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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by bondarchuk »

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…

>in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished

This can't be serious...

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

#692

Post by asylteltine »

Faaak wrote: post #540
asylteltine wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> We literally wouldn’t have climate change if we kept increasing nuclear power plants in the 70s I highly doubt this

Methane and coal is the largest driver of climate change

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

#693

Post by zeristor »

danans wrote: post #380
BeefWellington wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tennessee Valley Authority - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

Which I believe was the inspiration for the Time Variance Authority in the Loki TV Series.

A Quora link going into a bit more detail:

https://www.quora.com/Is-the-TVA-in-Loki-somehow-related-to-...

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

#694

Post by unethical_ban »

BeefWellington wrote: post #530
unethical_ban wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably, the benefit is "less coal and CO2 in your family's lungs". The military doesn't make you money, it makes you safe. The post office doesn't make you money, it ensures communication and logistics. Roads don't make you money, they undergird the economy. Nuclear power doesn't save you money on your power bill. It establishes energy independence for our country and clean power for our atmosphere.

You don't need private enterprise to be involved to obtain those things though, is my point.

The military and road construction is loaded with public private partnerships, contractors.

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

#695

Post by throwawaaarrgh »

adrianN wrote: post #649
throwawaaarrgh wrote: post #542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The growth of renewables is still on a nice exponential curve. We build solar literally add fast as we can scale production.

I work for an energy company that builds renewables. No we do not. I mean Jesus that's ridiculous. There's literally not capital for that, and the debt would be astronomical, to say nothing of legal, land access, problems with construction, contacts. But besides that there's different kinds of solar, and all kinds of specific issues with it, battery capacity being just one. Wind is a bigger opportunity and more commonly pursued, but has even more problems.

Making up shit just because you want it to be true isn't helping anybody.

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

#696

Post by goodpoint »

goodpoint wrote: post #657
radicalbyte wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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..

This is pure whataboutism.

[flagged]

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

#697

Post by tills13 »

acchow wrote: post #536
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

It is also a Generation II reactor (like the Chernobyl and Fukushima reactors)

Is this supposed to scare people? I'm not sure I understand the point you're making.

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

#698

Post by _ph_ »

philwelch wrote: post #589
_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.

> No one banned nuclear. Sometimes, when your employer wants to fire you but doesn’t want you to be able to file for unemployment or accuse them of firing you for some legally impermissible reason, they just make it so miserable to keep working there that you end up quitting. There is a legal term for this: “constructive dismissal”. I hope the implied analogy is obvious.

Yes. But it proves nothing.

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

#699

Post by tills13 »

DrBazza wrote: post #675
natmaka wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's not as much mining as you'd think -- it's not comparable to nuclear, sure, but I was surprised to learn, for example, the enormous difference between a fully decarbonized future vs. carbon present in terms of mining / extraction volume.

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

#700

Post by tills13 »

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…

Yeah and solar and wind are perfect for baseline load but you need something that can react to demand changes like how NG or Coal production can by simply burning more / less fuel.

There are clever ways to store / "shed" excess capacity for the inverse but it'd still be better to be able to adjust capacity in real time.

Post reply on HN