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

21–30 of 1001 posts

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

#21

Post by FredPret »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #18
lawn wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is always the case when you build large one-off projects. If you continue to build reactors non-stop you'll learn how to make the process more efficient and be able to make better estimates. Surely we software developers should appreciate how hard making accurate estimates is? And this isn't a 2 week sprint we're talking about, but a gigantic engineering project.

But are we going to build reactors non-stop? Is there either private-sector funding for this, or government subsidies to make it happen?

Yes, of course.

Power demand increases. Technology improves. Installed capacity ages out.

There will always be a need to build new plants, might as well lean into it and be proactive.

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

#22

Post by sanxiyn »

EduardoBautista wrote: post #9
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...

Maybe if they can continue the momentum and learn from this project, the next reactors will be cheaper?

Yes it will, but experience from South Korea says it won't be cheap enough to matter. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30380897.

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

#23

Post by UberFly »

MichaelNolan wrote: post #14

If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon. *excluding research or military reactors of course.

I would take that bet. Nuclear tech will also continue to improve.

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

#24

Post by BoiledCabbage »

Exoristos wrote: post #20
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...

Surely much of the crippling cost is due to hostile lawfare and regulation.

Damn, if only we didn't have to build them safely we could make them so cheaply.

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

#25

Post by zbrozek »

api wrote: post #6
briandear wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we’re worried about cost overruns, then perhaps cancel the California high speed rail boondoggle. That project could buy several nuclear reactors.

I have a very strong impression that the perpetual money pits of California (rail, the amount spent on homelessness without progress, etc.) aren’t bugs but features… for someone. That money is going into someone’s pocket.

Our electeds simply don't care what anything costs, and as a result we have (probably) the worst cost disease on the planet.

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

#26

Post by [deleted] »

applied_heat wrote: post #19
perihelions wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sc/pr/top-westinghouse-nuclear-... ( "Top Westinghouse Nuclear Executive Charged with Conspiracy, Fraud in 16-Count Federal Indictment" ) That's the failed project OP blithely elided over as: - "Two other Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were planned for a nuclear power plant in South Carolina, but construction was halted in 2017." I'm really, really strongly in favor of nuclear fis…

Elon to the rescue ?

[deleted]

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

#28

Post by credit_guy »

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...

Somehow all the articles criticizing Vogtle keep mentioning the cost overruns, the additional cost to consumers, but don't mention that in Georgia people pay less than the national average price per kWh (11 cents vs 12.7) while sunny California, for example pays about twice the average (24.3 cents per kWh). In my state, NY, where 2 reactors were decommissioned in 2020 and 2021, the average price is 22 cents per kWh.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.ph...

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

#29

Post by evilos »

AdamJacobMuller wrote: post #16

> Georgia Power expects another similar-sized fourth reactor, Vogtle Unit 4, to begin operation sometime between November 2023 and March 2024. The timelines here are so crazy that they accidentally a whole year.

That's a 5 month range chief.

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

#30

Post by afterburner »

FredPret wrote: post #21
matthewdgreen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But are we going to build reactors non-stop? Is there either private-sector funding for this, or government subsidies to make it happen?

Yes, of course. Power demand increases. Technology improves. Installed capacity ages out. There will always be a need to build new plants, might as well lean into it and be proactive.

Unless the technology becomes obsolete. There are other ways to generate power.
Post reply on HN