Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 205 posts

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#41

Post by marcusverus »

coldpie wrote: post #22
jeffbee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables with batteries are cheaper than new nuclear or even new natural gas.

Does that price include enough storage to heat the entire Twin Cities area (~4M people) for six continuous weeks of average -20C weather with overcast skies, where power failure means widespread death and property damage (broken pipes)? It might do, I don't know, but I'm skeptical. That's a lot of power! My gut feeling is a baseload solution is better for that kind of situation, though what I'm really advocating for…

Nope. The only "cost-competitive" solar+storage installations I've seen lack sufficient storage to maintain their advertised overnight--even after a perfect, sunny day! For solar with sufficient storage to handle consecutive cloudy days (when panel production is can't handle consecutive cloudy days requires redundant backup capacity... which, oddly, is never priced in!

In 20 years I think we'll look back on this idea that cheap solar could be the cornerstone of our electricity production as a goofy idea which was about as realistic as the ethanol fuel schemes of the early 2000s.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#42

Post by giantg2 »

burlesona wrote: post #9

I feel like the fact that this plant coming online will raise the rates for Georgia electricity is basically the death-knell of nuclear power, at least in it's current form of large central power plants[1]. By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better." They don't run all the time, but they're cheap and relatively simple, if you screw up a unit then you get no power from that one unit, but the nat…

'By comparison, solar and wind seem like classic "worse is better."'

If we look at a long enough timeline, there really shouldn't be much change. The replacement of coal and gas plants would be with much cheaper renewable but also with higher cost nuclear. The average should land near the old price. What we observe is that the renewables have a head start compared to nuclear adoption so it seems like prices are higher because our minds are only remembering the recent price drops compared to the true legacy prices.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#43

Post by mikeyouse »

coldpie wrote: post #16
ElfinTrousers wrote: post #8

Seven years late and $20 billion over budget. Slow clap.

That's only half of a Twitter. That sounds like a joke, but honestly, it's not. $20B is absolutely nothing compared to the costs of not taking immediate action on climate change.

I think people are quibbling with the "immediate" part of that plan. It's 10 years later and we don't have a single kwh being used in lieu of carbon-based power, the opportunity cost of that $20B overrun is massive.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#45

Post by Gwypaas »

pwinnski wrote: post #34
bryanlarsen wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pump water uphill on sunny & windy days. One thing that MN doesn't lack is water.

During the long winter season, that water is largely in solid form, making it less useful for hydro-battery use.

Hydro plants in cold regions usually have an "ice laying" period where they reduce the output to form a thick layer of ice at their desired level to enable the flow they need and prevent ice-slush from entering the turbines.

Seems like Minnesota is more lakes, but that same concept should apply, and it is not like they freeze to the bottom each winter.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#46

Post by hefferbub »

coldpie wrote: post #16
ElfinTrousers wrote: post #8

Seven years late and $20 billion over budget. Slow clap.

That's only half of a Twitter. That sounds like a joke, but honestly, it's not. $20B is absolutely nothing compared to the costs of not taking immediate action on climate change.

13 years is immediate?

Let’s please not have our future depend on building giant, fragile things that are obsolete technologically and financially before they are even completed.

Wind and PV have some challenges, but they get online fast. Plus they are both riding down a steep cost S-curve, so (for the foreseeable future) the more you build, the cheaper the next one gets.

No one could say that about Nuclear with a straight face…

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#47

Post by ElfinTrousers »

mikeyouse wrote: post #43
coldpie wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's only half of a Twitter. That sounds like a joke, but honestly, it's not. $20B is absolutely nothing compared to the costs of not taking immediate action on climate change.

I think people are quibbling with the "immediate" part of that plan. It's 10 years later and we don't have a single kwh being used in lieu of carbon-based power, the opportunity cost of that $20B overrun is massive.

That's basically my reservation. I'm not knee-jerk against nuclear, the new ideas in that field like molten salt reactors intrigue me, but at this point it's not such a new technology anymore, we have the better part of a century of historical data to evaluate it on, and it seems that its promise of abundant emissions-free energy on the cheap just hasn't panned out.

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#48

Post by convolvatron »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #27
coldpie wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that price include enough storage to heat the entire Twin Cities area (~4M people) for six continuous weeks of average -20C weather with overcast skies, where power failure means widespread death and property damage (broken pipes)? It might do, I don't know, but I'm skeptical. That's a lot of power! My gut feeling is a baseload solution is better for that kind of situation, though what I'm really advocating for…

Pump water uphill on sunny & windy days. One thing that MN doesn't lack is water.

bit short on hills though

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#49

Post by ackfoobar »

sesuximo wrote: post #19
jeffbee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables with batteries are cheaper than new nuclear or even new natural gas.

I’d like to read about this - can you point me towards some reputable articles

Not an article, but I find the summary from Sabine Hossenfelder neutral and trustworthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8xsg9iK5yo

Re: Georgia nuclear plant begins splitting atoms

#50

Post by jeffbee »

slenk wrote: post #20
jeffbee wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables with batteries are cheaper than new nuclear or even new natural gas.

Batteries in their current form are incredibly harmful to the environment, and I think would need to be replaced more than nuclear fuel sources.

This lie is promulgated by the oil industry.
Post reply on HN