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

181–190 of 1001 posts

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

#181

Post by _aavaa_ »

margalabargala wrote: post #121
internetter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet. Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak ene…

> One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. Does the US have more 50cm^3 sized blocks of U235, or more square kilometers of land with low land values and high annual insolation? There's an estimated 6 million tonnes of mineable uranium reserves in the world [0]…

It’s worth noting that the dichotomy you set up isn’t quite right. The land use for solar and wind isn’t an exclusionary zone. The area around a wind turbine can be used same as before (most often as farmland) without a negative impact on its productivity.

And the same is true for solar. In fact, a growing number of agro-voltaic projects are seeing a net positive on crop yields from solar panels due to the increased shading and decreased temperatures.

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

#182

Post by edm0nd »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #65
stetrain wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear does not seem to be on the mass production curve that solar and batteries are. Even if you could design a reactor that itself can be mass produced at that scale, you still need to do the same with selecting and getting environmental and public safety approval for installation sites and production, transportation, and disposal of the fuel and waste. I'm not against nuclear from a technological perspective, but…

Nuclear might not be able to compete in the U.S. and Europe, but that’s largely because of a ridiculous regulatory regime and has very little to do with the actual tech.

We can thank the hippies of the 60s and 70s for all their anti-nuclear silliness for making the nuclear industry heavily over regulated.

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

#183

Post by belorn »

cool_dude85 wrote: post #122
tonyhb wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cant control rods can be lifted or inserted to meet demand?

There's typically a range of operation, so you can adjust a hundred MW but you can't drop to 0 or spin up from standstill without a time consuming process. Edit: also, the economics are such that you rarely want to drop load from a nuclear plant unless it's offline or for system reasons. The fuel cost is negligible so you'd rather turn off your gas plant or lower the coal plant and save on those fuels.

That assume we still allow coal, oil or gas power plant to exist in the power grid. We should probably not assume that to be the case, especially after the temperatures rises to a break point and some of the major climate change crisis occurs.

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

#184

Post by evilos »

margalabargala wrote: post #121
internetter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet. Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak ene…

> One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. Does the US have more 50cm^3 sized blocks of U235, or more square kilometers of land with low land values and high annual insolation? There's an estimated 6 million tonnes of mineable uranium reserves in the world [0]…

I remember reading some article that said we could offset all of human emissions by painting Vermont stark white or something along those lines.

Covering a desert in solar panels seems like the exact opposite of that plan.

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

#185

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hef19898 wrote: post #159
Wytwwww wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is? > At least if you believe electricity market prices reflect reality I don't see how is this relevant if we're talking specifically about solar. Above ~53° solar production during December is ~20 (to way more than that farther you go north) lower than in December.

And still, PV generated electricity during these periods is priced cheaper on the spot market than nuclear. Funny, right? It is almost as if the parties investing billions and making billions selling and buying electricity figured out the financials behind all that.

Yeah, PV and gas are the cheapest new power to build today.

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

#186

Post by wolverine876 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75
hef19898 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea. Too expensive and no real benefit over ship engines. By the way, tha vast majority of military ships and boats are not nuclear powered.

> was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea We only did a demo ship, which was combination cargo and passenger. The principal cost was being rejected from ports for their lacking acceptance procedures, a first-mover cost. Nuclear shipping has never been “found to be a stupid idea.” It was simply never explored.

What counts as 'explored'? Full production? A demo ship is a signal of exploration.

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

#187

Post by Joeri »

rjbwork wrote: post #7
ano-ther wrote: post #2

See also: "Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

Problem is that we don't build the damn things anymore, so each one is bespoke and expensive. Ideally we'd keep building them and develop the expertise and make it a more repeatable scalable process. I worry instead that the lesson taken from this will be "nuclear is too expensive and ineffective".

MIT found that reusing a design made plants more expensive to build, not less, because of costly on-site last minute design changes.

Taking your point more charitably, it is indeed the lack of a sustainable nuclear energy industry that routinely builds plants that causes costs to skyrocket. There is a chicken and egg situation: nuclear projects don’t get funded because they’re too expensive, so there is no chance to develop expertise in how to build them cheaply, which causes the few that get greenlit to be built by rookie teams that make rookie mistakes that cause costs to skyrocket.

The MIT study into the causes of cost overruns: https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

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

#188

Post by kragen »

konschubert wrote: post #107
slashdev wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are not for riding out winter, they're for evening out the daily load. You have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation, as well as make long-distance interconnects. Pumped hydro is also extremely interesting for obvious reasons. Nuclear as it exists today is not cost competitive. But that's mostly an artificial problem caused by regulation. Can we solve that without sacrificing safety? Can we…

You can also use hydrogen (or Ammonia) for long term storage. It's one of the few use cases where hydrogen makes sense.

for long-term storage it might be better to convert the hydrogen to something more easily storable, such as propane or octane, or to make a different electrolytic product such as aluminum

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

#189

Post by concordDance »

tiffanyg wrote: post #99
internetter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet. Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak ene…

Not unreasonable, but I would point out two options (not the only): 1) "Water batteries" - highly efficient (far more than the 'chemical' you are apparently referring to) & responsive 2) Methods for using 'renewables' to produce &/ support production of chemical fuels - with the added draw / potential goal of 'closing' the 'carbon cycle' As to #2, one of the ideals that has been kicked around for decades is to do som…

> 1) "Water batteries" - highly efficient (far more than the 'chemical' you are apparently referring to) & responsive

"Highly efficient" is very vague.

What matters here are the numbers:

W/$

J/$

% round trip losses

% losses per hour

Number of cycles before replacement needed

Response time

Do you have them?

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

#190

Post by kragen »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #97
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> have to overbuild renewables to handle seasonal variation At which point it ceases to be as cheap.

Unlike nuclear, which is too expensive when you don't overbuild it, and becomes simply stupidly expensive if you contemplate overbuilding it. Overbuilding nuclear is so preposterous that nuclear fans just pretend you magically don't need to, to prevent their fragile dream from being crushed by reality, and let them continue to steer at renewables and all the problems they face as every nation on earth builds then out…

you don't need to overbuild nuclear; nuclear plants commonly have a capacity factor of over 80%
Post reply on HN