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

411–420 of 1001 posts

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

#411

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

XorNot wrote: post #395
cesarb wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? For the same reason gas power plants and hydroelectric power plants are quoted in MW units, and not on the size of their fuel tanks or reservoir volume (converted to MWh as appropriate): it's the most important number for balancing the grid. If…

Thus answering the challenge: they're not storage . They're grid stabilization utilities. Because no one expects to run them for more then 30 minutes to an hour while they bring dispatchable generation online. Which means they're irrelevant to the idea of grid scale energy storage, because they don't meaningfully store anything.

Last year you said they couldn't even meet enough demand for the grid. Now it is 30 minutes to an hour. Next year it will be hours.

How does it feel when the Overton windows moves while nuclear is stuck in the past?

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

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

#412

Post by Manuel_D »

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.

New York City to Lisbon is 5,400 kilometers. So no, 2,800 km is not even far enough to cross the Atlantic let alone the Pacific.

That submarine also does not use batteries for energy storage, it uses hydrogen gas (almost certainly produced via steam reformation).

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

#413

Post by hef19898 »

apatheticonion wrote: post #315
est31 wrote: post #221

Earlier 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…

One thing you didn't include: Opex, a solar farm is pretty low maintenance and requires zero fuel. A NPP is the opposite.

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

#414

Post by Manuel_D »

hef19898 wrote: post #396
Manuel_D wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ammonia also requires hydrogen as an input. Ammonia is essentially a storage mechanism for hydrogen, eliminating the need for cryogenic or compressed storage. Basically, you need to find a carbon-neutral alternative to the Haber process [1] to produce ammonia as fuel. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

Which we have already. And that wouod be a great solution to the problem of storing electricity / energy. And it could even use, partially, existing gas infrastructure. Green hydrogen absolutey is a thing, bow we just need to deploy it at scale.

No, almost all of our ammonia is produced via the Haber process which emits carbon dioxide. Less than a tenth of one percent of our hydrogen is produced via green hydrogen:

> As of 2021, green hydrogen accounted for less than 0.04% of total hydrogen production. Its cost relative to hydrogen derived from fossil fuels is the main reason green hydrogen is in less demand. For example, hydrogen produced by electrolysis powered by solar power was about 25 times more expensive than that derived from hydrocarbons in 2018.

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

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

#415

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

neither_color wrote: post #303
grecy wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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-...

Their capacity factors are getting ever lower and at the same time they added more renewables than the growth for the electricity grid.

In other words, their CO2 emissions are set for structural decline simply by the amount of renewables being built. China is way ahead of the west.

https://theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-e...

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

#416

Post by zo1 »

smegger001 wrote: post #402
zo1 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> "Telling people to stop bathing in electricity at night when that what keeps them alive is bullshit."

I never said anything of the sort. You're taking a really bad-faith and extreme straw-man of what I said, and I refuse to participate.

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

#417

Post by avar »

smegger001 wrote: post #402
zo1 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It's normal in many very cold places to entirely switch off your heating overnight.

You heat your home up during the day and evening, and as you retire for the night it's switched off. With sufficient insulation and warm bedding you don't need active heating overnight.

So it's absolutely compatible with an electric supply that's heavily biased towards the daytime.

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

#418

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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…

Or just the attacks by the Houthi in the Red Sea the past month.

Imagine one target being nuclear powered.

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

#419

Post by galangalalgol »

Gare wrote: post #389
jodrellblank wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Figuring out storage is hard if you think in terms of Lithium Ion grid-scale batteries, or mountains for pumped hydro, but[1] puts forward the idea of synthetic natural gas generated by solar panels. That can be pumped into existing national gas grids, existing gas storage, and sent into existing gas power stations to generate power in quiet times. The article says that solar power has dropped from $100/Watt in 1976…

Sure, if it pans out. I'm all for syngas if it can be produced somewhat efficiently at scale. But right now lithium batteries and hydro are proven technologies that can be utilized. That's the difference.

If the story I link below is real, synthetic propane could become the standard for energy storage. Extremely efficient production from electricity and direct fuel cells convert it back even more efficiently. Hank Hill would be so proud.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37218727

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

#420

Post by zo1 »

avar wrote: post #417
smegger001 wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

It's normal in many very cold places to entirely switch off your heating overnight. You heat your home up during the day and evening, and as you retire for the night it's switched off. With sufficient insulation and warm bedding you don't need active heating overnight. So it's absolutely compatible with an electric supply that's heavily biased towards the daytime.

As an example, it may start becoming more economical to include heat-batteries (I forget the name) in house construction such that they retain heat and radiate it to maintain a not freezing ambient temperature inside a house. That, along with insulation, and some rather moderate changes to behaviour, could entirely eliminate the need for electricity-use during night time hours. We don't know what ingenious and wonderful things people may do when the real-cost of electricity at night is exposed to them.
Post reply on HN