Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear is baseload and is the exact opposite of "instantly fired up". Best tech for that is gas or battery.
There is a line of reasoning that baseload is a billing and profit construction, an artifice of the needs of coal-fired and nuclear power. There is nothing innately wrong with over building renewable and storage, and a transmission network. It's an argument about economics, not physics.
First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
371–380 of 1001 posts
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#372As exciting as this should be, the soaring cost overruns on this project means we Georgians have been left holding the bag. There’s now a “Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery” line item on my bill, so electricity costs more rather than less.
I've never seen a public/private setup like this actually yield benefit for the consumer.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#373Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 is…
TVA - Not the Time Variance Authority I take it? I was wondering how that was powered.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#374As exciting as this should be, the soaring cost overruns on this project means we Georgians have been left holding the bag. There’s now a “Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery” line item on my bill, so electricity costs more rather than less.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#375As exciting as this should be, the soaring cost overruns on this project means we Georgians have been left holding the bag. There’s now a “Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery” line item on my bill, so electricity costs more rather than less.
I don’t think nuclear power is the future. In my country, 7% of the time electricity prices are like 1 cent or even negative. Try to run your nuclear reactor at a profit in this environment.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#376Earlier 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]…
40 million acres are used to grow corn for ethanol. This is 162,000 square kilometers. This can produce 3.24 exajoules of energy. Also, solar panels don't need any land. There are so many places we can install solar without 'consuming' land. They can be roofs, floating on tops of lakes and reservoirs with the added benefit of preventing evaporation, agrivoltaics combined with farmland, vertical panels, superfund site…
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
> One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. That's missing the huge and expensive nuclear power plant around that kilogram of uranium. If you don't account for the conversion device (for which solar is cheaper per GJ than nuclear power plants), then light is a much better medium: assuming 15% efficiency, which is a conservative estimate, solar panels can convert on…
I'm curious how the numbers stack up of completed plants - but I am not very good at math and don't have a great understanding of electricity units, especially at the grid scale and big numbers. Any chance you could help compare the construction cost of this nuclear plant to another recently constructed solar or wind farm measured against... I guess capacity? Given the intermittent nature of solar/wind, does capacity…
I found mention of a bond issuance and someone purchasing the project here [2]. If it’s $1b, then it’s $5.26. If $2b then $10.53.
So they’re in the same ballpark. But one type of plant runs 20-30 years and the other for 50-80 years @ 90% capacity factor. The CANDU reactors are especially cool in that they can use natural uranium and refueled without a shutdown [3].
—- [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Star [2] - https://www.sustainablebusiness.com/2013/06/1-billion-bond-o... [3] - https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/On-line_refueling_of...
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
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% increas…
> projection that human world marketed energy consumption will increase by a factor of 1000× within a century may be correct We currently produce about 2% [1] of the Earth’s insolation, or 6% of that which hits land. So you’re talking factors of 16 to 50, which at 2% growth means 140 years to the former. Again, assuming perfect efficiency and no clouds, et cetera . If we assume 50% efficiency (still with no clouds) a…
possibly by '510mm sqkm' you mean 510 million square kilometers, as opposed to, say, 510 millimeter square kilometers (which would work out to 510'000 m³). 510 million square kilometers is a good value for the surface area of earth (4πr² ≈ 510066 km²) and 340 watts per square meter is a reasonable estimate for 24-hour mean insolation, disregarding clouds. but 340 watts per square meter times 510 million square kilometers gives 173000 terawatts, higher than my estimate. in terawatt hours per year, that's 1.52 billion terawatt hours per year, which is definitely a lot more than 50 times 26936 terawatt hours
i think maybe your error there is that you were trying to convert from square kilometers to square meters by multiplying by 1000. but actually a square kilometer contains a million square meters, not a thousand. so you ended up calculating about 2% instead of about 0.002%, which is what your inputs give if calculated correctly
using the units(1) program from unix is a good way to avoid errors like this; in this case you can do the calculation as follows:
You have: 26936 TWh / (340W/m^2 * 4 pi earthradius^2 * 1 year)
You want: %
* 0.0017718851
/ 564.37068
however, you also made a smaller error in the opposite direction. the 26936 terawatt hours per year figure is only a small fraction of the total energy supply; as the paper you linked explains:> Considering electrical energy, while 6,131 TWh of energy was produced in 1973, 26,936 TWh of electrical energy was produced in 2019 (IEA, 2021c).
that's only about 3 terawatts, not 19, because it excludes virtually the entire transport sector, coal consumption by steel mills, climate-control heat and process heat provided directly by fossil fuels, inefficiencies in the electrical generation process, etc. using the correct figure of 19 terawatts, we derive that world marketed energy consumption is currently 0.01% of global terrestrial insolation, including light that hits clouds and oceans but not including light absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere
growing energy consumption by this factor of 6700 at 1.66% per year would take 535 years, but in fact now that pv has dropped the cost of energy so dramatically, i expect energy production growth to speed up. also presumably there will be power-production satellites in solar orbit within decades, permitting progress past kardashev type 1
hope this helps!
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#379Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
What actually helps us during winter is hydro and wind power. And Krško nuclear power plant.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
TVA - Not the Time Variance Authority I take it? I was wondering how that was powered.
Tennessee Valley Authority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority