Live data from Hacker News

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

eia.gov

701–710 of 1001 posts

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

#701
post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gems isn't good also because it's mostly aesthetic. No intrinsic utility other then being rare and pretty. You won't actually "improve" society with gems. It's hard to distill this in technical terms but I hope you're able to understand without the need to get pedantic. Gemstones therefore are more of a reflection of countries with the ability to purchase the gemstones as an import and less of a reflection of the cou…

It's a little strange that you dug your heels in on the gemstones because I was trying to be gracious and steelmanning your point by conceding that portion. But since you brought it up again, I'll explain why I think it's wrong. Gems are not just "mostly aesthetic". 80% or so of diamonds are used in industrial purposes, ie manufacturing. So if you concede that manufacturing is a good measure, by extension so are gems…

>It's a little strange that you dug your heels in on the gemstones because I was trying to be gracious and steelmanning your point by conceding that portion.

It's False gracious-ism lol. You obviously believe you can win the argument without that so you gave it up. It was a deceptive gesture. Anyway. I'm not in this to win. I'm in it because I, in totality believe I'm right. So what does it matter if I use gemstones given that you already conceded that point? And like I said it was a false concession. You pretended to concede that point and I correctly responded as if you didn't concede.

>The rest of your post seems like a deflection because you can't seem to adequately illuminate your point.

I can't adequately illuminate my point. I concede to that. The statement "Asia is superior to the US in manufacturing and infrastructure" is a statement with so many fuzzy words I can't satisfy your pedantry. What is "manufacturing"? What is "superiority"? What is "Asia"? Am I referring to North Korea?

There is no study, no science on the face of this earth that can prove either side of this debate correct.

The most we can do is throw a bunch of random facts and tidbits at each other and never ultimately agree. Take your side foray into gemstones... Does diamonds represent all of gemstones? Also what about the proportional value of artificial diamonds vs. Mined diamonds? What about the amount of value involved in beauty vs. Manufacturing? You failed to acknowledge here that diamonds used in manufacturing are mostly manufactured themselves. How much of manufacturing does gemstones represent? We could dive deep into this useless pedantic branch of the debate and ultimately go nowhere.

But despite all of this, we both know what gemstones usually refers to a mined rock for beauty purposes. That was the industry referred to through the colloquial usage of the term gemstones. But there's an underlying strategy here where you can subtly switch definitions and use the pedantic definition without the other party realizing it. Anyway let's move off of gemstones like you originally conceded.

I value the human ability to know things and communicate vague and general concepts and things without fuzzy boundaries without the need to reference data or research. If you don't have the intellectual ability to do this then the only logical conclusion for you is to not even engage in this debate or any debate for that matter because no definitive conclusion is possible for most things of this nature.

I also concede that despite all of this fuzziness you are smart enough to know what I'm talking about and deep down you know I'm right.

Call it diatribe or whatever you want. The outcome of this conversation had a predictable end of going to a pedantic nowhere. I just took it to a different end here.

>If you look at the actual data, there is still a fairly robust manufacturing base in America, especially for a service-oriented economy.

So? You can make this statement and the following can still be true: Asia is far superior to the US when it comes to manufacturing and infrastructure.

Additionally the following statement can still be true: the past several decades American manufacturing and infrastructure has been in decline.

And this as well: America does not have the will or the manufacturing capability to replace it's energy infrastructure with nuclear.

Do we need to get into a overly detailed debate about this or is it just self evident that these statements are true? I think it's self evident. Again it's not really matter of truth, but more about accepting the truth.

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

#702
post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These were not one-off reactors, it's just that the first ones went so poorly that everything else was cancelled. There were four that were started at roughly the same time. There were many other sites getting order ready. Westinghouse used a new regulatory process that had been created specifically at the request of industry to speed the design and build of AP1000s. Despite this, Westinghouse did not deliver constru…

So you're saying that instead of learning from a single project we made the same mistakes four times at once?

We learned that the economics were so poor that all future projects stopped their plans.

