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

#851

Post by JoachimS » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 10:40 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…

Sorry for nitpicking, but please use "M" for mega, not "m". At least be consistent.

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

#852

Post by JoachimS » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 10:42 AM UTC

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.

Don't know about the United States regulatory frameworks, but in Europe, building hydro power, or big wind farms for that matter is getting hard too. Both with local protests and regulatory requirements.

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

#853

Post by DrBazza » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 10:59 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've wanted to see whether thorium reactors actually work or not. I suspect the lack of interest from western governments is because it isn't very useful for making bombs.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

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

#854

Post by Symbiote » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:03 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…

10 of these solar power stations cost less than this new nuclear reactor.

It certainly looks like a worthy competitor. It only took 18 months to build!

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

#855

Post by Symbiote » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:05 AM UTC

JoachimS wrote: post #851

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…

Sorry for nitpicking, but please use "M" for mega, not "m". At least be consistent.

A consistent decimal separator would be good too, preferably "." as we're writing in English.

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

#856

Post by fennecfoxy » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:17 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…

Not only that but the cost to decommission one is absurdly high and I've read in previous articles that this cost isn't even a consideration at all when building a reactor. Like it's just completely unplanned for and often paid into by the taxpayer.

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

#857

Post by mrspuratic » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:27 AM UTC

padjo wrote: post #831

c0llision wrote: post #791

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You're conflating electricity generation and total energy use. Yes, 13% is crap, we're highly (and ridiculously) reliant on imported fossil fuels.

With respect to electricity generation then, Ireland is in the middle with 39% renewable electricity generation for 2022[0]. 2022 was "less windy" than average by about 2%, and 2021 lower again by about 6%[1]. The grid currently can sustain 75% renewables, substantial upgrades are in progress (capacity and ROCOF related) to get that up to 95%. This year (2023) was substantially better, in the first 10 months the average contribution from wind alone was 33%[2], this month the wind generation record was broken also[3] (~4.6GW). Hydro and other sources top renewables up by another ~6% [4].

[0] https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-el... [1] https://www.dnv.com/article/uk-and-ireland-windiness-2022-24... [2] https://windenergyireland.com/latest-news/7615-31-per-cent-o... [3] https://electroroute.com/new-record-for-irish-wind-generatio... [4] https://www.seai.ie/data-and-insights/seai-statistics/key-st...

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

#858

Post by Retric » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:34 AM UTC

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,…

Multiple solar farms have already been built that store 1/2 their daily output, the economics is already compelling.

Nobody is saying we have grid sufficient storage right now, but in terms of energy storage we’re a well over 30 minutes when you look at just existing capacity (25GWh not 10Gwh) + existing EV’s and that number is growing rapidly ~50% year over year.

So, manufacturing several hours of electricity storage over the next ~15 years is a completely reasonable goal. Further that’s all that’s required, we have carbon free dams supplying 7% of total electricity demand and days worth of total grid demand in energy storage, just time shifting that covers ~16% of nighttime demand. Similarly Solar can be shifted east/west to cover more of the duck curve.

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

#859

Post by spiderfarmer » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:37 AM UTC

Retric wrote: post #858

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,…

Multiple solar farms have already been built that store 1/2 their daily output, the economics is already compelling. Nobody is saying we have grid sufficient storage right now, but in terms of energy storage we’re a well over 30 minutes when you look at just existing capacity (25GWh not 10Gwh) + existing EV’s and that number is growing rapidly ~50% year over year. So, manufacturing several hours of electricity storag…

People who underestimated the solar boom will underestimate the upcoming storage boom as well.

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

#860

Post by niemandhier » Fri, Dec 29, 2023, 11:38 AM UTC

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,…

My car has 100kWh energy storage and spends most of the day plugged in. Discharging 20 kWh around the optimal storage point will not hurt the battery. If we reach 20 000 000 cars like that we have 400 000 000 kWh or 400 GWh at our disposable most of the time .

Cars alone could handle about an hour of the national grid, assuming that Energie intensive industries would not shut down temporary whenever the price of electricity is high/ predicted to be high.