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

731–740 of 1001 posts

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

#731

Post by Kon5ole »

kragen wrote: post #190
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike nuclear, which is too expensive when you don't overbuild it, and becomes simply stupidly expensive if you contemplate overbuilding it. Overbuilding nuclear is so preposterous that nuclear fans just pretend you magically don't need to, to prevent their fragile dream from being crushed by reality, and let them continue to steer at renewables and all the problems they face as every nation on earth builds then out…

you don't need to overbuild nuclear; nuclear plants commonly have a capacity factor of over 80%

Finland recently lost 14% of it's national electricity generation for days due to a turbine failure. This is of course a huge problem.

Having 14% of the nations electricity transported from just 1 location is another problem all by itself even when it works.

Last year half the reactors in France were offline at one point:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

I don't think nuclear should be overprovisioned, but it illustrates that nuclear also needs a plan B just like wind and solar does. IMO Plan B should be synthesized gas that has been generated when electricity was cheap due to overproduction or directly from cheap sources such as Solar.

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

#732

Post by katbyte »

somenameforme wrote: post #525
Fatnino wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the safety systems worked so everything was (mostly) contained and no one got hurt. Like a car crash where the seat belts and airbags lead to no injuries. And then all driving was banned.

The official numbers around radiation exposure from Three Mile Island claim minimal radiation exposure, yet studies have found numerous contradictory effects including 64% increased rates of cancer, > 50% increase in young infant mortality, and various other ill effects. [1] Studies have not been able to prove a causal link, but that's largely because they take, as an assumption, the correctness of the official numbe…

Until we stop building and burning coal for power “radiation” is not an excuse because coal power puts off far more radiation then TMI ever did even with a partial meltdown

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

#733

Post by kagakuninja »

bondarchuk wrote: post #691
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…

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

Chernobyl is an example of what Bruce Sterling calls an "involuntary wildlife preserve". He didn't claim that was a good thing, of course...

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

#734

Post by angiosperm »

juped wrote: post #628
angiosperm wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The value proposition for renewables left nukes far behind a long time ago. Nukes have no prospect of narrowing the gap even if they could be built and operated more cheaply, of which in any case no plausible signs are evident.

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

#735

Post by [deleted] »

corethree wrote: post #701
bumby wrote: post #660

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#736

Post by angiosperm »

sandworm101 wrote: post #627
angiosperm wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And it is all irrelevant. There is an absolute overabundance of pasture land, so spacing panels out so the grass can grow between and under causes no difficulty.

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

#737

Post by angiosperm »

evilos wrote: post #609
angiosperm wrote: post #439

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Millions of square kilometers of the arctic are being "darkened" by loss of sea ice. Nothing humans can do can approach even a tiny fraction of that.

Many people would argue that humans did cause this loss of sea ice. Also I don't see how that justifies adding to the effect? Especially if we don't know can't compute the trade off? I'm sure someone has done that work but my it didn't immediately jump out at me during a cursory search.

Just the uncertainty in the ice cover prediction is orders of magnitude larger than any effect from adding any plausible amount of solar panels.

Inventing BS problems does not contribute to the discussion. Please stick to facts.

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

#738

Post by s1artibartfast »

mlrtime wrote: post #659
s1artibartfast wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little of A, B, and C. A) Idealistic voters with little interest in detail or execution. B) Hard working state employees executing in an ineffective way because they are working on over constrained problems with conflicting and sometime impossible goals. C) A number of opportunists that take advantage of poor rulemaking and bureaucratic disorganization. For what it is worth, I dont think corruption is a major drive…

>The city wants to keep invasive species out... These small examples are extremely frustrating as a tax payer. What is the solution to these examples, or does one just try to ignore it as a price of living in that society?

Frustrating indeed. I don't think there is a quick fix to create a political culture among voters and representatives that cares about fiscal responsibility.

One consideration is having a broader tax base so that voters have more skin in the game.

For example, taxes in Houston are less progressive than SF, but SF city budget per resident is more than 500% that of Huston.

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

#739

Post by angiosperm »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #522
angiosperm wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The desert ecosystem wastes almost all of its incoming joules. The most valuable commodity in a desert is shade .

If you were a cactus you'd no doubt disagree.

And you have discussed this with a cactus? Or are you still just making things up?

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

#740

Post by corethree »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #721
corethree wrote: post #458

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…

China is a paper tiger. It is amazing the credit the media gives them, but no surprise given the medias purpose is to create narratives rather than put light on truth. If China were as dominant as the media alleges Taiwan would have been invaded decades ago. The reality is big mighty China has one aircraft carrier that entered service just 5 years ago, and another one that is a renovated old soviet carrier. The vast…

I'm not talking about China alone. I'm talking about Asia. Which is China + Taiwan + Korea + Japan + Singapore, plus every major asian country.

Additionally the rivalry between the US and China is off topic I'm not talking about that.

My statement is, Asia is superior to the US in terms of Manufacturing/infrastructure. I can add more to that as well. In terms of ICs, Asia also dominates. The US is behind Asia on all three of these fronts. As a general statement this is still true. You didn't invalidate anything with your off topic comment here.

That being said, the united states is the dominant spender in terms of defense. They are number one on this front and in terms of technology. I don't think the world has ever seen a military industrial complex as massive and as advanced as the one the US has built. What you say here is true and it's major. It's not included in "manufacturing" but it's intimately connected and thus worth mentioning.

Post reply on HN