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

821–830 of 1001 posts

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

#821

Post by ETH_start »

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,…

You hit the nail on the head.

"True cost of using wind and solar to meet demand was $272 and $472 per MWh [pdf]"

source:

https://web.archive.org/web/20220916003958/https://files.ame...

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

#822

Post by k-brac »

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…

According to the article it is $30 Billion for 2 reactors, not 1. You may need to update your calculation

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

#823

Post by mgoetzke »

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,…

Nuclear is also quite a lot more expensive than people sometimes calculate here.

It cost about 35 billion USD (total cost during build, no maintenance, no fuel) At current potential earning rates of eg. max 10ct/kWh (Georgia) and 1100 MW peak continuous operation it will take 36 years to make the money back.

That is without just investing that 35 billion into something else or even adding maintenance and fuel cost which makes the entire project never return a profit.

Now in general I like machines, and nuclear reactors are fantastic engineering feats. I dislike the potential for a meltdown of course no matter how 'unlikely'

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

#824

Post by ETH_start »

silverlyra wrote: post #790
internetter wrote: post #789

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they were saying solar is useless, but you underestimate how difficult it is to change peak load. Well a good start is actually smart systems within homes, for instance to avoid heating said home when nobody is present, or timing loads like car charging and dishwashers to be on that beat. That's great, but it's been proven these smart systems are very hard to roll out, no matter how much you try to say…

now I am wondering about the net social benefit of solar power disincentivizing third-shift (overnight) production. cheaper electricity during the day makes it relatively more expensive to operate heavy industry plants 24/7. the heavy investment that goes into those plants incentives operators to drive (and staff) them 24/7, but there are hidden social costs (negative externalities) of having so many people out of di…

24/7 might make transportation infrastructure utilization more efficient. Less congestion during rush hour for example.

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

#825

Post by hef19898 »

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…

>> It's generally not practical to shut down those facilities just because electricity prices are temporarily high.

On the surface, that sounds logic. In reality so, that is exactly what happens: as short notice reaction by big consumers (reducing or increasing consumption as needed), planning in accordance with electricity exchanges... And that behaviour is actually pretty profitable, it contributes to grid stability, enables more flexibility on the consumption side and is technically possible in a surprising number of high consumption industries (paper, chemicals, graphite, steel...).

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

#826

Post by ETH_start »

chris222 wrote: post #820
donny2018 wrote: post #818

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It would take a significant political shift — which would require a significant shift in public opinion about nuclear energy — for nuclear power to gain ground in the US. Nuclear energy needs to be not just tolerated, but desired as the energy source of the future, just as renewables have been over the last 50 years, with massive funding directed into R&D and subsidies for deployment. I don't think there's any disagreement with that.

What would be required is:

* A concerted effort to develop advanced nuclear reactor designs, particularly small modular reactors (SMRs).

* Streamlining the regulatory process and adjusting its risk tolerances to more reasonable levels.

* Subsidizing the deployment of advanced reactor types (e.g. SMRs) to create larger economies of scale.

This would all be an extremely expensive endeavor, but the payoff would be robust market for small modular nuclear reactors that offer increasingly cost-competitive energy as production scales. Keep in mind that with nuclear, the overriding cost is manufacturing.

The fuel costs are almost zero the land use is negligible, and the pollution is minimal. And of course as a base load source, there is no need for storage, unlike with intermittent energy sources, which do require it.

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

#828

Post by LunaSea »

natmaka wrote: post #796
DrBazza wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many batteries do we need to store the equivalent energy in 1kg of uranium or thorium? And how much mining is required obtain those materials and how much energy is required to refine those chemicals or elements? And repeat for the millions of solar panels and wind turbines. And shipping them around the world in diesel powered boats?

> How many batteries do we need to store the equivalent energy in 1kg of uranium Energy density isn't, alone, determinant here. The most determinant question is: after taking into account all measures aiming at reducing renewables' production 'intermittency' ('variability' is more adequate), which are: spreading a mix (wind, solar, geothermic...) of renewable sources on a continent, enhancing grid interconnections am…

> Given that the average electric car battery can power the average home for quite a while (days), and that other EV batteries will be online...

Regular houses are too small to make it possible to install enough solar to charge the car though.

That's without even considering appartment buildings.

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

#829

Post by hef19898 »

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…

No need to do back-of-envelope maths:

LCOE (total, incl. CAPEX, in USD per MWh):

coal 82.6, combined cycle 39.9, advanced nuclear 81.7, geothermal 37.6, biomass 90.1, onshore wind 40, offshore wind (that one was a surprise, since offshore wind should be quite cheap, mainly driven by capital cost of 104 USD per MWh) 105, solar 33.8, solar hybrid 49 and hydro 64.

Variable cost (same as above):

coal 23.7, combined cycle 27.7, adv. nuclear 10.3, geothermal 1.2, biomass 30, onshore wind 0, offshore wind 0, solar 0, solar hybrid 0, hydro 4.1

All number from here:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation...., page 9.

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

#830

Post by katbyte »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #816
nradov wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 da…

Still burning O&G - the goal is to not which means you need that base load which means nuclear where hydro/pumped storage is not an option.
Post reply on HN