First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation • Hacker News Board

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

#801

Post by formercoder » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 6:29 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #798

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,…

Let's do some more math From the article, this new reactor is "estimated to cost more than $30 Billion." (Let's call it 30) & It generates 1,114 Mega Watts. This article [1] says solar panels cost between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt. Let's go with $1/watt to keep the math easy, though I bet it's much cheaper by now, and especially at the scale we'll be buying them at. So for $30 billion dollars, we can have 30 billion w…

Why can’t we make it cheaper and easier to build nuclear plants?

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

#802

Post by philwelch » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 6:43 AM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #797

philwelch wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The sole point about hydro also is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090

If you don’t count fatalities that were caused by the dysfunction of communism, that also eliminates all the fatalities from Chernobyl.

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

#803

Post by chris222 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #798

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,…

Let's do some more math From the article, this new reactor is "estimated to cost more than $30 Billion." (Let's call it 30) & It generates 1,114 Mega Watts. This article [1] says solar panels cost between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt. Let's go with $1/watt to keep the math easy, though I bet it's much cheaper by now, and especially at the scale we'll be buying them at. So for $30 billion dollars, we can have 30 billion w…

The price for storage is closer to $500/kWh for the large utility scale projects using Teslas Megapacks and falling fast [1]. I wouldn’t be surprised to see $200-300 fairly soon (within the next 5 years). Tesla is only starting to seriously ramp up production on Megapacks. I couldn’t find reliable pricing for a project usings BYD’s new MC Cube system but Las Vegas is installing half a gigawatt hour worth of those units.

[1] 413 million dollars for 800,000 kWh = $516.25/kWh installed price.

https://carboncredits.com/tesla-413m-megapacks-revolutionize...

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

#804

Post by ZeroCooly » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 6:49 AM UTC

apexalpha wrote: post #561

1.1GW for 30 BILLION dollars? Jeez, that's an insane amount of money for this little power. Probably pretty high cost per kWh, too, which has to be guaranteed by the government I guess. For comparison in my country they built a 1,6GW off-shore windfarm in 2 years with 0 government subsidy. I understand that a nuclear plant provides power 24/7, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. But the cost of nuclear power is…

It's a reactor design and project that started in 1976 and was delayed for tens of years at a time. It's not exactly the nuclear post child, but that is largely the problem with nuclear in the United States, it, as it currently stands, could not operate at an economy of scale. If the US committed to building say 3,000 of a standardized design across the US, things would likely be very different. (Even if it is not the latest and greatest design, or the most efficient design reactor. Just mass producing parts would drive down the cost.)

Basically, like my ex, it's a commitment issue and I hate this on again off again relationship we have that has me wasting money.

Edit based on the rest of the comments I'm going to stop cap a reddit cascade: No I am not against solar.

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

#805

Post by viknesh » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 6:53 AM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #597

gretch wrote: post #82

I see a lot of the arguments from all sides on “the future is X, it cannot be Y!” To me, this is a false dichotomy. In my opinion energy is one of the most important pillars of society. It is so important that it must be hedged. I don’t think we can afford to put all of eggs in 1 basket, no matter how confident we are in a single basket. I support all forms of sustainable energy advancement and research. We need more…

Yes, we need a mix of technologies. But at the current state of things, nuclear shouldn't be something to invest into. Yes, existing reactors should be used for their full life time, but there is far too much speaking against building new ones.

Other than the practical reality of it being expensive to construct nuclear facilities (which may or may not be solvable), what is speaking against building new ones?

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

#806

Post by chris222 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 6:55 AM UTC

formercoder wrote: post #801

grecy wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do some more math From the article, this new reactor is "estimated to cost more than $30 Billion." (Let's call it 30) & It generates 1,114 Mega Watts. This article [1] says solar panels cost between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt. Let's go with $1/watt to keep the math easy, though I bet it's much cheaper by now, and especially at the scale we'll be buying them at. So for $30 billion dollars, we can have 30 billion w…

Why can’t we make it cheaper and easier to build nuclear plants?

It would require a radically new design that takes a lot of the cost out. You also have the spent fuel storage problem and the risk factors of a meltdown (however small) to tackle which are always working against you. Technology development in the Nuclear area is SLOW.

Now compare to batteries. There are thousands of companies working on new technology development.

It’s just a matter of brain power and capital working on the problems.

I don’t see a viable path forward for Nuclear at the current costs and with how dramatic the rise of renewables and battery storage is increasing.

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

#807

Post by chris222 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 7:03 AM UTC

defrost wrote: post #800

chris222 wrote: post #799

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious what you think of this recently completed project: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/28/scatecs-540mw-pv-1140mw... With enough storage and onsite renewables you can mimic the stable baseload that Nuclear provides.

