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

201–210 of 1001 posts

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

#201

Post by hackerlight »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #155
hackerlight wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. This isn't a big problem. Wind is negatively correlated with solar, and electricity can be sent across long distances (intra- or inter-country) with minimal loss, and overbuilding eliminates a lot of the variability issues. Variability across geographies and across modes cancels out. Nuclear is pr…

Wind is negatively correlated with solar Yes, but not strongly. It is definitely a problem, as seen in Texas on cold mornings where solar isn't getting much light, winds are still, and people need heat.

Right, and that's why it's infeasible to get 100% from renewables without storage, but we're not going for 100%, we're going for 80-90%. The objective is to address climate change, and to do that we need to minimize the area under the curve of emissions from now onwards. Renewables in my view is more effective at achieving this objective (with the added bonus of being cheaper).

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

#202

Post by arcfour »

simonw wrote: post #147

This caught my eye: "Prior to Vogtle Unit 3, the last nuclear reactor to start in the United States was Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee. Construction on Watts Bar 2 began in 1973 but was suspended in 1985. Work resumed in 2007, and the reactor came online in 2016." More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_2

Jeez. Imagine walking into a construction site from 2 decades ago.

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

#203

Post by Symmetry »

slashdev wrote: post #74
klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

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…

It's not that the agencies regulating nuclear are bloated but that they're given a mandate that nuclear must be as safe as possible rather than being held to some finite standard of safety.

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

#204

Post by bobthepanda »

hedora wrote: post #88
erngkejr wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Perhaps they were in France, where the plants are neither bespoke nor expensive. They reuse blueprints, and make use of interchangeable parts, unlike the US nuclear. As a bonus, they can train people once, then transfer them between identical nuclear plants. Also, if there is a near miss at one plant, they apply the safety upgrades to the whole fleet.

EPR has been a total disaster, to the point where the state took over Areva.

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

#205

Post by corethree »

bumby wrote: post #128
corethree wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't really build anything anymore. The "expertise" has transferred to Asia. Anything we build we'll build worse, slower and more expensive. Except for airplanes that's one of the few things we still do better. My overall point is I highly doubt nuclear powerplants will be built here in any major way. Will it happen in Asia? Far more likely.

"Machinery" (not including airplanes) is still one of the largest exports of the US. The list [1] of exports by size is: Mineral fuels including oil: US$378.6 billion Machinery including computers: $229.6 billion Electrical machinery, equipment: $197.7 billion Vehicles: $134.9 billion Aircraft, spacecraft: $102.8 billion Optical, technical, medical apparatus: $99.1 billion Gems, precious metals: $92.5 billion Pharmac…

Yes but Asia dominates the "building" category overall by a massive margin.

It's just true.

Pharmaceuticals, medical and gems are off topic.

I'm sure there's other small niches the US dominates in. But overall what I said is the objective truth no matter how much you desire it to be not true.

If Asia doesn't dominate a niche yet they are aggressively on track to dominate in the near future.

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

#206

Post by jasonwatkinspdx »

DerSaidin wrote: post #84
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.

What are other options for ships if fossil fuels were phased out? Big batteries? https://www.resilience.org/stories/2022-07-28/making-waves-e... Hydrogen fuel? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-powered_ship Yeah, those options seem simpler.

Sustainable fuels. It's the solution long haul aviation is coalescing around.

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

#207

Post by avidphantasm »

cableshaft wrote: post #133
kranke155 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? Having read the press release I’m not sure what you mean

From the linked article, we get how much power it generates 1,114 MW (or 1.114 Gigawatts), how long it took to build that reactor (started in 2009, so 14 years), and how much it cost (planned $14 billion, final $30 billion): > The new 1,114 megawatt (MW) Unit 3 reactor > Construction at the two new reactor sites began in 2009. Originally expected to cost $14 billion and begin commercial operation in 2016 (Vogtle 3) a…

> So solar increased 10 Gigawatts last year and wind grew 8 Gigawatts. About 18x that one nuclear reactor we've managed to complete since 2016. In a single year.

Nuclear capacity factors are over 90% [1]. Wind is around 30%, solar around 25%, so it’s really ~5 GW (solar and wind capacity added), vs. ~1 GW nuclear fission added (and we’re not trying that hard to build more nuclear plants).

[1] https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/data-and-statist...

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

#208

Post by sanxiyn »

malfist wrote: post #114
klipklop wrote: post #63

Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas. A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due…

Power is easily transmitted and losses are minimal. There's no reason to think you need local solar power generation in a cloudy region.

Grid connection is a real problem. Solar power in US waits years for grid connection. https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/06/outdated-us-energy-grid-tons...

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

#209

Post by VBprogrammer »

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.

China has installed more renewable energy than the rest of the world put together last year. I'm pretty sure we can rule out any "ridiculous regulatory regime" issues there.

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

#210

Post by _aavaa_ »

the8472 wrote: post #61
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…

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1129876/china-nuclear-po...

Compare this graph with more than nuclear, and notice how lagging nuclear is compared to any other renewable.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-energy-consumption

Post reply on HN