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

811–820 of 1001 posts

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

#811

Post by donny2018 »

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…

You are comparing to the worst case scenario of catastrophic nuclear overbudgeting. Normally nuclear plants don’t cost nearly as much.

Korea has built 5.6 GW Barakah NPP for about 25B dollars. It took less than 8 years. Russia is building its standard VVER-1200 reactors at about 10-15B for 2.4 GW

China is building its reactors at about 5B per 1.2 GW reactor.

These costs might fall further if standardized designs get deployed at larger scales, just like with solar.

Given steady and predictable generation regardless of weather and location that nuclear can provide, your numbers don’t look that impressive now, do they?

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

#812

Post by chris222 »

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…

We have just barely started investing into the extremely large solar projects that could easily change that 1.6% figure you quoted. I also don’t know if that number included behind-the-meter residential solar which is mostly what we have in the United States right now.

As a small example of how renewables can change I would examine wind power in the UK.

https://www.theecoexperts.co.uk/solar-panels/biggest-solar-f...

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

#813

Post by chris222 »

donny2018 wrote: post #811
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…

You are comparing to the worst case scenario of catastrophic nuclear overbudgeting. Normally nuclear plants don’t cost nearly as much. Korea has built 5.6 GW Barakah NPP for about 25B dollars. It took less than 8 years. Russia is building its standard VVER-1200 reactors at about 10-15B for 2.4 GW China is building its reactors at about 5B per 1.2 GW reactor. These costs might fall further if standardized designs get…

The thing you are missing is regulatory costs. All of those examples are great but they are not dealing with the United States regulatory frameworks. It’s extremely difficult to get Nuclear projects developed here.

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

#814

Post by chris222 »

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…

The Fukushima cleanup costs are estimated at damn near a half a trillion dollars!

Chernobyl was estimated at 50 billion+ adjusted.

Accidents are rare but they are costly.

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

#815

Post by indysigners »

Since the usual arguments pro RE are being made: One of the main downsides of RE is

a) its need of fossil backup and b) profits of solar / wind goes into the pockets of its owners while c) the costs of fossil backup and increased network capacities are to be borne by the general public so that d) wealth is distributed from the bottom to the top whose e) RE systems a being subsidized by the public too.

In conclusio, the bottom half pays for the profit of top earners who can afford to invest in RE. That’s the green „revolution“ for ya.

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

#816

Post by TaylorAlexander »

nradov wrote: post #794
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about solar is it's very cheap, and as a grid provider you can just charge more for energy at night to disincentivize use when the sun is not shining. We do not actually need constant energy supply at all hours of the day and night and solar can cover a great deal of energy needs for very cheap. You can also deploy solar even on a large scale in very short time scales. Want to build nuclear? You start…

We actually need constant energy supply at all hours of the day and night if we want to have a modern industrialized economy with factories and refineries operating around the clock. It's generally not practical to shut down those facilities just because electricity prices are temporarily high. So, in practice all of those industries will migrate to areas with cheap, reliable power (even if it's not "green"). This ha…

> We actually need constant energy supply at all hours of the day and night if we want to have a modern industrialized economy with factories and refineries operating around the clock.

We always need electricity available, but the demand is not constant and there are quite a few discretionary loads which can be run preferentially in the day time. We can expand our electrical capacity with clean solar energy in the day time, reducing the total need for existing polluting sources. Even if industrial factories run off of natural gas at night, a large installed base of solar will allow discretionary loads (home appliances, EV charging, etc) to run off of zero emissions solar when available. And even the industrial plants can utilize solar during the daytime, cutting their CO2 emissions related to energy use in half.

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

#817

Post by JumpCrisscross »

kragen wrote: post #378
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> projection that human world marketed energy consumption will increase by a factor of 1000× within a century may be correct We currently produce about 2% [1] of the Earth’s insolation, or 6% of that which hits land. So you’re talking factors of 16 to 50, which at 2% growth means 140 years to the former. Again, assuming perfect efficiency and no clouds, et cetera . If we assume 50% efficiency (still with no clouds) a…

14500 million toe per year is 19 terawatts, roughly world marketed energy consumption; 1000 watts per m² (nominal solar constant below the atmosphere) times 1.28 × 10¹⁴ m² (area of a circle with radius 6371km) is 128000 terawatts. 19 is 0.015% of 128000, not 2%. so why do your calculations differ? let's see possibly by '510mm sqkm' you mean 510 million square kilometers, as opposed to, say, 510 millimeter square kilo…

You’re 100% correct. Sorry. Dimensional analysis FTW.

