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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by qwebfdzsh »

chris222 wrote: post #799
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,…

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.

Wouldn't enough storage make it much more expensive than nuclear?

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

#842

Post by qwebfdzsh »

hef19898 wrote: post #829
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…

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…

Directly comparing solar or even wind with nuclear, gas, coal isn't exactly fair though unless you account for storage costs.

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

#843

Post by _ph_ »

champtar wrote: post #728
_ph_ wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear would be the worst technology for filling temporary gaps in the production of renewables. The ramping speed of nuclear reactors is limited, and they cannot be throttled below 40% output without shutting them down entirely for quite some time. On top of that, the main expense of nuclear reactors is building and maintaining them, so throttling a reactor is not reducing the costs. You really want to run a nuclea…

French NPP can vary their power output 80% up or down in 30 min ( https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_pilotable_d%27%C3... )

Fine, than they can go a bit lower still. But for a grid mainly powered by renewables, they would have to be able to go all the way down to 0, what is really not a practical option for nuclear reactors.

But there is another catch: nuclear is extremely expensive, even when run most of the time close to 100%. But any time you throttle the reactor, you are driving the costs up. Because most of the costs are in building and operating the reactor, less so in fuel.

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

#844

Post by qwebfdzsh »

chris222 wrote: post #806
formercoder wrote: post #801

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 workin…

Just starting build them at a much bigger scaled would probably result in significant decrease in costs on it's own. China, Korea and Russia somehow manage to build at much lower cost.

> risk factors of a meltdown (however small) to tackle which are always working against you. Technology development in the Nuclear area is SLOW.

True, then again these really aren't a big deal. Burning coal is about the same as having a Chernobyl size disaster every few year (even when we 100% ignore climate change) and most people don't seem to mind that much.

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

#845

Post by qwebfdzsh »

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 do have a point, but directly comparing costs is somewhat dishonest until solar plans start working 24 hours a day.

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

#846

Post by qwytw »

mlsu wrote: post #776
flgb wrote: post #773

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 investme…

> Whereas a nuclear power plant can (and does) act as the backup

But AFAIK you can't just turn nuclear plants on and off again based on demand like you can do with gas. So it's not really a backup.

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

#847

Post by hef19898 »

qwebfdzsh wrote: post #842
hef19898 wrote: post #829

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Directly comparing solar or even wind with nuclear, gas, coal isn't exactly fair though unless you account for storage costs.

Well, tell that the EIA and not me, it's their official government numbers...

Edit: Just realized the link is broken for some reason... This one should work:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....

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

#848

Post by qwebfdzsh »

hef19898 wrote: post #847
qwebfdzsh wrote: post #842

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Directly comparing solar or even wind with nuclear, gas, coal isn't exactly fair though unless you account for storage costs.

Well, tell that the EIA and not me, it's their official government numbers... Edit: Just realized the link is broken for some reason... This one should work: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....

Why? I'm not challenging the validity of the data itself. Just the interpretation.

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

#849

Post by JoachimS »

chris222 wrote: post #807
defrost wrote: post #800

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whic…

Still MW not GW.

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

#850

Post by hef19898 »

qwebfdzsh wrote: post #848
hef19898 wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, tell that the EIA and not me, it's their official government numbers... Edit: Just realized the link is broken for some reason... This one should work: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation....

Why? I'm not challenging the validity of the data itself. Just the interpretation.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN