First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation • Hacker News Board

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

#421

Post by jakeinspace » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:33 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #168

belorn wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumped hydro used to exist here in Sweden during the 1970s. They were phased out because they are not cost competitive. They built nuclear power plants instead because those were cost competitive at that time. It would be funny if the cost has switched between pumped hydro and nuclear, but I suspect they haven't. What really pushed out both were cheap natural gas and oil. Even now, new gas powered plants are being pl…

grid-scale storage becomes more profitable when your primary energy production is more intermittent. current pv is something like 10× cheaper than nuclear before you factor in intermittency, and that opens up a huge market for grid-scale storage that didn't exist in the 01970s. pumped hydro was replaced by dispatchable gas, but gas is more expensive now, and batteries are cheaper

If, as seems likely, solar and wind come to totally dominate all new energy construction, then it seems like state/provincial and federal governments will need to either legally mandate / highly incentivize the construction of new baseload by utilities, or build those plants themselves. We have the TVA but as much as I hope, I don't think we're getting a bunch more federally owned and operated power companies in the US.

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

#422

Post by hef19898 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:35 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #412

hef19898 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That sub cals uses fuel cells, because WW2 is over for quite a while and technology advanced.

But no, 2,800 km isn't short. Not feasible for commercial ise, sure, but then no submarine technology is commercially feasible. It is too specialized.

Hence, green fuel as the preferred, and most realistic, option to decarbonize shipping.

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

#423

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:36 AM UTC

Joeri wrote: post #187

rjbwork wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

MIT found that reusing a design made plants more expensive to build, not less, because of costly on-site last minute design changes. Taking your point more charitably, it is indeed the lack of a sustainable nuclear energy industry that routinely builds plants that causes costs to skyrocket. There is a chicken and egg situation: nuclear projects don’t get funded because they’re too expensive, so there is no chance to…

How many hundreds of billions in subsidies would be required to once again, for the nth time since the 1950s prove that nuclear is truly dead outside of luxury niche applications like submarines?

Today renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels which in turn are cheaper than than nuclear. Through pure economic terms the world is steaming towards a new cheaper energy equilibrium based on renewable energy.

We are currently in the chaotic transitioning phase but that will of course shake out. Sprinkling some luxury nuclear in top will have miniscule effect.

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

#424

Post by est31 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:38 AM UTC

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…

> I picked a relatively large, recent, US based solar farm from the list of plants in wikipedia

> Agua Caliente Solar Project (2016)

Note that solar being cheaper than nuclear is a more recent phenomenon than 2016. The solar panel prices went from $0.63 to $0.26 in the time span between 2016 and 2022.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices?time=2002...

A better example is Spotsylvania Solar/Highlander Solar: https://www.sheppardmullin.com/assets/htmldocuments/PFI%2020...

Construction costs: $905m USD

Nameplate capacity: 618 MW

I couldn't find used capacity factors but Yuma is one of the sunniest counties in the USA while Spotsylvania county is further north and also has less sunny days. With an assumed capacity factor of 18%, one gets 111 MW.

$905m / nameplate capacity = $1.48 USD per rated W

$905m / used capacity = $8.24 USD per realized W

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

#425

Post by grecy » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

applied_heat wrote: post #113

dexwiz wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, let his companies blow up a few to learn how to build them. /s Rockets and cars are one thing. But that risk equation doesn’t work for nuclear.

He has shook up and revitalized two industries and proven his ability to execute and get people motivated to do significant work with physics and manufacturing and project management that are complex. It doesn’t seem that far fetched to me and aligns with his sustainable energy focus but downvoters seem to disagree!

Based on everything he has said to date, he would just cover a few square km with solar. In that one talk he said building enough solar to power the entire world is similar in effort to all the cars that have ever been built. So we can certainly do it.

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

#426

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

kragen wrote: post #190

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike nuclear, which is too expensive when you don't overbuild it, and becomes simply stupidly expensive if you contemplate overbuilding it. Overbuilding nuclear is so preposterous that nuclear fans just pretend you magically don't need to, to prevent their fragile dream from being crushed by reality, and let them continue to steer at renewables and all the problems they face as every nation on earth builds then out…

you don't need to overbuild nuclear; nuclear plants commonly have a capacity factor of over 80%

The grid has wild differences between day and night. Who cares if you can run at 100% when no one wants the power because everyone is asleep?

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

#427

Post by ViewTrick1002 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:43 AM UTC

Tommstein wrote: post #233

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike nuclear, which is too expensive when you don't overbuild it, and becomes simply stupidly expensive if you contemplate overbuilding it. Overbuilding nuclear is so preposterous that nuclear fans just pretend you magically don't need to, to prevent their fragile dream from being crushed by reality, and let them continue to steer at renewables and all the problems they face as every nation on earth builds then out…

> Unlike nuclear, which is too expensive when you don't overbuild it, and becomes simply stupidly expensive if you contemplate overbuilding it. > Overbuilding nuclear is so preposterous that nuclear fans just pretend you magically don't need to, to prevent their fragile dream from being crushed by reality, and let them continue to steer at renewables and all the problems they face as every nation on earth builds then…

The grid has wild differences between day and night. Who cares if you can run at 100% when no one wants the power because everyone is asleep?

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

#428

Post by apatheticonion » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:45 AM UTC

hef19898 wrote: post #413

apatheticonion wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's fair, I wonder if there are numbers on running costs.

I'm certain nuclear running costs would dwarf solar - I think solar just needs fresh water, cleaning and hardware maintenance (replacing inverters, and such).

Would be interesting to work the running costs into the "$ per realized W" calculation.

I'd also like to see how battery-backed solar compares. I assume the objective would be to solve the intermittency issue, but I am hopeful it would increase the capacity factor as well.

Another thing that's interesting to consider is multi-purpose energy utilization you get with nuclear - like desalination and hydrogen generation - though the latter is uneconomical because hydrogen produced from fossil fuels is much cheaper.

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

#429

Post by marcosdumay » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:47 AM UTC

margalabargala wrote: post #121

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…

> 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]…

The thing about mineral reserves is that they only make sense when you add the price-point to the number.

There is enough Uranium on the planet for a few centuries. Make it a few millennia if you breed it, and lots and lots of millennia if you expand your reactors to use other fuels. But most of it is way more expensive to get than what we use today... what actually makes very little difference for the final costs.

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

#430

Post by adastra22 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 1:49 AM UTC

saltminer wrote: post #341

arcfour wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeez. Imagine walking into a construction site from 2 decades ago.

The A-35 (a highway in Quebec) has been under construction since 1966. When finished, it will be 34 miles/55 km long. Two decades isn't very long for an infrastructure project, which is unfortunate since long-term planning benefits greatly from political stability, and many areas are seeing large shifts for the worse in that regard.

Two decades ought be a very long time for an infrastructure project. I guarantee you China and India aren't taking 47 years to build a 55 km highway.