Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 332 posts

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#191

Post by hotpotamus »

sumtechguy wrote: post #187
hotpotamus wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much money were they throwing? Enough to make you consider HVAC work?

Me personally no. I have 20+ years doing what I do. I am paid decently for that. But fresh out of high school and willing to do the apprentice/mentor thing I probably would have considered it very compelling. It was 2-3x what I made starting what I do now.

It's not a job I'd do either for a few reasons, principally marginal physical disability; something many tradesmen acquire and learn to live with, but to which I was essentially born.

That said, if the job is so attractive to young people (I'm guessing primarily men), then why do you think that not much has changed in the intervening decade?

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#192

Post by mrguyorama »

monero-xmr wrote: post #72
cesarb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's already done today; for instance, in Brazil these high power transmission lines transport wind power from the northeast region (which has lots of wind due to favorable geography) to the southeast region (where most of the electricity consumption is). The total distance is on the order of 2000 km. (A fun fact: many of these high power transmission lines were originally to send power from the hydroelectri…

Genuinely curious - why is wind power being cancelled in the North East because it isn't cost competitive, if it's so easy to do? https://apnews.com/article/offshore-wind-orsted-cancellation...

There are mild externalities assumed and feared about offshore wind, despite it being pretty good in a multitude of ways. States are playing a dumb game, because we would be better off if there was lots of offshore wind, but each state individually is better off having offshore wind SOMEWHERE ELSE.

For example, here in maine, our premier engineering school has spent two decades now being a premier wind energy investment and research institution, and we have minted hundreds and hundreds of trained people into the field, yet our Democrat governor still decided to sign a bill that bans offshore wind, something that Orono has explicitly invested into for years.

Our state desperately needs new generation to bring power costs down, but there's no real incentive for anyone to do so (why build new supply to bring down your own revenue?) and apparently the state government has zero interest to help itself there.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#193

Post by tonyarkles »

preisschild wrote: post #97
throw0101b wrote: post #52

Ontario announced one GE Hitachi BWRX-300 in December 2022, and three more in July 2023: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-darlington-nu... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300 This is in addition to a new large-scale plant: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-new-nuclear-bu...

But why build them in Darlington, when there's a big grid that could make use of new CANDU reactors, for which most of the supply chain is from Canada and its higher energy output makes it more competitive? BWRX-300 makes more sense in smaller communities.

One of the perks of building them in Darlington is that the regulatory approval process is simpler since there's already nuclear facilities on site. Saskatchewan is currently going through the site selection and approval process and will be doing that for a while while the BWRX-300 units are going up in Darlington. The build in Darlington and lessons learned will be applied directly to the SK BWRX-300 builds.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#194

Post by avar »

treypitt wrote: post #170
pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

that's just America, and its not just nuclear, it's civil engineering & construction projects of all kind that have ballooned in complexity and cost due to myriad political and regulatory causes. France can build reactors cheaply and easily due to standardized reactor designs; I'm not sure the US has ever replicated a reactor build (ie, every reactor is built in a different & unique way)

> France can build reactors cheaply and easily[...]

It can? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#195

Post by ZeroGravitas »

treypitt wrote: post #170
pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

that's just America, and its not just nuclear, it's civil engineering & construction projects of all kind that have ballooned in complexity and cost due to myriad political and regulatory causes. France can build reactors cheaply and easily due to standardized reactor designs; I'm not sure the US has ever replicated a reactor build (ie, every reactor is built in a different & unique way)

> France can build reactors cheaply and easily due to standardized reactor designs

Your information on french reactor building prowes is several decades out of date.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#196

Post by imtringued »

theultdev wrote: post #134
hotpotamus wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I'd prefer a lot of things that are never going to happen. It's more a question of social status - what pays more, construction worker, or lawyer who argues for/against construction?

