Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms • Hacker News Board

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#141

Post by ianburrell » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 12:38 AM UTC

audunw wrote: post #51

giantg2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better."' If we look at a long enough timeline, there really shouldn't be much change. The replacement of coal and gas plants would be with much cheaper renewable but also with higher cost nuclear. The average should land near the old price. What we observe is that the renewables have a head start compared to nuclear adoption so it seems like prices are highe…

Or the cost of renewables + energy storage + smarter flexible loads will just become lower than nuclear all-in-all. Seems to me that, now that both transportation and grid management is pouring bucketloads of money into energy storage technology, they'll just continue to improve and come down. I mean, just as some countries are hitting 50%+ of renewables, and the variability is becoming a significant challenge, we're…

The small modular reactors could be useful for isolated places where it is hard to run power cables and renewables are not feasible. Solar doesn't work close to the poles. Places that are now powered by importing diesel.

Reactors might also work for ships. A super reliable small reactor that doesn't require much support personnel might be option for powering cargo ships.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#142

Post by magicalist » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 12:46 AM UTC

Lazare wrote: post #117

OrwellianChild wrote: post #3

As much as I'd love more nuclear power on the grid, this project cost over double its initial bid and is actually raising rates for GA utility customers... I can't tell from the story whether "nuclear is hard" or if "contractors are idiots" here. Reactor was supposed to open in 2016 - it's very hard to cheer for a 7-year delay and a 140% cost overrun.

A lot of it seems to come down to very, very agreesive regulation. Eg, plant designs got approved, work started, then the regulators came back and said "actually, you need to make some major changes to the design", so everything paused and some completed work was torn up, new designs were made, approved (slowly), and then work restarted from scratch. Then it happened again. And again. The changes weren't bad per se;…

All of this was a great explanation of some of the delays so far...nine years ago.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-1646/root-cause-of-vogtle-a...

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#143

Post by kennend3 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 12:49 AM UTC

alexfromapex wrote: post #133

kennend3 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of asking sensationalist questions designed to create fear...why not look into it? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S173857331... The studies have already been done, crashing a jet into a nuclear power plant wont do much. I'm more familiar with Canada's designs and the walls are several M thick of reinforced concrete. Not exactly material known for being easy to break into. This is from the p…

You may not be familiar with Socratic questioning. Your response also comes off as rude. The question was meant as a prompt for dialogue not because I didn’t already research this topic.

your post looks like it has been downvoted, so i guess no one was familiar with "Socratic questioning" and your post comes across as "anti-nuclear" without doing any research.

as a leanring oppertunity, this is what Socratic questioning looks like:

What is an example of Socratic questioning?

What do you mean when you say X? Could you explain that point further? Can you provide an example? Is there a different point of view?

you simply asked negative-framed questions : Why did the regulators approve fission reactors knowing our country has enemies..

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#144

Post by shagie » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 12:51 AM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #45

pwinnski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

During the long winter season, that water is largely in solid form, making it less useful for hydro-battery use.

Hydro plants in cold regions usually have an "ice laying" period where they reduce the output to form a thick layer of ice at their desired level to enable the flow they need and prevent ice-slush from entering the turbines. Seems like Minnesota is more lakes, but that same concept should apply, and it is not like they freeze to the bottom each winter.

You've also got a sizable river on the eastern border that extends up into northern Minnesota.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monticello_Nuclear_Generating_...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Crosse_Boiling_Water_Reacto...

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#145

Post by belorn » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 1:04 AM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #110

belorn wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, but is that question even asked in good faith? Are you not aware that the European grid is made out of multiple different technologies each with a different benefits and drawbacks? Right now the most important aspect of the grid is not price, it is the reduction of fossil fuel dependency. It is not sustainable to use fossil fuels in the short run and it is definitively not sustainable in the long run.…

The problem with nuclear is that every dollar spent on nuclear could have displaced more fossil energy if invested in renewables. Any investment in nuclear prolongs the climate crisis. The next problem nuclear faces is that the CAPEX heavy economic model requires them to run at 100% all the time, they used to be able to do that but renewables undercut them wildly. Now you start to lower the capacity factor of the nuc…

The market should deploy the cheapest grid possible that can produce emission free energy. We should be using those market forces.

The problem that we have is that governments steps in to subsidize grid stability. Industries and citizens in general do no accept a government that allows for black outs, and they also do not accept a government that allow the energy price to reach the natural market price when supply is very low and demand is high.

