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

#541

Post by gustavus » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:01 AM UTC

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.

Ya that's a level of unmitigated bull** where I live there is usually several days out of the year where the temperature is -40 (doesn't matter the units at that temperature it's the same) and massive wind chill. There's not really a reasonable way to heat a houseduring the day and have it remain warm with tempratures like that without major changes to the way houses are built.

This seems like the quintessential example of some Cali tech bro nor understanding that there is anyone outside of their little bubble and assui everyone just lives like them.

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

#542

Post by throwawaaarrgh » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:03 AM UTC

pydry wrote: post #494

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stor…

The energy sector is still private. If green were cheaper, and more reliable, and gave a good return, it would be getting a bigger investment. But it's not, because it's not. Maybe in theoretical-perfect-future-world it's cheaper, but not today.

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

#543

Post by gustavus » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:03 AM UTC

stephenr wrote: post #454

burnerburnito wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"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…

Just as well New York and Virginia have oodles of open ocean right at their doorstep to run multi-gigawatt wind farms I guess huh?

Yeah and all those people on the other side of the Appalachians can just take a hike, why do they need power anyway. They brought the problem on their selves with their dirty coal mining habits time for them to pay the price.

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

#544

Post by happytiger » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:10 AM UTC

I really want nuclear reactors and clean energy but I’m keenly aware that we are rushing headlong and with pathetic levels of self-control into AI.

A global environment filled with nuclear reactors and AIs operating only in the lower interests of individual nation states is a risk I haven’t seen much discussion about, but it’s not a great scenario.

There is a distinct possibility that no security system design will be impervious to AGI: a weird-to-consider existential risk.

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

#545

Post by throwaway2037 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:11 AM UTC

sandworm101 wrote: post #353

mminer237 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not 10x. The optimal ground coverage ratio in the South even for tracking panels is like 30%: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2... Most of the US isn't wooded. I don't think a significant number of projects propose clear-cutting to build solar farms. I don't know where that came from.

Try where i am, the pacific northwest. Its all mountains and trees. Large solar farms are always tricky, even residential rooftop solar often runs into issues with trees.

This might be a controversial opinion: In many cases, it might be reasonable to clear cut 10 sq km for solar power. Pacific Northwest is enormous. There is plenty of undeveloped land that can be used for solar power. To be clear: I am not suggesting "cut down all of the tree for solar". I am saying: Choose 1/5/10 sq km plots, clear cut them, and install solar power. Ten to one hundred of these in the region would have minimal environmental impact, but very large impact to reduce use of hydrocarbons for electricity production.

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

#546

Post by throwaway2037 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:12 AM UTC

Lendal wrote: post #475

angiosperm wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody builds solar farms on "north-facing slopes". Nobody is making solar panels "track the sun". Nobody even proposes "clearcutting forests" for solar farms. Trolling is in strict violation of site guidelines.

Well, actually Florida (FPL) along I-10 is right now constructing new solar farms where there used to be forests. I'm not sure if what they did with the trees constitutes "clear cutting" but the solar panels are there now, and the trees are not. I've driven the route for many years. It was all forested.

Do you know if those forests were professionally managed for paper production? It might be private land, and it very likely legal.

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

#547

Post by defrost » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:13 AM UTC

gustavus wrote: post #541

avar wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ya that's a level of unmitigated bull** where I live there is usually several days out of the year where the temperature is -40 (doesn't matter the units at that temperature it's the same) and massive wind chill. There's not really a reasonable way to heat a houseduring the day and have it remain warm with tempratures like that without major changes to the way houses are built. This seems like the quintessential exam…

Perhaps a Cali tech bro, maybe a standard scandanavian in a passive energy house with tight seals, good insulation, triple glazing, large solar heated hot water tank to hold thermal energy during the night, etc.

There are people outside everbodies particular bubbles.

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

#548

Post by Paradigma11 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:14 AM UTC

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #423

Joeri wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 current…

Its pretty clear whats going to happen. Energy companies will provide the absolute minimum redundancies and will make formidable profits most years. Every 10-15 years there will be some catastrophic blackout due to unlikely weather events and everybody will scream murder. The energy companies will swear to do better and maybe some toothless regulations will be legislated. The politicians will be happy to be bought off by those companies since the next event will be most likely after they have left office, so its free money.

Rince repeat.

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

#549

Post by stephenr » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:30 AM UTC

gustavus wrote: post #543

stephenr wrote: post #454

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as well New York and Virginia have oodles of open ocean right at their doorstep to run multi-gigawatt wind farms I guess huh?

Yeah and all those people on the other side of the Appalachians can just take a hike, why do they need power anyway. They brought the problem on their selves with their dirty coal mining habits time for them to pay the price.

The comment I replied to talked about getting power from Nevada to New York. I'm not American so I had to look at a map but it seems like the other side of the Appalachians from New York is... Ohio?

Is there something about Ohio that means they have no atmospheric wind nor natural sunlight?

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

#550

Post by ponector » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 7:39 AM UTC

angiosperm wrote: post #463

ponector wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can create a fuel with solar energy and use it in the ship's engine. Hydrogen or whatever will be available. But heavy oil is much cheaper and will be used forever untill gasoline/diesel cars/trucks will pass away.

Heavy oil ships are already being banned from numerous ports. That will only accelerate. Shipbuilders are gearing up to build anhydrous ammonia fueled replacements. Anhydrous ammonia will be produced at massive scale in tropical synthesis facilities for delivery worldwide. This is why long-term storage is not considered important.

Not ships are banned, but usage of heavy fuel. That means the last few hundred miles ship goes using diesel. But in international waters any kind of fuel could be used.