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

#831

Post by padjo » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:32 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…

Ireland is bottom of the league in Europe for renewable use, so I don’t know why you think using them as an example is good: https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-bottom-of-eu-table-for-use...

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

#832

Post by chris222 » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:32 AM UTC

ETH_start wrote: post #826

chris222 wrote: post #820

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 disagr…

Thats a good summary of what it would take but I really think the ship has sailed on Nuclear. I don’t think it will have a significant revival in the United States any time soon.

We did have a chance to be like France in the early 1970’s and we were trending that way as I outlined for the NE region.

For now the focus is all on renewables [wind, solar and lithium based storage]. Technology development is moving quickly and capital is being deployed.

The aging Nuclear, Oil and Coal plants continue to shut down or be propped up for a few years until renewables fully take over.

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

#833

Post by katbyte » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:34 AM UTC

billytetrud wrote: post #780

nicoburns wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Goverment power company here (bc Canada) is one of the best run in the world, with some of the cheapest rates (10c cad) and has been a public utility for over 60 years despite a previous conservative Goverment saddling it with 16 billion of extra costs due to grift

Norway also does great with its nationalized O&G

Nationalize industries can be fantastic with the public benefiting directly rather then a few select individuals.

Fix your public institutions instead of privatization

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

#834

Post by kjkjadksj » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:38 AM UTC

mgoetzke wrote: post #823

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 wh…

But you will make the money back. This isn’t private industry. This is government. Many programs are ran at a loss, this however nets a sure profit in some time. Bonds can always be sold to take care of upfront costs.

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

#835

Post by kjkjadksj » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:41 AM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #786

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,…

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…

I have so many products now that are either built from the start or have gotten a software update to do the bulk of their routine power draw overnight. I scarcely need to use AC at all where I live and my heat is from gas. I expect peak usage hours have already shifted from daytime to nighttime in my own case, probably for at least a few others in the area as well.

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

#836

Post by evilos » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:46 AM UTC

angiosperm wrote: post #737

evilos wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you don't like discussion what are you doing here?

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

#837

Post by andsoitis » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 9:52 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…

> 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.

Natural gas is neither renewable nor emission-free when burning, albeit less than burning coal, for instance. About 117 pounds of CO2 are produced per million British thermal units (MMBtu) equivalent of natural gas compared with more than 200 pounds of CO2 per MMBtu of coal and more than 160 pounds per MMBtu of distillate fuel oil. Source: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-...

So while using natural gas is better than using coal, in the longer term we likely needs to reduce its usage and substitute with renewables too.

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

#838

Post by _ph_ » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 10:11 AM UTC

viknesh wrote: post #805

_ph_ wrote: post #597

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Several reasons:

- it takes way to long to finish them, renewables can be set up much quicker

- as they are too expensive, they are binding money which could be used more efficiently somewhere else.

- we haven't solved the waste problem

- nuclear is the worst companion to renewables, as nuclear power plants are limited in their regulation capacity and you cannot afford to keep them not running at a high load or the electrictiy would become even more expensive.

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

#839

Post by survirtual » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 10:13 AM UTC

mixdup wrote: post #712

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…

>It seems like up-front monetary 'cost' is continually used to bash nuclear. We certainly still need to get a handle on the cost of deploying nuclear because it is not sustainable the way we do it today In 2022 Georgia Power got 23% of its power from nuclear, 1.9 gigawatts of capacity. Since construction started, Georgia Power customers have been paying the construction costs (about 6%) and now that construction is c…

I believe that we need a Nuclear Corps of Engineers, a publicly funded, possibly international organization like the World Bank, dedicated solely to constructing modern reactors globally. This would bring economies of scale into play, making nuclear energy more economically viable and efficient.

The feasibility of such an endeavor is clear when we compare it to military spending or the costs of road construction and maintenance. Essential infrastructure often requires substantial investment, but the long-term benefits justify the expense.

The idea of for-profit nuclear power has proven to be less effective. It leads to fragmented, inefficient projects and prioritizes short-term gains over long-term sustainability and safety. A centralized, public approach like the Nuclear Corps would streamline production, enforce uniform safety standards, and reduce overall costs.

This shift is not just an economic imperative but a step towards a sustainable, cooperative global energy future. It's time to rethink our approach to nuclear energy, prioritizing global benefit over private profit.

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

#840

Post by qwebfdzsh » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 10:16 AM UTC

mgoetzke wrote: post #823

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 wh…

> I dislike the potential for a meltdown of course no matter how 'unlikely'

Why? A meltdown is really not a big deal at all. If we're fine with burning coal we should be perfectly with a having a meltdown or two every few years (even if we 100% ignored climate change the degree of damage caused by either of those is not that different)