A second major problem is that if cheap renewables can produce 90% of supply and we need to 10% of expensive storage to meet demand, the cost that customers will have to bear is as if 100% of the produced energy came from the expensive storage. This make it very expensive to customers to have a combination of very cheap and very expensive energy production.

And finally, EU law dictate that if a country has surplus energy production then they must sell it to countries that has a deficit in energy production. This makes grid stability an EU wide issue, and even if a single country has an very stable production they will still share the high costs of energy unstable countries.

All of it create a market where the cost of $/kWh of energy created within a country is just loosely connected by the real price that customers pay. This winter demonstrated that multiple times, and all the governments subsidizes and price roofs illustrated how ready governments are to pay when the real cost of grid stability lands.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#146

Post by flangola7 » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 1:06 AM UTC

groot2581 wrote: post #71

ROTMetro wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalizing rewards, socializing the risks. But socialism is bad folks, m'kay.

Worse things have happened than a $4 rate increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine

Hmmmmm I don't see what famine has to do with nuclear power.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#147

Post by fnordpiglet » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 1:42 AM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #97

fnordpiglet wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utilities are generally paid for by the users regardless of their cost. Investors are typically insulated in so far as the project completes, which is completely normal. It’s not like there’s some sort of call provision on a bond that asks for more money from the bond holder if the project costs more. Typically you would simply issue more bonds. Instead of issuing bonds and paying interest on those out of utility bil…

Depends on if you have a regulated or open electricity market. You describe a regulated market. On the other hand, Europe by and large operates on a marginal pricing open market with utilities providing the transmission grid and stabilization services. In that market the investors take the losses. Unless huge state subsidies are brought out like Hinkley Point C leading to the government guaranteeing a strike price of…

Realistically consumer still pay for the utility as the marginal pricing must provide revenues sufficient and in excess of capital and operating costs, and a sufficient risk premium to investors. If consumers don’t like it, they won’t get the services. There’s an argument that a market model is more efficient, but there’s an equally plausible argument that utility models provide more stable pricing - and that end users of utility services prefer stability over efficiency. Thanks for the info though I wasn’t aware Europe was structured this way, but it does explain why costs have been so volatile.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#148

Post by prepend » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 1:48 AM UTC

wil421 wrote: post #138

credit_guy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you check what you are saying? I did that for you: [1] has the average electricity prices in different regions of the US as published by the EIA. As of December 22 (latest data available), the average price for residential use in the whole of the US was 14.96 cents/kWh. In Georgia it was 11.96 cents/kWh. The report also has December 21, and also other sectors (commercial, industrial, transportation, overall). As…

I’m only paying $0.08 cents in Georgia but I’m with another energy provider that has the lowest rates in the state (if their marketing material is correct).

Sawnee EMC charges 7.67 cents per kWh ($0.0767) [0].

Georgia Power (most of metro Atlanta) charges 5.8-10.6 cents per kWh depending on season and amount consumes [1].

Georgia is very lucky to have cheap electricity. I think it’s in part to having nuclear power plants.

[0] https://file.sawnee.com/web-docs/rates/Residential-Service-R... [1] https://www.georgiapower.com/residential/billing-and-rate-pl...

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#149

Post by PM_me_your_math » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 2:29 AM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #9

I feel like the fact that this plant coming online will raise the rates for Georgia electricity is basically the death-knell of nuclear power, at least in it's current form of large central power plants[1]. By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better." They don't run all the time, but they're cheap and relatively simple, if you screw up a unit then you get no power from that one unit, but the nat…

There is nothing cheap or simple about wind and solar. This is especially true if you attempt to do an apples to apples output comparison.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#150

Post by PM_me_your_math » Wed, Mar 08, 2023, 2:42 AM UTC

seatac76 wrote: post #2

This is great news. Although disappointing how long it took. Still hoping for a nuclear resurgence. Between this and all the EV factories coming online in GA, GA will have quite the impact on climate goals.

We will literally have a very minor impact even if the entire globe goes 100% renewable for everything from home heating, lighting, aircraft, cars, trucks, maritime transport and rail.

And in order to do a fraction of that (say only USA goes 100% electric) we would need to significantly scale up strip mining and dig deep into the earth.

All of that industrial activity takes more energy than wind and solar can provide. In fact, none of it is possible without natural gas, heavy fuel oil, and diesel.