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

321–330 of 1001 posts

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

#321

Post by mpweiher »

tonyhb wrote: post #119
cool_dude85 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is baseload and is the exact opposite of "instantly fired up". Best tech for that is gas or battery.

Cant control rods can be lifted or inserted to meet demand?

They can, though it depends a little on the plant design.

It just doesn't make any sense to use reliable nuclear as the "backup" to unreliable renewables.

Because this "backup" is already CO2 free. It is also reliable. And cheap to run. So just run it all the time (nuclear tends to have >90% capacity factor).

You then simply don't need the "primary".

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

#322

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#323

Post by Manuel_D »

codersfocus wrote: post #260
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.

There needs to be nuclear powered "oiler ships" that stay out at sea indefinitely and recharge passing by electric ships.

Batteries don't have the required energy density to make electric transoceanic possible travel. They're also heavy and would drastically reduce the cargo capacity of ships. It'd be more effective to just put the nuclear reactors on the cargo ships. Nuclear maritime propulsion is much more mature than long-distance electric propulsion (diesel subs have used electricity, but only over short distances).

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

#324

Post by internetter »

jodrellblank wrote: post #276
Turing_Machine wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we covered an area 10% the size of Arizona in solar panels And what are the various Friends of Rare Bugs and Small Furry Animals groups doing in the meantime? I joke, but even I would balk at the environmental impact of that. Certainly it's going to be greater than any equivalent nuclear installation. > Of which 0.72% is U-235 Fortunately we're not limited to U-235. With breeder reactors, there's enough nuclear…

Cover 4,000 square miles of the USA in surface car parks[1] and that's freedom. Suggest covering 11,000 square miles of desert in solar panels which don't stop land being used for grazing or crop growing or insects or wildlife, and that's environmental distruction that "even" you would balk at. [1] https://www.archdaily.com/976069/when-5-percent-of-the-unite...

Speaking of parking lots, it's not a terrible idea (and it's already been done before) to put solar panels above parking lots

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

#325

Post by mpweiher »

stetrain wrote: post #37
UberFly wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

The insane thing is that it is so efficient that it doesn't need to be on that mass production curve to be competitive. It is competitive even in the somewhat insane way we build it now.

However, we have a number of companies working on building reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce for example is talking to Ukraine to upgrade some of their old (not sure if already decommissioned) coal plants to nuclear with small, factory-built nuclear reactors.

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

#326

Post by hackyhacky »

Georgelemental wrote: post #264
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?

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 w…

> Excessive nuclear safety regulations cost more lives than they save by slowing the transition away from fossil fuels.

Maybe. It seems premature to reach that judgment. It depends how many lives regulations would save by hypothetically preventing nuclear catastrophe.

I agree with you about the problems of fossil fuel use. Nevertheless, I think those health dangers are more palatable to politicians and the general public because they are gradual and dispersed, and therefore ignorable; whereas even a single, mild nuclear incident would produce massive negative press.

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

#327

Post by mpweiher »

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.

"China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China

So the current plans are for roughly tripling installed capacity.

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

#328

Post by avalys »

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.

A little bit silly to compare the price of solar and batteries, which has been driven down due to extensive government subsidy, tax incentives, and massive economies of scale over the past few decades (including production in China), to the current estimated cost of nuclear plants that we have almost no experience building anymore.

If we embarked on a sustained plan to invest in nuclear the way we have in solar and wind, nuclear's all-in cost would be far cheaper. I guarantee it.

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

#329

Post by mpweiher »

gambiting wrote: post #266
epistasis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's currently changing.

The catastrophe of Germany's "Energiewende" has made a lot of countries re-evaluate their nuclear strategy, culminating in the COP28 nuclear pledge.

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

#330

Post by buryat »

credit_guy wrote: post #198
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…

Nuclear power plants are currently too expensive to not be used at 100% all the time (except when you need to perform maintenance). Some nuclear power plants are designed to be able to load follow, but in practice they don't do it. Batteries will never be cheap enough to allow for seasonal storage. They are good for day-to-night storage. For seasonal fluctuations, the best you can do is natural gas. If we convert all…

use the not-needed energy on carbon capture
Post reply on HN