What is the lcoe?
First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
501–510 of 1001 posts
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Literally nobody proposes "sacrificing" farmland.
I'm looking at a legal agreement on my desk to lease 120 acres of productive eastern Nebraska farmland to build a commercial scale solar project. The land would be taken out of production ("sacrificed") for the 50 year lease, with payments about twice what the land leases for for agriculture (soybeans).
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#503If 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.
Nuclear power seems like a good option for non-military boats too, like container ships and oil tankers. It's already a very well proven maritime technology.
I recently got this excellent 1964 film showing the NS Savannah digitized from 16mm film in the National Archives vault. Very glorious.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"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…
Just as well New York and Virginia have oodles of open ocean right at their doorstep to run multi-gigawatt wind farms I guess huh?
Wind isn't reliable.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, let his companies blow up a few to learn how to build them. /s Rockets and cars are one thing. But that risk equation doesn’t work for nuclear.
He has shook up and revitalized two industries and proven his ability to execute and get people motivated to do significant work with physics and manufacturing and project management that are complex. It doesn’t seem that far fetched to me and aligns with his sustainable energy focus but downvoters seem to disagree!
He paid other people to shake up and revitalize two industries with his dad's minecraft money and probably told them "why don't you do it this way" a few times
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#506If 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…
Have you seen the Lazard lcoe numbers? Nukes are 6x more expensive than wind solar.
And wind and especially solar have more economies of scale and materials research to make them even cheaper.
This comes from a LFTR fanboy. Boy howdy do I wish economical nuclear existed. But 6x as expensive? That ain't all red tape.
I think of course that LFTR has a path to cheaper nuclear with breeding and near waste elimination, full fuel use, safety, and scalability. But I don't think it will ever beat solar, especially once mature multifunction silicon perovskite cells or something like that and salt water batteries develop.
I hope to be proven wrong.nyclest power is so cool.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#507Earlier 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.
They’re also building a lot of nuclear: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1129876/china-nuclear-po...
A moderate civilian nuclear supply chain and skills base helps keep a lid on the maintenance and construction of nuclear submarines, carriers and nuclear bombs.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
This sort of argument does not pay attention to numeracy or the existing plans for battery production within the 2020s. We can't build more dams because there really is a hard limit on the geographical sites. With batteries, we already have commitments for factories to build 1TWh/year within the US alone by 2030. Worldwide production will be several times that. Average US electricity production is 500GW, at 8-10 hour…
Battery production will increase, yes, but so will electricity demand as transportation, heating, and industrial processes are electrified. Right now electricity use is only 37% of total energy use [1]. > Average US electricity production is 500GW, at 8-10 hours that's only 4TWh Again, it's 12 hours for diurnal storage not 8 hours. More than 12 hours during the winter, actually. And diurnal storage isn't the only typ…
In a decade of following plans for 100% renewable grids, compressed air has never made it as a conceivable solution. Similarly hydrogen almost never gets on the list, and it's only there assuming some sort of currently non-existent tech advances far in excess of what is ever allowed to batteries. And yet, batteries make the list on all these plans!
As for your link, this is just flat out misinformation for grid batteries. Might apply to phones:
> How Many Cycles Can You Get Out Of A Lithium-Ion Battery?
>A Lithium-Ion battery's average life span is 2 to 3 years or 300 to 500 charge cycles, whichever comes first. As we put it, a charging cycle is a duration of utilization when the battery is fully charged, completely drained, and wholly recharged.
Industrial grid storage is rated to daily discharge for more than 10 years, with warranties typically around 12-14 years and expected life far afterward. 5000-10,000 cycles is more realistic.
Every five years, battery production capacity is growing 10x, prices drop dramatically. What is this limit? What is the reason it's suddenly going to stop? There's no answer other that I can see other than "I thought this 10 years ago so it's probably true too."
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I checked they're also outcompeting everyone in new coal plants https://www.npr.org/2023/03/02/1160441919/china-is-building-...
If I'm up against you in a beer drinking contest and I drink more beer AND more whisky than you... I still win the beer drinking contest.
Complete non-sequitur. OP said "China is building nuclear", not "China is building more nuclear than wind/solar".
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#510Earlier quoted context omitted.
The government should cover the losses of the investors. Various agencies are constantly missing FOIA deadlines, and often the only way to get them to actually do the jobs they are legally required to do is to sue them in court, asking for both the information and to have court costs covered.
Even if you could pass that legislation, which seems very unlikely, that doesn't solve the problem. The employees of the regulators aren't personally liable, and in many respects don't individually control the schedule. The investors also cause delays - and would now have an incentive to do that - and in many cases the/an investor is the government. Also, good luck explaining to taxpayers the $10 billion payout.
Right, the employees would have to be liable to their bosses. Their bosses would have to be answering up the chain, to congress and the president.
Presumably, for a regulatory agency to be held to a deadline, they would need to outline up front (or with reasonable notice) all of the things they would need to know and the inspections they would have to make. Those time tables would have to be defined early on.
This is where the idea breaks down.
How does a regulator devise a fixed schedule to regulate a novel technology?
How do you hold government employees accountable without upsetting powerful interests like politicians and unions, or get staffing funded properly on demand?
How do you even get the government to hold itself accountable on something like this when the DOD can't even *complete a clean audit*?