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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by danans »

mpweiher wrote: post #317
rajamaka wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do people bother mining it?

Because mining it is relatively cheap. So cheap, in fact, that it is economical to throw away >95% of the fuel rather than try to burn it all or recycle it. Fuel costs are 10% of the cost of nuclear electricity. The vast majority is financing.

> The vast majority is financing.

The financing for nuclear is expensive primarily because:

1) The costs of construction are so high - so huge amounts of financing needed.

2) The amount of time before investors see any ROI is very long.

A long time ago, when electricity markets were fully monopolized end to end, the long-term ROI on nuclear and other generating assets was guaranteed by the government, and the financial risk was borne by society.

Now, electricity markets have been liberalized (at least at the generation level). Simultaneously, far less capital-intensive generation technologies have been created (renewables, combined-cycle gas, and increasingly storage). These technologies provide an earlier ROI for risk-averse capitalists.

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

#402

Post by smegger001 »

zo1 wrote: post #386
internetter wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

The more I think about it, the more I'm starting to get of the opinion that this entire call or worry about "storage" when it comes to solar is a giant distraction. This first thing we need to do is align the costs and incentives. What I mean by that is simply allow the market, or government, to dictate the real cost of providing electricity at night. If there are no solar panels (nighttime), and whatever grid-scale…

"People will learn to forego "bathing" in electricity at night endlessly. For decades we've been spoiled with ridiculous "energy on a tap" that just gives us oodles at the flick of a switch, and we just need to take that away."

I take it you live somewhere warm in the winter. We are already looking at removing other heating options like propane and natural gas furnaces, coal and oil heating is mostly phased out, and burning wood isn't great for the environment either. So electrical heating is necessary anywhere where its normal to freeze for several months. Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit.

"micro-grids are the future. Small communities with mini-grid-scale batteries and sharing of electricity will take over this stupid "national synchronized grid" idea that has gimped our ability to be agile wrt local energy generation."

Why don't you ask Texas residents how not being part of the national synchronized grid worked out for them 2 years ago?

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

#403

Post by trothamel »

mcmoor wrote: post #352
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

Heh imagine finally finishing work that your father had started before you're born.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Water_Tunnel_No....

was under construction from 1970. I believe it's had 3 generations working on it.

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

#404

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

dalyons wrote: post #358
avalys wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little bit silly to compare the price of solar and batteries, which has been driven down due to extensive government subsidy, tax incentives, and massive economies of scale over the past few decades (including production in China), to the current estimated cost of nuclear plants that we have almost no experience building anymore. If we embarked on a sustained plan to invest in nuclear the way we have in solar and w…

And I “guarantee” the opposite. Nuclear is fundamentally massive complicated technology that just wouldn’t benefit from cost reductions due to manufacturing scale in the same degree. Solar is so so simple in comparison, that’s why it’s gotten so cheap and will continue to get cheaper. Maybe after 10 years of massively scaled nuke production we get costs down 2-4x . That would be nice but solar is down 30x and still d…

Exactly. Furthermore, it's not like we can go back 40 years and make stronger investments in nuclear from back then. The need to decarbonize is so massive right now that it doesn't make sense to invest a ton in technology that will only be "ready" in 2055. By that time renewables (and the storage infrastructure that will be required) will have an insurmountable lead unless large scale fusion becomes viable.

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

#405

Post by Krasnol »

rjbwork wrote: post #7
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. Ideally we'd keep building them and develop the expertise and make it a more repeatable scalable process. I worry instead that the lesson taken from this will be "nuclear is too expensive and ineffective".

The French never stopped building them all over the world and they still are over budget and overdue.

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

#406

Post by danans »

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 :)

> Wind is not reliable

I think what you mean is that wind alone is not baseload, not that it is unreliable. It is quite reliable in that its availability is predictable such that it can be coordinated with storage to create virtual baseload. Therefore its failure modes are relatively mild in impact.

In contrast, large centralized plants (whether combustion or nuclear) have far more consequential failure modes - for example, losing 1GW of power with little notice, as can happen with these plants, is usually a grid emergency event.

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

#407

Post by smegger001 »

wongarsu wrote: post #81
internetter wrote: post #55

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…

The US doesn't lack space. But investors like a quick return on investment; meanwhile nuclear reactors only make sense if you bet on high electricity prices for the next ~70 years. The time a nuclear plant spends on construction and decommissioning is about the same as the total lifetime of a solar installation.

How about recognizing that externalities of letting corporations do whats best for their own short term profits are costly to society, and that having safe cheap constant power is a social good that makes having government run nuclear power be a good idea. how about we not let the same people that have spent the last 50 years knowingly destroy the environment and hide their culpability be the ones to make the decision.

how about we as a society finally fulfill the promise of power to cheap to meter that we were told back in nuclears golden age before the carbon industry start the smear campaign against nuclear.

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

#408

Post by FredPret »

afterburner wrote: post #30
FredPret wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, of course. Power demand increases. Technology improves. Installed capacity ages out. There will always be a need to build new plants, might as well lean into it and be proactive.

Unless the technology becomes obsolete. There are other ways to generate power.

> Technology improves

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

#409

Post by [deleted] »

hef19898 wrote: post #400
Manuel_D wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries don't have the required energy density to make electric transoceanic possible travel. They're also heavy and would drastically reduce the cargo capacity of ships. It'd be more effective to just put the nuclear reactors on the cargo ships. Nuclear maritime propulsion is much more mature than long-distance electric propulsion (diesel subs have used electricity, but only over short distances).

Not sure if two weeks and 2,800 km submerged count as short distance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212A_submarine The reason why those systems aren't deployed to civilian surface ships is easy: cost.

[deleted]

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

#410

Post by 1659447091 »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #181
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]…

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…

This reminded me of a solar project at a US airport [0]. They placed solar panels to make a covered parking lot. I think it was part of a larger plan to use panels for cover and/or over some of the vast spaces that the airport covers

"Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS) and Austin Energy celebrate the completion of a new solar panel array constructed on the AUS campus that will produce 1.8 megawatts of locally-generated, renewable energy. ... With 6,642 solar panels spanning across a distance that is equal size to two football fields, the array on the top floor of the airport’s Blue Garage is the largest on-site renewable energy installation on the AUS campus. The panels offer shaded parking for Blue Garage customers and will generate enough solar energy to power up to 160 homes per year."

[0] https://www.austintexas.gov/news/austin-bergstrom-internatio...

Post reply on HN