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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by g8oz »

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.

Yes and while it may be early days for green hydrogen, it once was for solar and wind as well. And as it did with solar the European Union is leading the way in developing policy frameworks that will grow the industry.

https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/energy-systems-integratio...

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

#432

Post by angiosperm »

dralley wrote: post #311
orangepurple wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible for solar panels to be semi-transparent so crops can still thrive underneath?

The logistics of trying to plant, maintain and harvest crops underneath a bunch of solar panels while also needing to deal with the subsequent issues of uneven runoff of water from rain make it seem impractical. Just cover parking lots, malls and supermarkets with them, we have plenty of those, and they're closer to where the electricity is needed than agricultural land.

You can make up whatever you like, saying "seems". Facts are better.

The fact is that agrivoltaics has been very successful, for reasons you probably would not guess in a wholesale void of facts. Looking up the facts, you could actually learn something.

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

#433

Post by angiosperm »

sandworm101 wrote: post #350
gridspy wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We absolutely should cover those, but there is a lot of farmland. There may not be enough "mall-land"

Well, when i see solar panels atop every mall and commercial building, when every home has a solar roof, then i'll entertain chopping down wilderness or sacrificing farmland to the cause. I still see plent of bare rooftop to address first.

Literally nobody proposes "sacrificing" farmland.

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

#434

Post by Manuel_D »

hef19898 wrote: post #422
Manuel_D wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Green fuel has proven exceptionally difficult to manufacture, and companies promising to produce it are running far behind schedule: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/25/1050899/promethe...

> ...no submarine technology is commercially feasible. It is too specialized.

Except that's demonstrably false. Many (most?) subs use nuclear propulsion, and there are civilian ships that use nuclear propulsion. The NS Savannah was operated successfully for a decade [1], and several Russian ice breakers for even longer than that.

The fact that organization with the explicit goal of lobbying for renewables [2] prefers green fuel does not make it the optimal choice. It's the optimal choice to advance that group's goal of promoting green fuel, because nuclear power at scale is a competition risk for wind and solar

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Renewable_Energy...

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

#435

Post by hef19898 »

apatheticonion wrote: post #428
hef19898 wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intermitten…

Had to dig in my comments, but there you go:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38303819

Self citing:

Better not use biased opinion pieces, when there numbers from government sources (US, but eho cares):

LCOE (total, incl. CAPEX, in USD per MWh):

coal 82.6, combined cycle 39.9, advanced nuclear 81.7, geothermal 37.6, biomass 90.1, onshore wind 40, offshore wind (that one was a surprise, since offshore wind should be quite cheap, mainly driven by capital cost of 104 USD per MWh) 105, solar 33.8, solar hybrid 49 and hydro 64.

Variable cost (same as above):

coal 23.7, combined cycle 27.7, adv. nuclear 10.3, geothermal 1.2, biomass 30, onshore wind 0, offshore wind 0, solar 0, solar hybrid 0, hydro 4.1

All number from here:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation...., page 9.

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

#436

Post by angiosperm »

burnerburnito wrote: post #348
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]…

>"or more square kilometers of land [...]" Technically you need to factor in the fact that a nuclear plant can be built relatively near the places where its power will be consumed; some mass of solar power in Nevada is highly inefficient for powering New York or Virginia, even if you built HVDC lines to cut down on total line losses, so you'll need to pick land tracts reasonably near battery banks that would in turn…

Inventing imaginary problems does not contribute to the discussion. Please use facts.

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

#437

Post by angiosperm »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #342
jodrellblank wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cover 4,000 square miles of the USA in surface car parks[1] and that's freedom. Suggest covering 11,000 square miles of desert in solar panels which don't stop land being used for grazing or crop growing or insects or wildlife, and that's environmental distruction that "even" you would balk at. [1] https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-unite...

False dichotomy. The people who will be screaming about covering the desert with solar panels are exactly the same people who scream about covering the land with car parks. Exactly. The only energy source radical environmentalists like is one that exists only in a fantasy. As soon as it starts being built, it becomes evil. Note that they're already up in arms about windmills killing birds. Also, covering the desert i…

The desert ecosystem wastes almost all of its incoming joules. The most valuable commodity in a desert is shade.

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

#438

Post by wolverine876 »

Georgelemental wrote: post #282
wolverine876 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. When we built them more often, weren't they bespoke and expensive?

No, they were much cheaper in the 70s and 80s!

That's not what I understand, but I don't have numbers. Do you happen to know where we can find some?

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

#439

Post by angiosperm »

evilos wrote: post #361
margalabargala wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you ignore all other variables, then of course the situation looks like what one variable would make it do. Would covering a desert in solar panels cause more thermal solar absorption in that area than would otherwise happen? Yes. But if we're optimizing for "offsetting the heating effect of human GHG emissions", then installing 4.5TW of solar (about 4x what has been installed worldwide to date) would have a much…

Has this actually been quantified? Earth's albedo is a critical factor in the portion of the sun's energy that is rejected into space, just as GHG incidence in the atmosphere is. In theory, darkening a portion of the Earth with high albedo (snow, sand) is worse than darkening a portion of the Earth with low albedo (roads, roofs, forest). Then it should be better to use a greener area for solar panels so long as the c…

Millions of square kilometers of the arctic are being "darkened" by loss of sea ice. Nothing humans can do can approach even a tiny fraction of that.

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

#440

Post by wolverine876 »

zdragnar wrote: post #281
wolverine876 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> NRC needs certification timeliness requirements forced on it That's going to be tough: What happens if the day comes and they don't yet know? They can't just approve it, so just deny it?

The government should cover the losses of the investors. Various agencies are constantly missing FOIA deadlines, and often the only way to get them to actually do the jobs they are legally required to do is to sue them in court, asking for both the information and to have court costs covered.

Even if you could pass that legislation, which seems very unlikely, that doesn't solve the problem. The employees of the regulators aren't personally liable, and in many respects don't individually control the schedule. The investors also cause delays - and would now have an incentive to do that - and in many cases the/an investor is the government. Also, good luck explaining to taxpayers the $10 billion payout.
Post reply on HN