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

561–570 of 1001 posts

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

#561

Post by apexalpha »

1.1GW for 30 BILLION dollars? Jeez, that's an insane amount of money for this little power.

Probably pretty high cost per kWh, too, which has to be guaranteed by the government I guess.

For comparison in my country they built a 1,6GW off-shore windfarm in 2 years with 0 government subsidy.

I understand that a nuclear plant provides power 24/7, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. But the cost of nuclear power is just insane compared to wind and PV.

It's just setting up your country for higher energy cost than needed for the next 40 years, while the government takes all the risk.

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

#562

Post by _ph_ »

internetter wrote: post #145
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]…

I want to make clear that I am not arguing against solar. My belief is that nuclear is an important piece of a much larger puzzle. Wind is not reliable, and for solar to match the figures you provided, we would need to figure out storage, so lets diversify our portfolio :)

Nuclear would be the worst technology for filling temporary gaps in the production of renewables. The ramping speed of nuclear reactors is limited, and they cannot be throttled below 40% output without shutting them down entirely for quite some time. On top of that, the main expense of nuclear reactors is building and maintaining them, so throttling a reactor is not reducing the costs. You really want to run a nuclear reactor with a high load.

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

#563

Post by defrost »

mpweiher wrote: post #557
stephenr wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it > Why do people bother mining it? > Because mining it is relatively cheap. Something does not add up here.

Mining exists and is cheap enough that there is no incentive to invest in something new, even if it might just as good. Particularly because "just as good" is rarely a good reason for changing and investing, it would have to be significantly better. (Though I have no real opinion on whether seawater extraction really is just as good...somewhat dubios)

FWiW the latest in a long line of seawater extraction papers is (2020):

https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2020/ta/d0ta0...

https://sci-hub.ru/10.1039/D0TA07180C

which has the weasel phrases

     uranium production costs could be reduced to $80.70–86.25 per kg of uranium with this fiber, which is similar to the uranium spot price of $86.68 per kg of uranium
and

    suggests the possibility of economically producing nuclear fuel from the ocean.
Not to disrespect their work, many small scale lab tests confidently assert that costs could be reduced and might possibly be economic.

The fine print is that so far no pilot plants exist and no estimates on the capital plant costs for industrial scale extraction to achieve the possible unit throughput prices as yet exist.

This may yet happen.

There may also be a slip between paper and industrial plant at scale.

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

#564

Post by Manuel_D »

angiosperm wrote: post #538
Manuel_D wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a per-MW basis nuclear power dropped in cost during the 1950s. See the small blue dots round the late 1950s and early 60s? Compare that with the cluster of red dots.

I.e., cost has risen monotonically since the 1950s.

Incorrect, it fell from the 1950s through the 1960s.

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

#565

Post by stephenr »

mpweiher wrote: post #557
stephenr wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it > Why do people bother mining it? > Because mining it is relatively cheap. Something does not add up here.

Mining exists and is cheap enough that there is no incentive to invest in something new, even if it might just as good. Particularly because "just as good" is rarely a good reason for changing and investing, it would have to be significantly better. (Though I have no real opinion on whether seawater extraction really is just as good...somewhat dubios)

To be clear: I'm not arguing for one or the other, I'm pointing out that one of the above statements doesn't align with the other.

If the other costs are equal (remember I said if) then extracting it from seawater would undoubtedly be easier overall simply because of abundance, and the non-destructive nature of collecting it would mean there's no issue with environmental challenges due to the destructive nature of mining.

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

#566

Post by zizee »

hackyhacky wrote: post #497
zizee wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I'm really just responding to your original statement of:

> I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact.

Perhaps you were specifically referring to the case of Nuclear power, but it didn't seem that way. Especially when you mentioned Insurance companies being the problem in the medical industry, as if they somehow exist in their current form independently from the regulatory environment they have helped to craft.

I have no real opinion on where nuclear is overburdened by regulation.

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

#567

Post by doikor »

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

> current pv is something like 10× cheaper than nuclear

Maybe in nameplate numbers but not actual production in places like Sweden. Especially during the time the consumption is the highest (winter). The whole country is further north then the northern most point in US (excluding Alaska).

But in the places most of humanity lives (including pretty much all of US) solar works quite well just not once you go far enough north/south.

If you want to go renewables in a place like Sweden you go wind+hydro. Hydro is mostly built out already so that leaves wind.

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

#568

Post by _ph_ »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #474
smegger001 wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about recognizing that externalities of letting corporations do whats best for their own short term profits are costly to society, and that having safe cheap constant power is a social good that makes having government run nuclear power be a good idea. how about we not let the same people that have spent the last 50 years knowingly destroy the environment and hide their culpability be the ones to make the decisio…

> before the carbon industry start the smear campaign against nuclear. The environmental Greens had a lot to do with the smear. Even recently, they were the ones who pushed for the shutdown of German nuclear power which ended up increasing German CO2 output.

No need for pushing as the coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP had decided to shut down the reactors in Germany and had set the date.

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

#569

Post by heavenlyblue »

zo1 wrote: post #386
internetter wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to make clear that I am not arguing against solar. My belief is that nuclear is an important piece of a much larger puzzle. Wind is not reliable, and for solar to match the figures you provided, we would need to figure out storage, so lets diversify our portfolio :)

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…

The future is the macro-grid: use electricity in northern hemisphere while it's summer in the southern hemisphere.

Pardon me, but there's zero future for the micro grids.

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

#570

Post by _ph_ »

delroth wrote: post #364
tonyhb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cant control rods can be lifted or inserted to meet demand?

Usually you'd vary the concentration of boric acid being injected in the reactor's core instead, since that doesn't involve wear and tear on safety-critical elements of the reactor. Nuclear reactors absolutely can vary their output to match demand, this is what France has been doing for 50+ years (and what Germany was doing before switching back to coal). It's not as reactive as coal/gas, but you can still vary withi…

France is balancing their reactors with a massive amount of water power, so they are not doing it alone on the reactor side. But I think France is indeed one of the countries with the highest relative amount of nuclear in the grid. Germany went never over 30% nuclear in the mix, so demand matching was way less of a problem. But also, both countries tried to make demand mostly constant like with pushing inefficient heating systems which would consume electricity at night.

This is very far off from working well together with a mostly renewable grid, where renewables can cover 100% of the load on most days, but there are larger gaps to be quickly filled.

Post reply on HN