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

491–500 of 1001 posts

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

#491

Post by Manuel_D »

epistasis wrote: post #486
Manuel_D wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries cannot feasibly achieve the scale required to even out diurnal, let alone seasonal, fluctuations. The amount of batteries produced is nowhere near enough to satisfy demands for grid storage, and it'd massively set back electric vehicle adoption. Even as battery production ramps up, it's mostly going to go the EVs. Furthermore, electricity demand is going to go up too as people move from gas heating to elect…

This sort of argument does not pay attention to numeracy or the existing plans for battery production within the 2020s. We can't build more dams because there really is a hard limit on the geographical sites. With batteries, we already have commitments for factories to build 1TWh/year within the US alone by 2030. Worldwide production will be several times that. Average US electricity production is 500GW, at 8-10 hour…

Battery production will increase, yes, but so will electricity demand as transportation, heating, and industrial processes are electrified. Right now electricity use is only 37% of total energy use [1].

> Average US electricity production is 500GW, at 8-10 hours that's only 4TWh

Again, it's 12 hours for diurnal storage not 8 hours. More than 12 hours during the winter, actually. And diurnal storage isn't the only type of storage that's necessary. Factor in storage to even out seasonal fluctuations and you're looking at days maybe even weeks of energy storage. And again, 500 GW is going to turn into 1,300 GW as the rest of our energy use is electrified.

Batteries don't last 20 years, not even close. Diurnal storage is going to be cycled daily. A typical lithium ion cell lasts 300-500 charge cycles [2]. You can prolong this by limiting depth of discharge but this has the side effect of reducing the usable capacity. Let's be generous and assume 2,000 cycles that's only 5 and a half years.

200 GWh per year is still a massive amount of batteries. We're talking about over a third of global battery production to provide 8 hours of storage for just one country. And again, in reality we need more than 8 hours of storage and batteries don't last nearly as long as you claim.

There's a reason why plans for a primarily renewable grid assume that compressed air, hydrogen, or something else will account for the majority of storage: batteries aren't available in sufficient quantity, and deploying grid storage at any significant scale will severely reduce availability of batteries for EVs.

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

2. https://au.renogy.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about....

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

#492

Post by Manuel_D »

epistasis wrote: post #490
Manuel_D wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tech is not here. The scale of grid storage required to fulfill just diurnal storage - let alone days or weeks to offset seasonal variation - is far beyond what batteries can provide. To put this in perspective, the US alone uses 12 TWh of electricity per day. The world uses 60 TWh per day. Both of these figures are going to increase, as poorer countries develop and want amenities like air conditioning. Also, as…

The numbers in your post do not march your claim of the text not being there. Scaling production of existing tech 10-100x, or even 1000x, will surely result in new discovery too, but it we only need a few orders of magnitude increase in production, that's proof that the tech is there. Compare this to nuclear. Let's increase our production levels 100x. Where does that leave us, assuming that it was magically economica…

> Compare this to nuclear. Let's increase our production levels 100x.

Nuclear power already produces 10% of the world's electricity [1]. A 100x increase leaves the world with 10 times as much electricity as is needed, all coming from a decarbonized energy source.

Wind and solar are cheap because we don't currently have to even out their intermittency. Take away peaker plants and then intermittent sources become way more challenging. Solar produces energy in a sinusoidal pattern daily, requiring at least 12 hours of storage for truly non-intermittent solar plants. It also fluctuates over the course of the year due to weather and inclination of the Earth [2]. Wind power similarly sees fluctuations over the course of the year [3].

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_generation#Methods...

2. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Estimated-normalized-mon...

3. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/53637.pdf

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

#493

Post by nojvek »

internetter wrote: post #55
MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

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…

We need to move away from coal as soon as we can. Coal is worst CO2 pollutant and not that energy dense.

Move to a mixture of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear - whatever makes sense.

When the last coal powered plant is shut off in US, we should celebrate that as a day off for everyone.

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

#494

Post by pydry »

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #473
MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said: solar and wind and batteries can't provide consistent enough power, either for current or the growing energy needs, of the US or the world. Alternative power sources are required to maintain energy sufficiency into the future. Period. Ask any company that builds green energy if you don't believe me. What's more ridiculous than this oversight is the idea that the cost…

>I don't know how many times this needs to be said

Zero. Few people are unaware that the sun doesnt shine at night. It never needed repeating.

What theyre less educated about is that pumped storage, hydrogen, batteries, solar/wind anticorrelation and demand shaping are, together, more than capable of accomodating renewable intermittency.

What's most ridiculous is that even the most expensive form of viable power storage (hydrogen) is still cheaper when paired with solar or wind than nuclear power is alone. This isnt to say that we should go all in on hydrogen/solar, just that nuclear power's cost is unconscionably high.

