Live data from Hacker News

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

eia.gov

301–310 of 1001 posts

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

#301

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]…

There is way way more uranium than that. It is surprisingly common. And harvesting it from seawater opens up a supply that dwarfs any mining concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment >> Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water . This is the highest-numbered element to be found naturally in significant quantities on earth. According to the Un…

Nuclear is renewable for the same reason geothermal is renewable, and you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it

https://www.tiktok.com/@nuclearsciencelover/video/7092135813...

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

#302

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…

But remember that a square kilometer of solar panels needs maybe ten square kilometers of actual land. Anywhere other than at the equator, the panels need to be spaced far enough apart not to shadow each other. On a north-facing slop they would be even more spaced out. Do that in two dimensions, so they can track the sun, and keeping one square meter of panels perpendicular to the sun requires a suprisingly large foo…

Good thing that cube of uranium doesn’t need any extra space around it! We can just line them all up next to each other. Criticality accident? What’s that?

Clear cutting forest to put in solar isn’t likely to be cost-efficient. There’s plenty of shitty desert and mountainside land available.

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

#303
post #236
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is costly _now_*. It wasn't getting built, for years. There is so much energy to be had from that, and cost learning curves can come down. France's ("small") modular reactors, SMR, they even aim to sell internationally, in their 2030 plan, are a model. To China no less. China also builds nuclear reactors, and we can't fall behind them. I cannot abide an SMR gap.

> China also builds nuclear reactors, and we can't fall behind them I, uh, have some uncomfortable news for you. China are currently building 22 nuclear reactors [1] China installed 230GW of solar and wind in 2023 [2] China has over 40,000kms of High Speed Rail, and continues to expand [3] By any measure, you're falling way behind them. [1] https://www.economist.com/china/2023/11/30/china-is-building... [2] https://w…

Last I checked they're also outcompeting everyone in new coal plants https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

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

#304
This is a win for the environment and for human rights. A lot of people on here are talking about how solar and wind are better alternatives. The problem with that is that they typically need to be stored in batteries made of cobalt. The vast majority of cobalt mines exist in the Congo where modern day slavery exists to extract it. This affects everything from your Tesla to your iPhone.

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

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech is not here. The scale of grid storage required to fulfill just diurnal storage - let alone days or weeks to offset seasonal variation - is far beyond what batteries can provide. To put this in perspective, the US alone uses 12 TWh of electricity per day. The world uses 60 TWh per day. Both of these figures are going to increase, as poorer countries develop and want amenities like air conditioning. Also, as…

The point of the various 100% solar, wind, battery projections that exist is that no new tech is needed. Things won't be 100% Solar, Wind, Battery because other minor techs like nuclear, hydro, tidal, biomass or whatever already exist to some degree and can be part of the system. But current solar, wind and battery tech is enough, we just need to build it. The first 80% is the easy bit, with the greates payback, so t…

Batteries cannot feasibly achieve the scale required to even out diurnal, let alone seasonal, fluctuations. The amount of batteries produced is nowhere near enough to satisfy demands for grid storage, and it'd massively set back electric vehicle adoption. Even as battery production ramps up, it's mostly going to go the EVs. Furthermore, electricity demand is going to go up too as people move from gas heating to electric heating and combustion vehicles are replaced with EVs.

"No new tech is needed" is a pointless statement if it can't reach the required scale. You might as well say "just build more dams". We don't need any more wind or solar. Just build dams everywhere.

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

#306

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 should be a "roof-tile" mandated on every single structure built which captures weather information for every single structure. And that structure should be able to be read by any device which states in a standard format the sunlight avg per N, rainfall avg per N and temp. (air quality adds cost, but should also be there (staring at Purple's horrific pricing)

Edit to add: "Whether Information"

Big Brother: "was @dang there?"

Smart-Tile (as played by Marissa Tomai: "Look, my coverage is limited. I can tell you weather... weather... but I can't whether this or whether that. you'll have ta pay"

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

#307

This is a win for the environment and for human rights. A lot of people on here are talking about how solar and wind are better alternatives. The problem with that is that they typically need to be stored in batteries made of cobalt. The vast majority of cobalt mines exist in the Congo where modern day slavery exists to extract it. This affects everything from your Tesla to your iPhone.

Good thing uranium doesn't need mining! And it is only found in countries with strong human rights records!

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

#308
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

I can't even imagine how you'd get the parts, and they probably can't change the plans either. Ok so I decided to look into it a bit more, and here are some interesting details from documents on the nrc.gov and EIA.gov:

Here's some context for what was happening in 1985, from the eia:

>"As a consequence of the identification of a large number of deficiencies shortly before the WBN Unit 1 license was expected to be issued, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sent a letter to TVA [...]. In response to this letter, TVA developed a Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP) to address corporate and site-specific issues, establishing programs to address a wide variety of material, design, and programmatic deficiencies. WBN Unit 2 construction was suspended at about that time, with major structures in place and equipment such as reactor coolant system piping installed."

And while most of the documentation was very terse and spoke more about specific regulatory requirements that I don't understand, this is pretty interesting:

(From the nrc.gov)

>"The NRC staff reviewed TVA’s refurbishment program and found the following: (1) TVA was refurbishing or replacing most active components and instruments; (2) TVA had determined the potential degradation mechanism for each category of components, along with any contributing environmental factors; (3) the acceptance criteria were developed from the licensing basis, design specifications, and vendor specifications; (4) the proposed inspections and testing included in the program could be expected to identify degradation; and (5) refurbishment activities would be in accordance with applicable vendor and design specifications or requirements."

That sounds like a massive, massive amount of work. It explains why it took longer even if the reactor was apparently 60% completed.

(From the eia) :

>"That time, a study found Unit 2 to be effectively 60% complete with $1.7 billion invested. The study said the plant could be finished in five years at an additional cost of $2.5 billion"

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

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is way way more uranium than that. It is surprisingly common. And harvesting it from seawater opens up a supply that dwarfs any mining concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment >> Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water . This is the highest-numbered element to be found naturally in significant quantities on earth. According to the Un…

Nuclear is renewable for the same reason geothermal is renewable, and you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it https://www.tiktok.com/@nuclearsciencelover/video/7092135813...

Why do people bother mining it?

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

#310
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Maybe you can point me to where you advocated for risk mitigation. Because you seemed to imply bureaucracy is sold as risk-mitigation under the mistaken assumption that it correlates with safety. Did I read it incorrectly and you are actually saying there is a truly positive correlation between safety and bureaucracy? Or maybe you have an opinion on what we should replace the current version with?
Post reply on HN