What was your point in asking this "question of social status"? Nothing in this thread points to lack of workers, but to over regulation. On a personal note, I'd prefer many less lawyers, especially the ones who argue against the one energy source that works. I'd prefer many more trade workers, much less in academics. I'd prefer people to not view jobs as a social status and appreciate the contributions people give t…

>Nothing in this thread points to lack of workers, but to over regulation.

The thread points at inflation and interest rates and general cost overruns. I don't see the overregulation. As others have said, you can run your non nuclear powerplants until they fall apart. That isn't possible with nuclear power.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#197

Post by angiosperm »

konschubert wrote: post #175
Retric wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are already viable paired with solar. You see solar power purchase agreements in the 1.5 to 2c / kWh range and you can directly use that energy around 1/2 the time. Recharging and discharging batteries isn’t 100% efficient but it’s close. Current numbers are lower, but in 2022 you could use LFP for ~5,000 discharge cycles and pay ~480$/kWh of capacity or ~9.6 c/kWh. Inverters etc last longer than the batter…

I think your math is realistic. We have to keep in mind that 6.9 isn’t yet the end user rate after grid fees, but still. There is also a ton of potential in demand shaping by offering hourly prices to customers. The place where batteries fail is long-term, seasonal storage. The price per charge is still low, but an asset that takes 5000 years to amortise (one charge cycle per year) is not a competitive investment. So…

There will be no need for "long-term, seasonal storage". We only need enough storage to last until a shipment of synthetic anhydrous ammonia, ordered from a nearby wind farm or from a solar farm in the tropics, can be delivered, to be burned in an existing combined-cycle turbine. That storage is some mix of batteries and tanked ammonia.

Well-provisioned solar farms can synthesize and tank their own ammonia during periods of excess production, and sell excess (over what local tankage holds) on the open market.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#198

Post by konschubert »

angiosperm wrote: post #197
konschubert wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your math is realistic. We have to keep in mind that 6.9 isn’t yet the end user rate after grid fees, but still. There is also a ton of potential in demand shaping by offering hourly prices to customers. The place where batteries fail is long-term, seasonal storage. The price per charge is still low, but an asset that takes 5000 years to amortise (one charge cycle per year) is not a competitive investment. So…

There will be no need for "long-term, seasonal storage". We only need enough storage to last until a shipment of synthetic anhydrous ammonia, ordered from a nearby wind farm or from a solar farm in the tropics, can be delivered, to be burned in an existing combined-cycle turbine. That storage is some mix of batteries and tanked ammonia. Well-provisioned solar farms can synthesize and tank their own ammonia during per…

I mention ammonia in my comment. I think we agree.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#199

Post by angiosperm »

pixl97 wrote: post #10
monero-xmr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. I am hopeful that hydrogen can be generated in the desert and moved by hydrogen-truck. Or grid-scale batteries actually exist someday. But if we write off nuclear, a lot of coal and natural gas will be burned.

Deserts don't tend to have much water, so where do you expect to get the hydrogen from? Getting water to the desert takes a pile of energy as it is, and typically once it gets there people want to turn it into plants.

Deserts all have way more humidity than you could ever need for your hydrogen production. Extracting hydrogen from atmospheric water vapor is a win because it is cleaner than ground water, and has already been vaporized.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#200

Post by angiosperm »

NikkiA wrote: post #7
monero-xmr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. I am hopeful that hydrogen can be generated in the desert and moved by hydrogen-truck. Or grid-scale batteries actually exist someday. But if we write off nuclear, a lot of coal and natural gas will be burned.

It's never 'not windy' everywhere, plus gravity batteries can store power for days/weeks. Geothermal is also an 'always on' renewable.

Incidentally, the only viable gravity batteries known today are pumped hydro reservoirs. On the up side, they only need a hill. On the down side, they need a hill.

(Gravity Vault, BTW, is 100% scam.)

Suspending weights from ocean platforms (e.g. scrapped supertankers), for flat places with deep sea nearby, should be a viable alternative, but it has not been done yet. Deep cave systems are another, either draining water into them or (for those below the water table) pumping air in. There are a lot of deep caves.

Post reply on HN