Indeed, if it werent for the nuclear military's reliance on civilian supply chains and skills it would never get built and the 'environmentalist nuclear' PR offensive of the last ~8 years that resonated with so many people wouldnt have happened.

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

#495

Post by epistasis »

mpweiher wrote: post #327
epistasis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese nuclear is not competing very well. There's a minuscule amount of it planned, only like 50GW over the coming decades. This is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what China are doing with batteries, wind, and solar.

"China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China So the current plans are for roughly tripling installed capacity.

50GW, 88GW, it's all small potatoes compared to the hundreds of GW of annual additions for other technologies.

If nuclear could compete, China would be building the hell out of it, and selling it internationally. Getting other countries to use your nuclear supply chain for their electrical infrastructure is such a huge geopolitical win that if it were possible, it would be one of the key political and economic strategies of China.

If China, one of the few countries with a mastery of large construction projects, can't make nuclear cheap, what hope do more advanced economies have with their higher labor costs?

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

#496

Post by mbgerring »

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.

Regardless of your opinion on this subject, agrivoltaics projects are being installed today at an increasing rate, and they’re going well, from what I’ve read. It’s not some theoretical proposal, it’s happening now. It’s likely that solar panels will be installed both in parking lots and over farmland.

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

#497

Post by hackyhacky »

zizee wrote: post #487
hackyhacky wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've used all of these services and they all have problems. I can't say that those problems are due to "excessive regulation." In the case of healthcare, for example, most of the problems come from insurance companies who allegedly operate in the free market. I am strongly in favor of business, zoning, and environmental regulations because they provide valuable function. Moreover, none of that is relevant to nuclear…

Using services is not the same as operating those services. I think if you could see the true costs that all the regulations bring, you might change your mind. And if you're happy to pay these costs you're most likely wealthy enough to be able to bear them. Healthcare companies operate in an environment that is very much not a free market. For these companies, the regulatory burden is welcome as it is a high barrier…

I'm aware of regulatory capture, thanks. You have not convinced me that this case applies sufficiently to the nuclear sector (which is after all the topic of conversation), where it has been claimed that unnecessary safety regulations are holding back progress.

As for other industries: sure, some regulations are put in place by the industry itself to preserve the status quo. And other regulations absolutely benefit society, even if they impose a cost to the industry. It's important to separate these two cases. What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation," implying that all regulations are unnecessary obstacles that serve no valid purpose. If you want to reduce regulations, okay: tell me specific regulations that you feel cost more than they are worth to society. Don't just lecture me in general about, "Hey, regulatory capture is a thing." Those blanket arguments are unpersuasive and are often propagated by industry players seeking to free themselves of costly regulations, regardless of their value to society.

If we're talking about the US specifically, I can tell you that business and environmental regulations are vastly lighter than other Western nations. In if we compare the US regulatory framework to non-Western nations, we find that there is a tangible cost to lighter regulatory load, in terms of corruption, fraud, pollution, labor rights abuse.

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

#498

Post by epistasis »

Manuel_D wrote: post #492
epistasis wrote: post #490

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The numbers in your post do not march your claim of the text not being there. Scaling production of existing tech 10-100x, or even 1000x, will surely result in new discovery too, but it we only need a few orders of magnitude increase in production, that's proof that the tech is there. Compare this to nuclear. Let's increase our production levels 100x. Where does that leave us, assuming that it was magically economica…

> Compare this to nuclear. Let's increase our production levels 100x. Nuclear power already produces 10% of the world's electricity [1]. A 100x increase leaves the world with 10 times as much electricity as is needed, all coming from a decarbonized energy source. Wind and solar are cheap because we don't currently have to even out their intermittency. Take away peaker plants and then intermittent sources become way m…

A 100x increase would get us back to what we were building half a century ago. Current nuclear production has been nonexistent, which is why this one reactor is such big news.

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

#499

Post by adastra22 »

jeromegv wrote: post #488
adastra22 wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s an extremely poor example. It’s a multi phase project and for many years government didn’t provide any funding as it was not a priority. It’s not like they were actively trying to build it for 47 years, they built multiple small parts of it through multiple phases but they were never trying to build the whole thing. It was just not anything important to complete.

The criticism still stands. It should not take 47 years from recognition that a road is needed to actually building it.

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

#500

Post by acidburnNSA »

hef19898 wrote: post #477
keep_reading wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is renewable for the same reason geothermal is renewable, and you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it https://www.tiktok.com/@nuclearsciencelover/video/7092135813...

So we moved from using Twitter as a source to TikTok? We live in dark times...

You can also get the same information from here, which has an extensive reference section at the bottom. Disclosure: I wrote it.

https://whatisnuclear.com/nuclear-sustainability.html

Post reply on HN