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

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

Post by sunshinesnacks »

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…

The good news is that it’s very possible to “run the math,” and people run power generation capacity expansion models and production cost/dispatch models to look at these things. And then 15-25 years of solar irradiance and other weather data, at hourly resolution or shorter intervals, is available for most of the world.

Maybe the general public extrapolates from their own experience, but grid planners and researchers do much more than that.

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

#293

Post by cco »

gustavus wrote: post #31
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.

It seems to me that having a couple of nuclear reactors as base load spread throughout the country would be more useful than having a massive spread out battery & solar infrastructure. I mean as an example many companies, especially PG&E can't maintain adequate powerlines, who is banking on the fact that they'll do an even better job when we quintuple the amount of infrastructure and they have to develop a whole new…

Would you prefer PG&E defer critical maintenance on a field of solar panels or a nuclear plant?

That question dovetails into nuclear's biggest hurdle; the risk for catastrophe is high, both in reality and especially politically, so regulation is high, and thus the cost to build, operate, and decommission is immense.

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

#294

Post by renewiltord »

NRC missed one, eh? That's the thing with regulatory commissions, once you put them in you're never getting the thing done.

But we should always remember, regulations are written in blood.

But this is the classic technique of how to slow down something. Infiltrate by agreeing, and then kill it with committee. At least one W3C anti-ad group is currently hamstrung with this technique.

It's pretty good. And the best part is that the suckers you're exploiting will argue for you after a point because they'd have to justify why they couldn't get something done otherwise.

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

#295

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#296

Post by fiddlerwoaroof »

willy_k wrote: post #278
VBprogrammer wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, I think there’s a misunderstanding of the parent comment. They aren’t necessarily saying that the problem is pro-renewable regulation, just that there are heavy (safety) barriers for nuclear.

Yeah, the safety standards for nuclear reactors exaggerate the dangers compared to the alternatives that are suitable for base load generation

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

#297

Post by [deleted] »

MyFirstSass wrote: post #117
jdewerd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When nuclear takes off in China but not the USA, we'll figure it out. But not until then.

Why hasn't nuclear taken off in China? I keep hearing that it's not cost effective anymore, to slow etc. but if it's actually mostly regulation that's hindering the built out (regardless of the risks) shouldn't China with their impressive portfolio of warpspeed megaprojects have been an ideal example of scaling the next generation of this tech?

[deleted]

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

#298

Post by LargeTomato »

hutzlibu wrote: post #126
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…

"the people saying solar and battery only future" I think I never, ever heard or read anyone saying this, and I think I follow/participate in the debates, before it was cool and everywhere. Renewable people rather sound like this: "Employing a variety of power generation methods will give you the most stable power grid." Where of course quite many "green" people don't want nuclear at all in the mix. Rather more of lo…

I'd love to know what you're reading and who you're talking to. I regularly and often speak to and read comments by people who insist on a solar+battery only future. I'd like to be a part of the communities you're describing.

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

#299

Post by hef19898 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #290
hef19898 wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Present biomass energy doesn't have remotely close to scale required to decarbonize ocean transportation. I'm sure the "advanced" part of advanced biomass assumes some mega-algae or something else that is far more productive than existing biomass, but if that technology hasn't been developed yet then you might as well just say nuclear fusion is the solution. Hydrogen is currently produced via steam reformation [1], w…

Then go and get funding for it! Because apparently you know better than anyone else who was involved in defining this strategy. And given many, to domain experts, just hairbrained ideas get, or used to get, VC funding, it should be easy, right? And a tremendous market, just imagine what a hyper-unicorn one can build by having the monopoly on power the cargo vessels of the future!

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

#300

Post by tzs »

MyFirstSass wrote: post #191
Turing_Machine wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is building nuclear reactors faster than any other country. At the moment, they have 21 new reactors under construction.

Interesting. 21 doesn't seem like much compared to the 300+ there's been in US, 330 in China, 170 in EU etc, until you see theres zero retired units in china compared to large amounts in the rest of the world. Still though. 21 seems to indicate they are actually betting on something else. https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-nuclear-powe...

They also say they are going to approve 6 to 8 more per year indefinitely.
Post reply on HN