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

671–680 of 1001 posts

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

#671

Post by marcusverus »

nicoburns wrote: post #595
Paradigma11 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 of…

In countries with private energy generation perhaps. Energy production is at least partially nationalised (or at least heavily regulated) in a lot of the world, which puts those places in a much stronger position to plan for such events.

The nice thing about nationalized companies is that they're happy to spend your money on things you don't want! Given the choice, folks would rather pay $0.18/kWh for energy production (the average US rate) with 99.9% uptime than $0.30-0.40/kWh (the average Western European rate), even if that came with 99.99% uptime.

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

#672

Post by natmaka »

mpweiher wrote: post #645
adrianN wrote: post #636

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which new nuclear would you suggest instead? Hinkley C will cost about $160/MWh, right in the range given by Lazard.

I would suggest we look at overall stats instead of isolated examples. Time to construct a nuclear plant takes on average 7.5 years, a number that hasn't really budged in the last 50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... And since financing (i.e. interest) is the primary cost of nuclear (~50%), time is money. Hinkley and Flamanville are examples of the EPR, a brand new reactor type th…

Mean project cost over-runs: Nuclear power 120% Oil and gas 34% Mining 27% Fossil thermal power 16% Wind 13% Energy transmission 8% Solar 1%

https://www.enr.com/articles/55774-oxford-professors-latest-...

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

#674

Post by pas »

hef19898 wrote: post #601
pas wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In effect they did through overzealous safety requirements (which made it more expensive compared to other forms of electricity generation) this regulatory inconsistency is mostly irrational, because it's clear through other policies that society values safety much less in other policies (eg. driving, all the emissions from other sources, gun safety, etc) of course regulations are not perfect mirrors of society's pre…

Considering the potential damage, nuclear is right up there with aviation, medical and life science when it comes to safety standards. Because each and every incident can be traced back to ignoring whatever safety standards and practices where applicable at the time these accidents happened. Someone would have to pay for those 1000 NPPs, and in the current market conditions no one is willing to, because the ROI isn't…

Yes, and the safety conscious approach is great, and aviation and medicine are a pretty good examples, they can be safe and cheap at the same time. (Notwithstanding the usual [and rightful!] grumbling about the FDA, and the Boeing/FAA MCAS fuckup.)

The ROI is not there because other forms of electricity generation didn't have to pay for most of their externalities[1], and people don't give a damn about actual safety profile, or mid-long term overall costs, it's simply the usual sentimentalism-theater.

> Oh think of the nuclear waste, oh think of the poor little spent fuel rods leaking into our puppies' drinking water, oh think of all the horrible unspeakable tragedies we will get when every Monday Chernobyl repeats but worse, Fridays are for Fukushimas, and the rest of the weekdays are for all the usual GreenPeace-made-up dangers. But of course instead currently, of course, we enjoy the peaceful and prosperous energy abundance granted to us by ... checks notes ... the same geniuses who delivered the just one-more-lane will solve the traffic jams for sure hit comedy series, the single-family house exclusive rated 10/10 absolute heavens on Earth[2], healthcare as an investment [3], but muh guns [4], and so on.

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

[2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Largo,+FL,+USA/@27.9213946... whatever the hell is going on here :o

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773426 private equity takeover is amazing for hospitals(' profitabilty)

[4] https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2017/special-report/u... muh guns and muh freedum to leave guns in not-even-locked cars to get stolen

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

#675

Post by DrBazza »

natmaka wrote: post #669
DrBazza wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How many batteries do we need to store the equivalent energy in 1kg of uranium or thorium? And how much mining is required obtain those materials and how much energy is required to refine those chemicals or elements? And repeat for the millions of solar panels and wind turbines. And shipping them around the world in diesel powered boats?

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

#676

Post by simplyluke »

asylteltine wrote: post #370
internetter wrote: post #55

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. I'll take this bet. Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak ene…

Nuclear is the way forward. It’s a damn shame hippies stopped us from leveraging it. We literally wouldn’t have climate change if we kept increasing nuclear power plants in the 70s. It’s just a no brainer. Solar and wind are great but the amount of power they generate may as well be 0 compared to nuclear.

> Solar and wind are great but the amount of power they generate may as well be 0 compared to nuclear.

This is very untrue both measured in absolute numbers, and in cost/kwh. Nuclear is 2x solar and wind, both of which are decreasing in cost rapidly YoY. https://www.statista.com/statistics/194327/estimated-leveliz...

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

#677

Post by mpweiher »

adrianN wrote: post #652
mpweiher wrote: post #645

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest we look at overall stats instead of isolated examples. Time to construct a nuclear plant takes on average 7.5 years, a number that hasn't really budged in the last 50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... And since financing (i.e. interest) is the primary cost of nuclear (~50%), time is money. Hinkley and Flamanville are examples of the EPR, a brand new reactor type th…

Construction time is misleading. It takes a few days to a couple of weeks to build a wind turbine, but at least in Germany a wind turbine construction project takes more than five years. So what better estimate would you suggest? What nuclear power plants where built in the last decade or so, for how much do they sell their power? How big will their decomissioning costs be per MWh?

> Construction time is misleading.

Please support your claim.

We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.

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

#678

Post by philwelch »

natmaka wrote: post #669
DrBazza wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Renewable energy isn’t free of fatalities either. Rooftop solar, wind, and hydro all have higher fatality rates per kWh than nuclear energy: https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2021/07/2020-fatalities-for-us...

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

#679

Post by adrianN »

mpweiher wrote: post #677
adrianN wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Construction time is misleading. It takes a few days to a couple of weeks to build a wind turbine, but at least in Germany a wind turbine construction project takes more than five years. So what better estimate would you suggest? What nuclear power plants where built in the last decade or so, for how much do they sell their power? How big will their decomissioning costs be per MWh?

> Construction time is misleading. Please support your claim. We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.

It’sa lot harder to find investors for a project that takes 20+ years from planning to first income than for a project that takes seven and a half years.

I’m still waiting for better cost estimates than what Lazard gives.

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

#680

Post by hef19898 »

pas wrote: post #674
hef19898 wrote: post #601

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering the potential damage, nuclear is right up there with aviation, medical and life science when it comes to safety standards. Because each and every incident can be traced back to ignoring whatever safety standards and practices where applicable at the time these accidents happened. Someone would have to pay for those 1000 NPPs, and in the current market conditions no one is willing to, because the ROI isn't…

Yes, and the safety conscious approach is great, and aviation and medicine are a pretty good examples, they can be safe and cheap at the same time. (Notwithstanding the usual [and rightful!] grumbling about the FDA, and the Boeing/FAA MCAS fuckup.) The ROI is not there because other forms of electricity generation didn't have to pay for most of their externalities[1], and people don't give a damn about actual safety…

What are you even talking about? and what have guns to do with any of that? Or Greenpeace? After all, it is a well known fact that NPPs are uninsureable, always have been. Because insurance compabies are extremely good at running risk-premium-profit models, and those all tell the same thing: don't offer insurance for NPPs above very small amounts that are nowhere near enough to cover a serious accident.
Post reply on HN