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

771–780 of 1001 posts

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

#771

Post by angiosperm »

Georgelemental wrote: post #750
angiosperm wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)

I.e., with massive government subsidy, hidden behind opaque accounting.

China has constructed more solar and wind generating capacity in the past year than its entire fleet of nukes will produce after they have finished building them. China is less interested in power production from their nukes than strategic isotopes.

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

#772

Post by mlsu »

Lots of disfavorable comparisons being made here between nuke and solar.

Let's do some math.

There is a total of around 10 GWh of deployed grid storage in the US.

The US consumed about 4,000 TWh of electricity in 2022.

(10GWh/ 4000TWh) * (31,536,000 seconds) == 78 seconds.

So, net, there is about a minute and a half of energy storage across the entire grid. (Most, about 90%, is pumped hydro, not battery). Of course, not really. Most regional areas have roughly 10-30 seconds until the gas peakers absolutely unequivocally must be turned on before brownouts occur.

Hours? Minutes? We are not talking about hours and minutes. We are talking about seconds.

Look at the price of a powerwall. That's for the energy needs of a residential home. What happens to your AWS bill if us-east-1 was to buy a powerwall? Let alone steel, chemical, paper, mineral processing industries. What would happen to our economy if capacity for every one of those was cut by 1/3rd (or more depending on local climate)? Never mind your power bill.

This is the problem that I have with these solar capacity discussions. The number on the tin misrepresents things in just such a fundamental way that these cost discussions don't make sense. The reason, of course, is because fossil fuels are the big batteries we turn on at night when solar is not working.

If you actually care about making the grid green, you must solve this problem. Either with transmission, with battery manufacturing (the cost and environment friendliness curve on that is a bit less rosy compared to solar power...), or with nuclear. There is simply no other way.

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

#773

Post by flgb »

mlsu wrote: post #772

Lots of disfavorable comparisons being made here between nuke and solar. Let's do some math. There is a total of around 10 GWh of deployed grid storage in the US. The US consumed about 4,000 TWh of electricity in 2022. (10GWh/ 4000TWh) * (31,536,000 seconds) == 78 seconds. So, net, there is about a minute and a half of energy storage across the entire grid. (Most, about 90%, is pumped hydro, not battery). Of course,…

Every power generation technology needs ‘backup capacity’ and energy storage.

If your transmission line to your nuclear power station trips, you need reserve capacity elsewhere to serve the load.

Gas and coal generation all need storage to run reliably.

If you are going to be an armchair power system designer and you want to ‘gross up’ the cost of capacity and storage into the cost of renewable generation, then be consistent.

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

#774

Post by Slava_Propanei »

flgb wrote: post #773
mlsu wrote: post #772

Lots of disfavorable comparisons being made here between nuke and solar. Let's do some math. There is a total of around 10 GWh of deployed grid storage in the US. The US consumed about 4,000 TWh of electricity in 2022. (10GWh/ 4000TWh) * (31,536,000 seconds) == 78 seconds. So, net, there is about a minute and a half of energy storage across the entire grid. (Most, about 90%, is pumped hydro, not battery). Of course,…

Every power generation technology needs ‘backup capacity’ and energy storage. If your transmission line to your nuclear power station trips, you need reserve capacity elsewhere to serve the load. Gas and coal generation all need storage to run reliably. If you are going to be an armchair power system designer and you want to ‘gross up’ the cost of capacity and storage into the cost of renewable generation, then be co…

[dead]

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

#775

Post by laszlojamf »

Could have been worse, hehe. Finland had a (in)famous nuclear power plant project which went years and billions over budget only to be effectively terminated after the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Rosatom was a major investor)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

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

#776

Post by mlsu »

flgb wrote: post #773
mlsu wrote: post #772

Lots of disfavorable comparisons being made here between nuke and solar. Let's do some math. There is a total of around 10 GWh of deployed grid storage in the US. The US consumed about 4,000 TWh of electricity in 2022. (10GWh/ 4000TWh) * (31,536,000 seconds) == 78 seconds. So, net, there is about a minute and a half of energy storage across the entire grid. (Most, about 90%, is pumped hydro, not battery). Of course,…

Every power generation technology needs ‘backup capacity’ and energy storage. If your transmission line to your nuclear power station trips, you need reserve capacity elsewhere to serve the load. Gas and coal generation all need storage to run reliably. If you are going to be an armchair power system designer and you want to ‘gross up’ the cost of capacity and storage into the cost of renewable generation, then be co…

Solar is unique in that it reliably "trips" for extensive periods every day and seasonally. It is also unique in that it does not take fuel that can be stored.

Solar cannot act as the backup to a nuclear power plant. Whereas a nuclear power plant can (and does) act as the backup to solar.

I'm grossing up to make the point that after about 60-70% solar penetration, the circle cannot be squared without massive investment either in batteries or in distribution, a fact which seems to never quite fully make it into cost comparisons between nuclear and solar such as those being made in this thread.

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

#777

Post by billytetrud »

missedthecue wrote: post #754
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…

the fact that oil spills sometimes happen doesn't seem to be any better of an argument than the one that nuclear meltdowns sometimes happen. Nuclear fanboys need to accept the fact that so long as nuclear always costs multiples more than literally anything else, these things won't get built, no matter how carbon-clean and healthy they are.

Nuclear only costs more because of outdated and intentionally obstructive regulations lobbied for by the oil industry (who also funded environmental groups willing to hate nuclear btw). Even with the massive over regulation of nuclear power in the US, nuclear is STILL more cost effective in the long run, and has only not been done because the risk of the government deciding to shut down their project or add untenable barriers mid construction has been too great to risk it. And don't give me "levelized cost" bs, that is skewed unrealistically against nuclear.

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

#778

Post by billytetrud »

pmayrgundter wrote: post #667
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…

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] rep…

I see you've been massively down voted, even tho none of them can manage to even disagree with your facts. Regardless, I don't think greening offsets the millions that die from air pollution every year, not including any climate change effects.

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

#779

Post by billytetrud »

Joeri wrote: post #187
rjbwork wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. Ideally we'd keep building them and develop the expertise and make it a more repeatable scalable process. I worry instead that the lesson taken from this will be "nuclear is too expensive and ineffective".

MIT found that reusing a design made plants more expensive to build, not less, because of costly on-site last minute design changes. Taking your point more charitably, it is indeed the lack of a sustainable nuclear energy industry that routinely builds plants that causes costs to skyrocket. There is a chicken and egg situation: nuclear projects don’t get funded because they’re too expensive, so there is no chance to…

Nuclear projects don't get funded because of regulatory risk, not because they're "too expensive".

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

#780

Post by billytetrud »

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.

Nationalized industries are great for like 5-10 years, after which it becomes clear they have no ability to make effective plans or react to a changing market.
Post reply on HN