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

861–870 of 1001 posts

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

#861

Post by Retric »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #835
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…

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.

Which is dependent on cheaper nighttime rates, if daytime rates where lower than all that demand would happen in the day.

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

#862

Post by Retric »

katbyte wrote: post #830
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #816

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. 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.

Only in the short term. It’s taking 10-15+ years to get nuclear online. Looking at the ramping up of battery production by you can build solar today, add batteries in 10 years and be much better off financially and environmentally.

Even China regularly spends 7+ years to build nuclear from the point where construction actually starts and even longer when you include planning.

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

#863

Post by OsrsNeedsf2P »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #859
Retric wrote: post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And so, we should keep burning coal until that hopefully later happens!

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

#864

Post by nicoburns »

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,…

If you looked at installed solar generation capacity 30 years ago then the situation would have looked hopeless too. But there has since been an exponential increase, driven by increases in both rate installation, and in our capacity to manufacture and install panels.

And there is every reason to think that we at the start of similar curve with battery storage right now (batteries are currently manufactured at a relatively small scale, with no major technological barriers to scaling up). Seasonal storage is another matter, but hourly/daily is well within reach.

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

#865

Post by Retric »

OsrsNeedsf2P wrote: post #863
spiderfarmer wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

And so, we should keep burning coal until that hopefully later happens!

Coal is already dead. We where at 51% coal in 2001 and hit 19.5% in 2022. Existing power plants keep aging and not being replaced.

People will bring storage online when it’s needed, but we don’t need it thus we don’t build it. So keep building Solar/Wind and soon enough storage will come online.

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

#866

Post by nicoburns »

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.

Gas and coal, yes. But nuclear also requires storage or expensive overbuilding.

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

#867

Post by cesarb »

Georgelemental wrote: post #750
angiosperm wrote: post #734

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The value proposition for renewables left nukes far behind a long time ago. Nukes have no prospect of narrowing the gap even if they could be built and operated more cheaply, of which in any case no plausible signs are evident.

Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)

> Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't.

Wait, what? Other than solar (for obvious reasons), renewables can run 24/7/365, and that's extremely common; as an example, the Itaipu power plant has run continuously since 1984, and it only powered down once in 2009, when several of the transmission lines taking power from it failed at nearly the same time due to lightning.

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

#868

Post by _ph_ »

katbyte wrote: post #830
TaylorAlexander wrote: post #816

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. 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.

Base load is a term from the fossil/nuclear time. It is a pure statistical amount which designated how much "slow" sources (coal, nuclear) could be used because there is never less demand than the base load. And everything was done to push the base load up. But it never meant that it was sufficient to deliver the "base load". The power generation still hat to match any demand at any time. So everything else was done with "fast" and often more expensive plants like gas, water.

In the age of renewables, things have changed. If you have enough renewables to cover large parts of the electricity demand on average, then you will frequently produce 100% more of the maximum grid demand. In this situation, "base load" power plants don't make any sense at all. The new term is "residual load". This refers to the load at a point of time which cannot be delivered by renewables at that time. This can also vary between 0 and 100%. Which obviously requires different power plants, like gas, water.

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

#869

Post by zbrozek »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #738
mlrtime wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The city wants to keep invasive species out... These small examples are extremely frustrating as a tax payer. What is the solution to these examples, or does one just try to ignore it as a price of living in that society?

Frustrating indeed. I don't think there is a quick fix to create a political culture among voters and representatives that cares about fiscal responsibility. One consideration is having a broader tax base so that voters have more skin in the game. For example, taxes in Houston are less progressive than SF, but SF city budget per resident is more than 500% that of Huston.

How do we get to a more decisive government that doesn't try to make everything a priority (especially things that are at odds with each other)? Is it to reduce direct participation and rely on representation (remove public hearings)?

The $1.7M public toilet was a painful example showing how far off the rails we are. Should auditors and controllers have some teeth? What would they be?

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

#870

Post by JoachimS »

Symbiote wrote: post #855
JoachimS wrote: post #851

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which version?
Post reply on HN