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

341–350 of 1001 posts

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

#341

Post by saltminer »

arcfour wrote: post #202
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.

The A-35 (a highway in Quebec) has been under construction since 1966. When finished, it will be 34 miles/55 km long.

Two decades isn't very long for an infrastructure project, which is unfortunate since long-term planning benefits greatly from political stability, and many areas are seeing large shifts for the worse in that regard.

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

#342

Post by Turing_Machine »

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...

False dichotomy.

The people who will be screaming about covering the desert with solar panels are exactly the same people who scream about covering the land with car parks.

Exactly.

The only energy source radical environmentalists like is one that exists only in a fantasy. As soon as it starts being built, it becomes evil.

Note that they're already up in arms about windmills killing birds.

Also, covering the desert is definitely going to change the local environment. At a minimum, every joule that goes into the power transmission lines is a joule that will not be available for use by the desert ecosystem.

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

#343

Post by hinkley »

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.

Moreso, solar and wind are too predictable. How Big Things Get Done ranks them up with road construction as top projects that barely go over budget. If you expect to spend $100 million on solar or wind, then it’s probably going to cost Someone who builds a solar array will be able to go directly to build another, not have to lick their wounds and repair their reputation or business.

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

#344

Post by Manuel_D »

xorcist wrote: post #336
Manuel_D wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Synthetic fuel has a lot of difficulties. One, it requires hydrogen as an input which is typically produced through steam reformation [1], a process that emits CO2. Electrolysis is less efficient and hard to scale as equipment is subject to intense corrosion. Second, CO2 is at very low concentrations in the atmosphere. Direct atmospheric carbon sequestration is expensive and slow. The biggest startup in the synthetic…

Ammonia?

Ammonia also requires hydrogen as an input. Ammonia is essentially a storage mechanism for hydrogen, eliminating the need for cryogenic or compressed storage. Basically, you need to find a carbon-neutral alternative to the Haber process [1] to produce ammonia as fuel.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process

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

#345

Post by JumpCrisscross »

hef19898 wrote: post #94
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> was tried, nuclear reactors on civilian ships, and found to be a stupid idea We only did a demo ship, which was combination cargo and passenger. The principal cost was being rejected from ports for their lacking acceptance procedures, a first-mover cost. Nuclear shipping has never been “found to be a stupid idea.” It was simply never explored.

It was, up to the point the only German nuclear powered vessel was a cargo ship. It was tried in the heyday of nuclear power, and didn't go anywhere. So yes, civilian nuclear ships have been tried and found to be expensive, not feasible and a dead end, or, if you use different words, stupid.

> the only German nuclear powered vessel was a cargo ship

I was referring to the NS Savannah [1]. Put her engine and crew requirements on a modern supertanker and you have an economically viable, environmentally friendly ship.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_Savannah

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

#346

Post by mpweiher »

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…

It's not that they're too expensive to load follow, it's that it makes no sense for them to load follow.

If the "backup" is reliable, inexpensive, CO2 free energy, why on earth do I need an unreliable, also CO2 free "primary" source?

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

#347

Post by mpweiher »

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.

Running long-distance power lines is one of the few things that is more difficult and takes longer to build (currently) than a nuclear power station.

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

#348

Post by burnerburnito »

margalabargala wrote: post #121
internetter wrote: post #55

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. 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 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]…

>"or more square kilometers of land [...]"

Technically you need to factor in the fact that a nuclear plant can be built relatively near the places where its power will be consumed; some mass of solar power in Nevada is highly inefficient for powering New York or Virginia, even if you built HVDC lines to cut down on total line losses, so you'll need to pick land tracts reasonably near battery banks that would in turn be near cities.

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

#349

Post by mminer237 »

sandworm101 wrote: post #269
internetter wrote: post #55

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. 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 foo…

It's not 10x. The optimal ground coverage ratio in the South even for tracking panels is like 30%: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2...

Most of the US isn't wooded. I don't think a significant number of projects propose clear-cutting to build solar farms. I don't know where that came from.

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

#350

Post by sandworm101 »

gridspy wrote: post #333
dralley wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logistics of trying to plant, maintain and harvest crops underneath a bunch of solar panels while also needing to deal with the subsequent issues of uneven runoff of water from rain make it seem impractical. Just cover parking lots, malls and supermarkets with them, we have plenty of those, and they're closer to where the electricity is needed than agricultural land.

We absolutely should cover those, but there is a lot of farmland. There may not be enough "mall-land"

Well, when i see solar panels atop every mall and commercial building, when every home has a solar roof, then i'll entertain chopping down wilderness or sacrificing farmland to the cause. I still see plent of bare rooftop to address first.
Post reply on HN