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

621–630 of 1001 posts

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

#621

Post by zizee »

zizee wrote: post #566
hackyhacky wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 independe…

Too late to edit, but I wanted to add:

> What terrifies me is the lack of nuance in the conservative talking points about "reducing regulation,"

I think this is really an issue of all issues in society today. Emphatic soundbites resonate with people, nuanced discussion does not. I'd think all politicians do this, and it's most notable when they're making statements about things we personally disagree on. If it's something we agree on, we happy to forgive and we "know" that the statement's lack of nuance is ok, because we don't want the message to be watered down.

Personally, I think there are many regulations that are good and well thought out, and many that are not. Industry typically does not bear the costs, they are passed on to the consumer. Sometimes this is good. Externalities should be priced in. Sometimes this is not so good, when you have a regulation for every edge case.

I'm not going to get into a debate on specific regulations. But if you don't believe there exists a lot of dumb regulations, just Google "weird regulations".

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

#623

Post by doikor »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #415
neither_color wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I checked they're also outcompeting everyone in new coal plants https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...

Their capacity factors are getting ever lower and at the same time they added more renewables than the growth for the electricity grid. In other words, their CO2 emissions are set for structural decline simply by the amount of renewables being built. China is way ahead of the west. https://theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-carbon-e...

Some parts of the west already did that years ago in electricity production. For example carbon free electricity production shares in France (88%), Sweden (98%), Finland (90%), etc.

Though there is still a lot of work to do to go fully CO2 neutral due to cars, trucks, ships, planes, fertiliser production, etc.

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

#624

Post by danhor »

mpweiher wrote: post #338
matthewdgreen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this list which shows "under construction", "planned" and "proposed". It does not look like the US is planning to build a lot of reactors. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

The US is one of the 22 signatories of the COP28 pledge to triple nuclear capacity by 2050. With the failure of Germany's Energiewende, countries have drastically re-evaluated their nuclear stances. France just did an about-face and cancelled their plans to drastically reduce nuclear capacity or even get out of nuclear entirely. Instead they are now investing into a nuclear renaissance. Poland is getting into nuclear…

Pretty much all relevant ceuntries also pleged to triple renewable capacity in 8 years, which seems mostly doable, while with the typical (western) construction timelines for nuclear they would have to pretty much start tendering the new plants now, while currently mostly only vague promises exist.

China, which the country building the most nuclear right now, is falling behind its own plans and downscaling its nuclear ambitions in favour of renewables.

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

#625

Post by ZeroGravitas »

jodrellblank wrote: post #285
ggm wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a line of reasoning that baseload is a billing and profit construction, an artifice of the needs of coal-fired and nuclear power. There is nothing innately wrong with over building renewable and storage, and a transmission network. It's an argument about economics, not physics.

Can you realistically overbuild solar and wind in a way that works in winter? Here's Terence Eden in the UK, and his graph of rooftop solar[1] showing peak around 400kWh/month in summer and trough around 50kWh/month in darkest December - that's a difference of ~8x which might be possible... But that's averaged over the month, what about a run of December days with heavy cloud cover, misty foggy atmosphere, still air,…

In the UK, given it's northern latitude and great wind resources, you'd be best overbuilding mostly wind.

Here's a worked example based on real weather data that suggests a wind capacity of double peak demand and converting about 8% of all demand with power-to-X would be the the low cost option.

https://www.wartsila.com/energy/towards-100-renewable-energy...

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

#626

Post by bborud »

danans wrote: post #401
mpweiher wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because mining it is relatively cheap. So cheap, in fact, that it is economical to throw away >95% of the fuel rather than try to burn it all or recycle it. Fuel costs are 10% of the cost of nuclear electricity. The vast majority is financing.

> The vast majority is financing. The financing for nuclear is expensive primarily because: 1) The costs of construction are so high - so huge amounts of financing needed. 2) The amount of time before investors see any ROI is very long. A long time ago, when electricity markets were fully monopolized end to end, the long-term ROI on nuclear and other generating assets was guaranteed by the government, and the financi…

And as Bent Flyvbjerg mentions in "How Big Things Get Done", projects that last for a very long time are all but guaranteed to encounter one or more black swan events and/or recessions.

Bent makes a sensible argument for SMR reactor technology in that book too.

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

#627

Post by sandworm101 »

angiosperm wrote: post #444
sandworm101 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But remember that a square kilometer of solar panels needs maybe ten square kilometers of actual land. Anywhere other than at the equator, the panels need to be spaced far enough apart not to shadow each other. On a north-facing slop they would be even more spaced out. Do that in two dimensions, so they can track the sun, and keeping one square meter of panels perpendicular to the sun requires a suprisingly large foo…

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.

Trackers are necessary if someone is doing math based on panels perpendicular to the sun. Of course they are rare, but are needed when doing the conversion. Whether the tracked pannel cast shadow, or more panels recieve less-than-direct sunlight, the math is the same.

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

#628

Post by juped »

angiosperm wrote: post #469
Georgelemental wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they were much cheaper in the 70s and 80s!

Right, nuke costs have only ever increased. For reasons. Solar and wind costs have only ever decreased. For reasons.

You're not saying what you think you're saying with those facts.

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

#629

Post by sandworm101 »

angiosperm wrote: post #433
sandworm101 wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when i see solar panels atop every mall and commercial building, when every home has a solar roof, then i'll entertain chopping down wilderness or sacrificing farmland to the cause. I still see plent of bare rooftop to address first.

Literally nobody proposes "sacrificing" farmland.

It is very common. Farming is hard, margins slim at best. And farmers are given great leeway in how they may make money from land. Regulation is lax. Many fields have been turned from the production of food to the production of electricity, while countless factory rooftops sit covered only in tar and asphalt.

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

#630

Post by zo1 »

chihuahua wrote: post #527
Gare wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It would be more like "at night (or when there is little solar), you pay progressively more for your electricity." A lot of places do that already, you just do it to a slightly-palatable level instead of to the true cost. Partly because of, as you guys point out it's politically nonviable, but also partly because it's electricity from cheap coal as opposed to green solar + super expensive batteries.
Post reply on HN