There are better examples, but given you asked; With an installed solar capacity of 540 MW of PV, and a battery storage capacity of 225MW/1,140MWh (BYD ESS), the plant is designed to deliver 150 MW of dispatchable power from 5 am to 9.30 pm year-round to the national grid under a 20-year power purchase agreement with South Africa’s national power utility company, Eskom. It's in MegaWatts not GigaWatts and delivers no…

Presumably all they would need to do here is change the ratios of solar and battery to achieve 24x7 dispatch. I presume the current arrangement is just more cost effective currently based on their needs but it does demonstrate there already are baseload style power purchase agreements occuring with combined renewables+storage facilities.

We’re likely to see another halving of battery costs within the next decade which will shift the economics further.

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

#808

Post by rank0 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 7:08 AM UTC

grecy wrote: post #798

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,…

Let's do some more math From the article, this new reactor is "estimated to cost more than $30 Billion." (Let's call it 30) & It generates 1,114 Mega Watts. This article [1] says solar panels cost between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt. Let's go with $1/watt to keep the math easy, though I bet it's much cheaper by now, and especially at the scale we'll be buying them at. So for $30 billion dollars, we can have 30 billion w…

This napkin math is so hand wavy and rudimentary that it pretty much means nothing. For starters, you took near the bottom range from your source, and omitted the 25% labor fee.

Also FFS were comparing a nuclear reactor to residential solar?! In what world is it a safe assumption that those figures scale? What happens when we start running out of rare earth metals?

Let’s just step away from this poorly thought out hypothetical…ask yourself why solar is barely producing any power. Theres a massive financial incentive here. Is everyone stupid? Are you a genius that noticed something everyone else missed?

Our nuclear fleet is ancient, and still produces ~8% of domestic supply. Solar is ~1.6%: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/

With a renewed investment and more efficient regulatory practices, we could be like france who produces >70% of their domestic supply with nuclear: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

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

#809

Post by chris222 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 7:15 AM UTC

c0llision wrote: post #791

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,…

I think the idea that renewables have to be paired with large amounts of energy storage is not correct. In Ireland dispatchable power is used when wind is low. Natural gas, hydroelectric, HVDC, pumped storage. Lithium ion batteries are generally only used briefly while the gas power plant gets up to temperature because of their high cost. There are also HVDC interconnectors that allow excess wind to be exported to th…

Overbuilding wind and using HVDC transmission to move it around is sometimes cheaper than battery storage since it compliments solar peak times well.

A similar project is being constructed in the Southwest United States:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801943

3,500 MW of wind+ HVDC transmission for 11 billion dollars.

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

#810

Post by grecy » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 7:19 AM UTC

rank0 wrote: post #808

grecy wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's do some more math From the article, this new reactor is "estimated to cost more than $30 Billion." (Let's call it 30) & It generates 1,114 Mega Watts. This article [1] says solar panels cost between $0.90 and $1.50 per watt. Let's go with $1/watt to keep the math easy, though I bet it's much cheaper by now, and especially at the scale we'll be buying them at. So for $30 billion dollars, we can have 30 billion w…

This napkin math is so hand wavy and rudimentary that it pretty much means nothing. For starters, you took near the bottom range from your source, and omitted the 25% labor fee. Also FFS were comparing a nuclear reactor to residential solar?! In what world is it a safe assumption that those figures scale? What happens when we start running out of rare earth metals? Let’s just step away from this poorly thought out hy…

> For starters, you took near the bottom range from your source, and omitted the 25% labor fee.

Here's the National Renewable Energy Laboratory site saying large solar farms are $1.06 per watt, fully installed and operational. [1]

Also the 2,245 mW solar farm of Bhadla Solar Park cost $2.175 billion [2]. Less that $1/watt. Let's just build three of those and we're good for our 7mW of solar, proven very doable.

> Also FFS were comparing a nuclear reactor to residential solar

No, we're comparing it to solar farms.

> Let’s just step away from this poorly thought out hypothetical…ask yourself why solar is barely producing any power. Theres a massive financial incentive here. Is everyone stupid? Are you a genius that noticed something everyone else missed?

The nuke we're talking about started construction more than 20 years ago. Obviously back then the calculation was very different. The value proposition for solar + storage is changing much, much faster than almost everyone realizes, and will continue to do so.

Also it would be good if you didn't resort to ad hominem attacks. If my "napkin math" is grossly wrong, please correct it. There is no need to attack me.

[1] https://www.nrel.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/solar-in...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park