My broader point is this: as we deploy solar, mass production and learning curves will reduce costs. But diminishing returns will increase them. Given insolation is not limitless, we should see that curve stretch upwards and eventually intersect other power sources. To suggest otherwise is to say we should monosource solar.

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

#818

Post by donny2018 »

chris222 wrote: post #813
donny2018 wrote: post #811

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing to the worst case scenario of catastrophic nuclear overbudgeting. Normally nuclear plants don’t cost nearly as much. Korea has built 5.6 GW Barakah NPP for about 25B dollars. It took less than 8 years. Russia is building its standard VVER-1200 reactors at about 10-15B for 2.4 GW China is building its reactors at about 5B per 1.2 GW reactor. These costs might fall further if standardized designs get…

The thing you are missing is regulatory costs. All of those examples are great but they are not dealing with the United States regulatory frameworks. It’s extremely difficult to get Nuclear projects developed here.

Then that is an administrative obstacle, not technological. Nuclear power by itself shouldn't be (and isn't) that expensive and can be made much cheaper with standardized mass production.

It's a shame that Vogtle NPP is now made to be a poster child of "nuclear is inviably expensive organizational mess" argument whereas none of its problems are the technology's fault.

If we truly want to decarbonize, nuclear power is absolutely a part of the solution, together with renewables. Given the climate emergency that we are facing, ignoring nuclear’s massive benefits and not removing unnecessary obstacles from its way is almost criminal at this point.

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

#819

Post by rank0 »

grecy wrote: post #810
rank0 wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You’re comparing the largest solar plant in the world to a SINGLE reactor at a nuclear plant. You’re forgetting that solar plants are not able to produce anywhere near their nameplate capacity (and the fraction they do produce is not reliable). You misunderstood that the $30B figure is for two reactors, only one of which is operational atm. Solar farms have much shorter lifespans, and the panels are toxic and non recyclable.

Also why do we pretend that we can just magically clone 3x of the Bhadla plant from pakistan to the US for identical costs? Why do we assume we have infinite rare earth metals for panel/battery production?

Im down to have a discussion, but youre leaving so much out that its hard to take the argument seriously.

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

#820

Post by chris222 »

donny2018 wrote: post #818
chris222 wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing you are missing is regulatory costs. All of those examples are great but they are not dealing with the United States regulatory frameworks. It’s extremely difficult to get Nuclear projects developed here.

Then that is an administrative obstacle, not technological. Nuclear power by itself shouldn't be (and isn't) that expensive and can be made much cheaper with standardized mass production. It's a shame that Vogtle NPP is now made to be a poster child of "nuclear is inviably expensive organizational mess" argument whereas none of its problems are the technology's fault. If we truly want to decarbonize, nuclear power is…

I don’t see it happening in the United States. I’ll give a small example from my area of the country which is New England.

We had 5 Nuclear power plants (one each in ME, MA, NH, CT and VT) of which the last to be commissioned was in New Hampshire (Seabrook) in 1990. This took from the late 1960’s to 1990 to be commissioned with similar regulatory obstacles.

Since 1990 Maine Yankee shut down in 1997 due to NRC safety concerns and additional money required to fix them. The plant operated from 1972 to 1997. Vermont Yankee shut down in 2014 due to overwhelming public support for not renewing it’s license to operate. The plant operated from 1972 to 2014. Pilgrim in Plymouth Mass shut down in 2019 due to the cost of safety upgrades. The plant operated from 1972 to 2019. Two Nuclear plants remain at Seabrook NH and Waterford CT.

The New England energy market was deregulated in 1998 moving to a wholesale market run by New England ISO. Since 2000 older oil fired and coal fired generation plants have largely been replaced with Natural Gas. Recently renewables and net imports from other areas are trending higher. We have almost no coal or oil fired generation in the entire region today.

The stated plan for NE ISO is to continue to pursue renewables. No new Nuclear projects are on the horizon. The current remaining reactors make up approx. 20-30% of the regions baseload power and are nearing end of life.

The Nuclear plants require bailouts to continue to function. In 2019 CT mandated that half of the Waterford plants output was purchased for 10 years at 4.9 cents/kWh. While this increased customer bills initally, it recently saved money when Nat Gas spiked last year. It also saved a 25% spike in the regions total emissions if the plant were to close and be replaced by Nat Gas.

A summary of some of the risks is explained here:

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do/in-depth/power-plant...

Post reply on HN