem.

Do the actual math on what it takes to get a reliable solar kWh onto the grid and suddenly it's a lot more expensive.

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

#273

Post by JumpCrisscross »

zbrozek wrote: post #240
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure does! That's why I used "electeds" rather than "representatives", to make really clear the connection. On the other hand, the state is losing population on an absolute basis (and relatively even more so against a backdrop of national growth). So some folks are voting with their feet. I'm eagerly awaiting the day when I'm free enough to do the same.

> why I used "electeds" rather than "representatives", to make really clear the connection

I’m arguing the opposite. The voters have the tools to oppose the state government’s size. That they don’t use them signals support in broad terms.

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

#274

Post by seb1204 »

beanjuiceII wrote: post #229
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.

I'd bet you will be very wrong

I think you are wrong for the reason parent stated. Safety and regulations for nuclear are just too high to be competitive with modular solar that can scale and has no nuclear waste issue that is still unsolved.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #209
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.

China has installed more renewable energy than the rest of the world put together last year. I'm pretty sure we can rule out any "ridiculous regulatory regime" issues there.

[deleted]

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

#276

Post by jodrellblank »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #140
margalabargala wrote: post #121

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. Does the US have more 50cm^3 sized blocks of U235, or more square kilometers of land with low land values and high annual insolation? There's an estimated 6 million tonnes of mineable uranium reserves in the world [0]…

> If we covered an area 10% the size of Arizona in solar panels And what are the various Friends of Rare Bugs and Small Furry Animals groups doing in the meantime? I joke, but even I would balk at the environmental impact of that. Certainly it's going to be greater than any equivalent nuclear installation. > Of which 0.72% is U-235 Fortunately we're not limited to U-235. With breeder reactors, there's enough nuclear…

Cover 4,000 square miles of the USA in surface car parks[1] and that's freedom. Suggest covering 11,000 square miles of desert in solar panels which don't stop land being used for grazing or crop growing or insects or wildlife, and that's environmental distruction that "even" you would balk at.

[1] https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-unite...

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

#277

Post by hef19898 »

codersfocus wrote: post #260
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.

There needs to be nuclear powered "oiler ships" that stay out at sea indefinitely and recharge passing by electric ships.

Great idea. Now, either apply to YC with it or convince the shipping industry to revise their decarbonisation startegy by going full nuclear with nuclear charging vessels.

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

#278

Post by willy_k »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #263
willy_k wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you’re going to try to determine how China is approaching nuclear power, it’s probably more useful to look at data related to that [0], instead of drawing conclusions from tangential data. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

The point I was making is that China isn't inclined to do things just to appease some regulatory requirement. They are also building an incredible amount of Coal power.

Ah, I think there’s a misunderstanding of the parent comment. They aren’t necessarily saying that the problem is pro-renewable regulation, just that there are heavy (safety) barriers for nuclear.

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

#279

Post by datameta »

internetter wrote: post #145
margalabargala wrote: post #121

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. Does the US have more 50cm^3 sized blocks of U235, or more square kilometers of land with low land values and high annual insolation? There's an estimated 6 million tonnes of mineable uranium reserves in the world [0]…

I want to make clear that I am not arguing against solar. My belief is that nuclear is an important piece of a much larger puzzle. Wind is not reliable, and for solar to match the figures you provided, we would need to figure out storage, so lets diversify our portfolio :)

Compression of air in underground cavities

> Hydrostor, which is based in Toronto, is one of several startups working on fixing those problems. The company says it’s figured out a way to capture and reuse the heat generated when air is compressed, eliminating the need to burn gas. It’s also figured out a way to make the mechanics work in areas where caverns must be dug out of hard rock, rather than salt. https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2023-01-12/th...

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

#280

Post by Manuel_D »

sounds wrote: post #265
Manuel_D wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear was cheaper when more of it was built [1]. Economies of scale make things cheaper. A production run of 40 steam generators is a lot cheaper than 4 steam generators. Proponents of a primarily solar + wind grid are betting on a breakthrough in energy storage. If that breakthrough does not transpire, we'll either have to give up on stopping carbon emissions or use nuclear power. 1. https://www.researchgate.net/f…

Converting atmospheric CO2 into fuels could contribute to this effort. But bacterial and plant-based fuel production may still be more economical and produce fewer overall emissions than even a solar array and a carbon capture plant.

Converting atmospheric CO2 into hydrocarbon fuels requires hydrogen as an input, so it'd probably be easier to just store the hydrogen directly. Right now, almost all hydrogen is produced through steam reformation [1] which emits CO2. Electrolysis is inefficient and corrosion of electrodes makes it expensive and hard to scale. Capturing atmospheric CO2 is similarly difficult. Carbon Dioxide is at very low concentrations in the atmosphere so it takes a really long time to sequester meaningful amounts of it. Similar issue with biomass: it produces energy very slowly and doesn't have the scale required.

There's a reason why plans for a primarily renewable grid assume that compressed air, synthetic ammonia, giant flywheels, or something else will provide storage for orders of magnitude cheaper than batteries: because existing storage systems aren't capable of meeting the storage demands of intermittent generation. Will one of these systems deliver a storage breakthrough? Maybe. But it's not wise to bet the future of your electrical grid on a technological breakthrough that hasn't happened yet.

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

Post reply on HN