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

#571

Post by _ph_ » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 8:53 AM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #476

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.

> Nobody is making solar panels "track the sun". It's very common for utility-scale solar to use single-axis trackers (the panels move from pointing east to pointing west through the day), unlike small-scale solar which usually has fixed panels (normally pointing south or north depending on which hemisphere you're on). The gain from single-axis trackers is high enough and their cost is low enough (a single geared mot…

I think trackers are a thing of the past. The cost of solar panels has sunken so low, they come essentially for free in installations. A tracker would be way to expensive. Here in Germany, people even start covering north-facing roofs with solar, and of course even walls and fences, if they are roughly in the right direction.

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

#572

Post by fifilura » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 8:55 AM UTC

throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #542

pydry wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This is because the producers are not paying (enough) for the waste they create.

Emissions or nuclear waste.

Seems like natural they would?

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

#573

Post by jasonwatkinspdx » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 8:55 AM UTC

Manuel_D wrote: post #320

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sustainable fuels. It's the solution long haul aviation is coalescing around.

Synthetic fuel has a lot of difficulties. One, it requires hydrogen as an input which is typically produced through steam reformation [1], a process that emits CO2. Electrolysis is less efficient and hard to scale as equipment is subject to intense corrosion. Second, CO2 is at very low concentrations in the atmosphere. Direct atmospheric carbon sequestration is expensive and slow. The biggest startup in the synthetic…

Biofuels do not require hydrogen or atmospheric CO2 capture, well beyond growing plants.

Also something I learned recently is that the idea that biofuels are a no go because they compete with food is a simplistic deflection. Looking at Brazil as an example the biofuel crops like sugarcane and groundnuts are grown in marginal land in the south that wasn't being used for agriculture. The main driver of Amazonian deforestation is cattle ranching.

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

#574

Post by otherme123 » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 8:58 AM UTC

smegger001 wrote: post #407

wongarsu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US doesn't lack space. But investors like a quick return on investment; meanwhile nuclear reactors only make sense if you bet on high electricity prices for the next ~70 years. The time a nuclear plant spends on construction and decommissioning is about the same as the total lifetime of a solar installation.

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…

Nuclear has a lot of externalities (residues, security, financing... usually paid and supported by others). You talk about nuclear like it was a small enterprise, when it's the very definition of "greedy corporation".

It's funny-and-sad to see the old behemoth of nuclear power begging for government support as they last chance to be alive.

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

#575

Post by _ph_ » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 8:59 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.

Then you probably shouldn't build large solar farms. Leaves still a huge amount of area open on top of roofs, parking lots, streets which could be used for solar without cutting down a single tree. Though it somehow didn't prevent those roads and houses to be build :p And while I don't like cutting down trees, just fire protection - and that gets an even larger topic in the future - should tell you to cut down trees directly around houses, so rooftop solar should be possible in most places.

But the thing is: the pacific northwest should be ideal for wind power. So that would be the main emphasis. And then build a high power line to Nevada. Which delivers solar to the northwest and in the nights wind power to Nevada.

Germany already has a 1.4GW powerline to Norway operational, where we network the grid to optimize renewable utilization.

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

#576

Post by nicoburns » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 9:01 AM UTC

smegger001 wrote: post #402

zo1 wrote: 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…

"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…

Storing heat for a few hours can be done pretty easily and cheaply though. Indeed many houses already have technologies like water tanks and storage heaters that do this.

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

#577

Post by _ph_ » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 9:05 AM UTC

edm0nd wrote: post #182

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear might not be able to compete in the U.S. and Europe, but that’s largely because of a ridiculous regulatory regime and has very little to do with the actual tech.

We can thank the hippies of the 60s and 70s for all their anti-nuclear silliness for making the nuclear industry heavily over regulated.

You have to to be honest. They were able to push for stronger regulations not because politics mainly listens to hippies. Stronger regulations were prudent considering the safety levels of the earlier reactor design. Without those regulations, many more cheap, but less safe reactors might have been built. Of which more had gone bad over years.

So yes, if you will, thank the hippies for preventing several nuclear incidents.

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

#578

Post by radicalbyte » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 9:05 AM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #558

Fatnino wrote: post #470

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.

No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under construction. And then decide whether it is prudent to continue with the construction and which changes would be required.

Coal cause more cancer and pumps a huge amount of radioactive material into the sky but I've not seen anyone closing coal power stations to stop that. The fear of nuclear power is just one of those irrational fears..

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

#579

Post by doikor » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 9:06 AM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #198

klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Nuclear power plants are currently too expensive to not be used at 100% all the time (except when you need to perform maintenance). Some nuclear power plants are designed to be able to load follow, but in practice they don't do it. Batteries will never be cheap enough to allow for seasonal storage. They are good for day-to-night storage. For seasonal fluctuations, the best you can do is natural gas. If we convert all…

> Nuclear power plants are currently too expensive to not be used at 100% all the time (except when you need to perform maintenance).

France has been load following with their nuclear plants for decades. They have to as they have so much of it. The reactors in Germany also did/do the same.

The reactors in Finland also started to do that too during this summer as we are having more and more wind (and a new 1600MW nuclear reactor) and a huge chunk is sold on the spot market (so if nobody bought your nuclear power you are not allowed to send it to the grid). Basically leaving ramping down your production as the only choice.

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

#580

Post by DeathArrow » Thu, Dec 28, 2023, 9:11 AM UTC

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…

>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.

Why shouldn't I be able to have oodles of energy at the flick of a switch?

Why is it bad that people had more than 100 years of using energy at a reasonable price point? Why do you think it's good for the energy to become more expensive or not to be available at all?

We do need energy for everything.