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

261–270 of 1001 posts

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

#261

Post by cpill »

_aavaa_ wrote: post #181
margalabargala wrote: post #121

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. 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…

I was thinking of you set the solar up high, to create a diet of canopy, then you might be able to grow a rain forest under it which doesn't like direct sunlight and would allow animal habitat...?

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

#262

Post by hackyhacky »

slashdev wrote: post #211
hackyhacky wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there's any area to not skimp on safety regulations, I'd say nuclear is it. I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact. Or maybe I'm wrong. You seem to know a lot about nuclear regulation. Can you tell us a specific, unnecessary burdensome regulatory rule that you feel is holding back progress?

What world do you live in that you don't see the burdensome regulation everywhere. Don't know anyone with a business? Never investigated how zoning works? Never filed taxes? Never used the healthcare system?

I've used all of these services and they all have problems. I can't say that those problems are due to "excessive regulation." In the case of healthcare, for example, most of the problems come from insurance companies who allegedly operate in the free market. I am strongly in favor of business, zoning, and environmental regulations because they provide valuable function.

Moreover, none of that is relevant to nuclear regulation. I asked for a specific example of an overly burdensome and unnecessary regulatory rule.

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

#263

Post by VBprogrammer »

willy_k wrote: post #258
VBprogrammer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you’re going to try to determine how China is approaching nuclear power, it’s probably more useful to look at data related to that [0], instead of drawing conclusions from tangential data. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

The point I was making is that China isn't inclined to do things just to appease some regulatory requirement. They are also building an incredible amount of Coal power.

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

#264

Post by Georgelemental »

hackyhacky wrote: post #106
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…

If there's any area to not skimp on safety regulations, I'd say nuclear is it. I think the alleged blight of "overregulation" has become a conservative mantra but without much basis in fact. Or maybe I'm wrong. You seem to know a lot about nuclear regulation. Can you tell us a specific, unnecessary burdensome regulatory rule that you feel is holding back progress?

Not building out nuclear has an huge opportunity cost: fossil fuel plants kill people every day from pollution. Excessive nuclear safety regulations cost more lives than they save by slowing the transition away from fossil fuels.

(Example: the Vogtle plants were delayed in part because the NRC decided, after having previously approved the design of the plant, to change its mind and require that the plant be able to withstand a jetliner impact. https://www.ans.org/news/article-1646/root-cause-of-vogtle-a... )

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

#265

Post by sounds »

Manuel_D wrote: post #175
HDThoreaun wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear has only ever gotten more cost inefficient. What makes you think that will change?

Nuclear was cheaper when more of it was built [1]. Economies of scale make things cheaper. A production run of 40 steam generators is a lot cheaper than 4 steam generators. Proponents of a primarily solar + wind grid are betting on a breakthrough in energy storage. If that breakthrough does not transpire, we'll either have to give up on stopping carbon emissions or use nuclear power. 1. https://www.researchgate.net/f…

Converting atmospheric CO2 into fuels could contribute to this effort. But bacterial and plant-based fuel production may still be more economical and produce fewer overall emissions than even a solar array and a carbon capture plant.

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

#266

Post by gambiting »

epistasis wrote: post #112
mgaunard wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too cheap for "American nuclear" to compete. Chinese nuclear can compete just fine.

Chinese nuclear is not competing very well. There's a minuscule amount of it planned, only like 50GW over the coming decades. This is not even a drop in the bucket compared to what China are doing with batteries, wind, and solar.

It's 50GW more than anyone else though. There are some nuclear projects in US/UK but I'll eat my hat if they actually get built at all.

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

#267

Post by concordDance »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #143
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…

> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks. Or we've researched it and understand the basics of solar technology. In sunny California solar has a capacity factor of around 25%. In Germany, which is prone to many cloudy days this drops to around 10%. So yes cloudy days have an impact but do not entirely eliminate solar from contention and ce…

This is a good quality post except for the dig in the last paragraph.

I would, however, be curious if you can run the numbers for the UK or Germany. How much solar and battery would you need to be able to have no brownouts during winter?

Trying some very rough numbers myself:

Currently Germany seems to use around 3.3 trillion kwh[1] of energy per year. Likely around 300 billion kwh for December.

Having a look, the solar irradiance in the sunnier parts of Germany in December seems to be around 20-30 kwh/m^2.[2]

Cheap PV solar is generally around 30% efficient and 1.5m^2 costs around £91 retail[3].

So the order of magnitude solar cost needed for Germany in December to not need more than a week's storage is probably around €2 trillion. Amortised over 20 years that's €200 billion per year...

This doesnt take into account many things like installation and maintenance and the reduced prices from not buying retail, but it still seems pretty doable, though noticeably higher than current spend of around €100 billion/year. (Which is also roughly what you'd get with French style nuclear)

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/germany

[2] https://www.dwd.de/EN/ourservices/solarenergy/maps_globalrad...

[3] https://shop4electrical.co.uk/panels/9905-ja-solar-jam54s30-...

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

#268

Post by hef19898 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #248
hef19898 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that we ship cargo in incredible amounts across all oceans, ranging from liquids, bulk to containers and cars everyday with zero nuclear-powered carho vessels, calling nuclear your only option is odd.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm talking about carbon-free propulsion options. Batteries don't have the energy capacity required for long distance shipping, and their weight is a big issue for ships. 300 mile range is fine for an EV, it's not for a ship.

That's what IRENA worked out in the frame of the initiative to decarbonise ocean shipping by 2050 when it comes to fuel:

>> In the short term, advanced biofuels will play a key role in the reduction of CO2 emissions. In the medium and long-term, green hydrogen-based fuels are set to be the backbone for the sector’s decarbonisation.

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

#269

Post by sandworm101 »

internetter wrote: post #55
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.

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…

But remember that a square kilometer of solar panels needs maybe ten square kilometers of actual land. Anywhere other than at the equator, the panels need to be spaced far enough apart not to shadow each other. On a north-facing slop they would be even more spaced out. Do that in two dimensions, so they can track the sun, and keeping one square meter of panels perpendicular to the sun requires a suprisingly large footprint.

And trees. Clearcutting forests to make room for a solar panels just seems wrong, a Captain Planet style of evil. There are all sorts of places where the terrain just isnt suited.

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

#270

Post by shwouchk »

internetter wrote: post #55
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.

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 interesting point that I think is often missed, is that solar and wind produce energy roughly at an anticadence to each other and so storage is of significantly less of a requirement than one might imagine.
Post reply on HN