Live data from Hacker News

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

eia.gov

521–530 of 1001 posts

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

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People love to say it, but is there evidence? I've never seen it - which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that this claim needs it.

Nuclear was much cheaper in the 1970s and early 80s: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C... This wasn't just due to regulatory influence, it was also due to economies of scale. But the two are related, more regulation results in fewer builds. Fewer builds reduces economies of scale and thus increases costs. Which results in even fewer nuclear builds, and so on.

Thanks for the paper. Quick summary (of a quick read): Most research has studied US and France; this paper adds other countries. Costs have greatly increased in US and France, but not always in other countries. They've decreased recently in South Korea.

> (economies of scale)

Why do you blame economies of scale? The paper doesn't say that, afaict.

Also they say, "increased environmental and safety regulation ... may have led to cost increases", which does not sound conclusive.

Also, I think we really need to be talking about lifetime cost, including construction, operation, and decommissioning. In many things, spending more up front reduces later costs.

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

#522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

If you were a cactus you'd no doubt disagree.

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

#523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Three Mile Island accident was in 1979, so I imagine that created a lot of resistance to continued construction across the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown. It wasn't just a fender bender.

Here is the best summary I can post quickly. Sorry for the source.

After the cooling water began to drain out of the broken pressure valve on the morning of March 28, 1979, emergency cooling pumps automatically went into operation. Left alone, these safety devices would have prevented the development of a larger crisis. However, human operators in the control room misread confusing and contradictory readings and shut off the emergency water system. The reactor was also shut down, but residual heat from the fission process was still being released. By early morning, the core had heated to over 4,000 degrees, just 1,000 degrees short of meltdown. In the meltdown scenario, the core melts, and deadly radiation drifts across the countryside, fatally sickening a potentially great number of people.

As the plant operators struggled to understand what had happened, the contaminated water was releasing radioactive gases throughout the plant. The radiation levels, though not immediately life-threatening, were dangerous, and the core cooked further as the contaminated water was contained and precautions were taken to protect the operators. Shortly after 8 a.m., word of the accident leaked to the outside world. The plant’s parent company, Metropolitan Edison, downplayed the crisis and claimed that no radiation had been detected off plant grounds, but the same day inspectors detected slightly increased levels of radiation nearby as a result of the contaminated water leak. Pennsylvania Governor Dick Thornburgh considered calling an evacuation.

Finally, at about 8 p.m., plant operators realized they needed to get water moving through the core again and restarted the pumps. The temperature began to drop, and pressure in the reactor was reduced. The reactor had come within less than an hour of a complete meltdown. More than half the core was destroyed or molten, but it had not broken its protective shell, and no radiation was escaping. The crisis was apparently over.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nuclear-accident...

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

#524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country. At the moment, they have 21 new reactors under construction.

21 reactors under construction even with a short build time of 7 years is just 3 finished per year, and with China having ~15x the population of Germany that would amount to 0,2 reactors finishing per year in Germany. Multiplied with 1,4 GW that would add ~0,3 GW capacity resulting in about 2,5 TWh additional electricity generated per year which is 0,5% of annual current german demand. Do that for 20 years and you'd…

> 21 reactors under construction even with a short build time of 7 years is just 3 finished per year

Only if you start building them and then stop. If you keep building them at that rate, after 7 years it becomes 21 coming on line every year, not 3.

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

#525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three Mile Island was a partial meltdown. It wasn't just a fender bender.

And the safety systems worked so everything was (mostly) contained and no one got hurt. Like a car crash where the seat belts and airbags lead to no injuries. And then all driving was banned.

The official numbers around radiation exposure from Three Mile Island claim minimal radiation exposure, yet studies have found numerous contradictory effects including 64% increased rates of cancer, > 50% increase in young infant mortality, and various other ill effects. [1] Studies have not been able to prove a causal link, but that's largely because they take, as an assumption, the correctness of the official numbers, making it essentially impossible to reject the null hypothesis or, in other words, prove a causal link.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident_hea...

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

#526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

From another thread:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Overnight-Construction-C...

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

#527
post #390
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…

Well, for one I (and I presume many other people) would not vote for a platform with such an extremist position.

Yes, imagine there was a governor whose position is "at night, everyone will be limited to no more than 100W." The best-case scenario for the governor would be that they're recalled quickly.

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

#528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the safety systems worked so everything was (mostly) contained and no one got hurt. Like a car crash where the seat belts and airbags lead to no injuries. And then all driving was banned.

The official numbers around radiation exposure from Three Mile Island claim minimal radiation exposure, yet studies have found numerous contradictory effects including 64% increased rates of cancer, > 50% increase in young infant mortality, and various other ill effects. [1] Studies have not been able to prove a causal link, but that's largely because they take, as an assumption, the correctness of the official numbe…

There's a slew of studies mentioned in your link, not all aligned with some "official" policy of suppression - and they amount in total to tentative evidence of maybe something.

Statistically it's inconclusive whether slight increases in some zones from a bit below average to a bit above average cancer rates is linked to TMI or to stress and|or increased screening.

What is certain, beyond a doubt, is that within the last week an explosion at a nickel plant in Indonesia left at least 13 dead and 46 injured.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/dec/24/explosion-at-a...

That's an example of the generally unreported and ongoing human cost of battery technology.

Note Well: I'm not pro nuclear OR anti battery - I am pragmatic about the real consequences of resource mining and extraction having been part of exploration geophysics and global resource mapping for several decades.

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

#529

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 point of the various 100% solar, wind, battery projections that exist is that no new tech is needed. Things won't be 100% Solar, Wind, Battery because other minor techs like nuclear, hydro, tidal, biomass or whatever already exist to some degree and can be part of the system. But current solar, wind and battery tech is enough, we just need to build it. The first 80% is the easy bit, with the greates payback, so t…

But if you still need to support the complete gas, hydro.... infrastructure for those few months when wind/solar/battery is not enough, how cheap are those renewables then really?

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Cost overruns" is underselling it - according to what I can find online it seems like the cost nearly doubled from 14B to 27B. I've never seen a public/private setup like this actually yield benefit for the consumer.

Arguably, the benefit is "less coal and CO2 in your family's lungs". The military doesn't make you money, it makes you safe. The post office doesn't make you money, it ensures communication and logistics. Roads don't make you money, they undergird the economy. Nuclear power doesn't save you money on your power bill. It establishes energy independence for our country and clean power for our atmosphere.

You don't need private enterprise to be involved to obtain those things though, is my point.
Post reply on HN