There were supposed to be advantages to building four at once, in that there would be some economy of scale. The AP1000 were also supppsed to be somewhat "modular" to avoid on site custom builds. None of this worked out as planned.

If we wanted nuclear to be a part of the energy transition, we didn't need two new reactors every decade or even four, we needed something like 5-20 per year. However, the experience of building the AP1000 has soured the market.

If we are going to build more nuclear, now is the time because we have the most knowledable workforce right now, but the benefit of building nuclear looks so small in comparison to the cost and the risks that it seems unlikely.

Major major support from the government is needed (and it's there from DoE's Loan Programs Office, run by a huge nuclear fan), but you also need utilities who want to place orders. And that second part is hard to create.

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

#703

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…

> in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished This can't be serious...

Why not? Take a look at this

https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/out-of-th...

https://www.science.org/content/article/humans-are-worse-rad...

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

#704

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China built out 180-230 GW of solar last year. They deployed more in one year than the total installed base of nuclear that China is expected to have by 2030.

Nameplate capacity. Divide by 6 to get average capacity. And then you need something to cover the variance at the low end, which tends to be zero. Preferably something that's also CO2 free. Ideas?

A lot, but none you ever wanted to listen to so far. Fact is, even China isn't massivley investing in NPPs, but rather wind and solar. I'll risk a guess and say that they have a plan to cope with a grid in a highly industrialized environment that trends more and more towards renewables.

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

#705

Pretend I’m country’s government A. Am I incentivized to make sure that country B doesn't get access to nuclear energy, since that is the precursor to a nuclear program? Therefore, I have to make sure that nuclear energy stays unpopular

Please correct me if I'm wrong but a) it's not possible to convert spent nuclear fuel into nuclear weapons (or am I misunderstanding your point?) and b) I'm pretty sure you can just Google how to make a nuclear bomb at this point so what are you really protecting against.

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

#706

I really want nuclear reactors and clean energy but I’m keenly aware that we are rushing headlong and with pathetic levels of self-control into AI. A global environment filled with nuclear reactors and AIs operating only in the lower interests of individual nation states is a risk I haven’t seen much discussion about, but it’s not a great scenario. There is a distinct possibility that no security system design will b…

It's fine to think about this scenario but I hate that people take this train of thought, dig their feet in, and block ANY progress forward based on "what ifs"

What if AGI + nuclear is our key to unlocking infinite potential? At least, to me, that's a more likely scenario than the Hollywood-inspired robots-enslave-the-human-race trope.

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

#708

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 defore…

Biofuels produced by growing plants is limited by the available biomass. Brazil powers it's automobiles with biofuel, but not ships. And more importantly, Brazil is a huge country with massive amounts of arable land.

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

#709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nameplate capacity. Divide by 6 to get average capacity. And then you need something to cover the variance at the low end, which tends to be zero. Preferably something that's also CO2 free. Ideas?

A lot, but none you ever wanted to listen to so far. Fact is, even China isn't massivley investing in NPPs, but rather wind and solar. I'll risk a guess and say that they have a plan to cope with a grid in a highly industrialized environment that trends more and more towards renewables.

Oh, non-intermittent CO2 free energy sources that we have now and can just build?

In the quantities required?

Why are we building out solar and wind then, this is so much better!

All ears!

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

#710

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot, but none you ever wanted to listen to so far. Fact is, even China isn't massivley investing in NPPs, but rather wind and solar. I'll risk a guess and say that they have a plan to cope with a grid in a highly industrialized environment that trends more and more towards renewables.

Oh, non-intermittent CO2 free energy sources that we have now and can just build? In the quantities required? Why are we building out solar and wind then, this is so much better! All ears!

All ears? Really? Ok, the solution lies in the grid and demand flexibility, combined storage, mainly batteries, and keeping existing NPPs running as long as possible to allow the above to catch up.

Feel free to google all of that, because I am tired of trying to explain that to people by now, sorry...

Post reply on HN