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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by mlrtime »

rainsford wrote: post #376
thelastgallon wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40 million acres are used to grow corn for ethanol. This is 162,000 square kilometers. This can produce 3.24 exajoules of energy. Also, solar panels don't need any land. There are so many places we can install solar without 'consuming' land. They can be roofs, floating on tops of lakes and reservoirs with the added benefit of preventing evaporation, agrivoltaics combined with farmland, vertical panels, superfund site…

For all the concern about land use for renewables, it really feels like subsidized ethanol has got to be the most wasteful use of energy investment dollars in terms of farmland used and every other possible metric. It's very interesting to think about using that money and land for other energy generation uses.

One counter point is that these fields can easily be turned into crops to feed the citizens of the country in an emergency. Solar panels not so much. Also, there was already infrastructure in place to easily maintain this energy source.

Not saying this is a reason to keep the subsidies, but I'm sure it made sense at the time.

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

#663

Post by bumby »

adrianN wrote: post #632
willis936 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're betraying your bias by insinuating I suggested throwing out risk mitigation. I advocated for streamlined risk mitigation by highlighting the risk of unnecessary complexity.

Now you only need to get expert consensus on which parts of the complexity are unnecessary.

That sounds an awful lot like industry standards and codes, which are often eschewed as the very bureaucracy the OP was railing against.

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

#664

Post by mpweiher »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #651
mpweiher wrote: post #639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these countries are implementing policies. France had a law to slowly phase out nuclear and switch to renewables. They've rescinded that law and instead passed legislation to build more nuclear plants, and make building those plants easier, putting into action Macron's call for a "nuclear renaissance". Also extending the life of existing plants. Japan, site of the second worst nuclear accident, had all, then…

France has a fleet of 56 reactors, about 14 of which are scheduled to be decommissioned in the 2030s or before. They currently plan to build 6 more reactors and “possibly” another 8 by 2050, which seems more like maintenance than expansion. By contrast, France constructed all of its current 56 reactors over a 15-year period, and the current plans do not look remotely comparable to that effort. Japan generated 30% of…

As part of the very recent switch back to nuclear, the lifetime of France's existing reactors will be extended.

> Poland has two planned reactors

Incorrect.

"Poland has given the green light for the construction of 24 new small modular reactor (SMR) units across six sites"

https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/poland...

Anyway, nobody claimed that this was in advanced stages, how could it be?

Just two years ago, pretty much everybody was getting out of nuclear, some more quickly, some more slowly, but the direction had been consistent for the last two decades or so. Then Ukraine happened, and the house of card that was the German Energiewende, built on a solid foundation of cheap Russian gas, collapsed.

Not sure how quickly you expect turnarounds in energy policy to happen, but let's just sat that the Energiewende was made officially announced in the 1990s. And look how far we've gotten.

I personally find the development in the last year, year and a half remarkable quick.

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

#665

Post by jeffbee »

xw3089 wrote: post #617
_ph_ wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe not no one https://berkeley.municipal.codes/BMC/12.90.050

The funny thing is these effing boomers still protest against nuclear power at the end of University Avenue every month, as if this was somehow a relevant concern in 2023.

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

#666

Post by jeffbee »

mcmoor wrote: post #352
simonw wrote: post #147

This caught my eye: "Prior to Vogtle Unit 3, the last nuclear reactor to start in the United States was Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee. Construction on Watts Bar 2 began in 1973 but was suspended in 1985. Work resumed in 2007, and the reactor came online in 2016." More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_2

Heh imagine finally finishing work that your father had started before you're born.

There must have been engineers who worked their entire careers on GE's "next gen" reactor or whatever they call it, and retired without seeing one built.

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

#667

Post by pmayrgundter »

DrBazza wrote: post #653
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

It seems like up-front monetary 'cost' is continually used to bash nuclear. And 100% from the perspective of human beings. To put it into context, nuclear * total human deaths due to nuclear since its inception is in the low thousands at worst, for the entire industry. * total animal deaths due to nuclear since its inception is minimal, in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished * damage to the en…

The actuarial account for fossil fuels is important, but I've come across this set of summary items many times and it ignores the positive effects of CO2, which have been substantial. This is a great benefit for many ecosystems and also improves crop yields, to your monetary cost point.

The overall phenomenon is well documented, so I'll give just one highly credible account: "The greening [over the last 35 years] represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States… Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect" - NASA Apr 2016, https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...

I'm not wanting to rehash the climate debate, nor am I implying how much it offsets negatives and would grant all of your points otherwise. I do think it's wise to do whatever we can to move towards cleaner carbon burning to remove toxic and particulate emissions, and limiting CO2 emissions as well, but also within fair economic tradeoffs. I also support developing nuclear, fission and fusion.

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

#668

Post by CivBase »

slashdev wrote: post #74
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…

Batteries are not for riding out winter, they're for evening out the daily load. You have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation, as well as make long-distance interconnects. Pumped hydro is also extremely interesting for obvious reasons. Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation. Can we solve that without sacrificing safety? Can we…

> Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation.

Is it regulation or a lack of scale? The US has launched 2 reactors in the last 2.5 decades. I'm guessing there was a lot of stuff - materials, processes, documentation, etc - developed from scratch specifically for those plants. It might get cheaper if we can start re-using that stuff.

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

#669

Post by natmaka »

DrBazza wrote: post #653
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

It seems like up-front monetary 'cost' is continually used to bash nuclear. And 100% from the perspective of human beings. To put it into context, nuclear * total human deaths due to nuclear since its inception is in the low thousands at worst, for the entire industry. * total animal deaths due to nuclear since its inception is minimal, in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished * damage to the en…

It isn't about "nuclear vs. fossil fuels" but about "nuclear and/or renewables?".

The amount of damage/victims linked to nuclear is a matter of debate, and a final count will only be possible after its very last hot waste will be cold.

Case in point (Chernobyl):

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around...

https://knowablemagazine.org/content/article/food-environmen...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl:_Consequences_of_the...

Energy storage: vehicles batteries are a game changer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid ). Grid backup will also use existing hydro along with turbo-alternators burning green-hydrogen ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy#Energy_system... ).

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

#670

Post by natmaka »

Georgelemental wrote: post #282
wolverine876 wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. When we built them more often, weren't they bespoke and expensive?

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

Because from the end of WW2 up to at least the 90s civilian nuclear was supported, often indirectly, by military programs (nuclear weapons). In France the Court of audit could not even assess it.
Post reply on HN