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

511–520 of 1001 posts

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

#511

Post by pydry »

fiddlerwoaroof wrote: post #296
willy_k wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act exists precisely because sophisticated private insurers run a mile from fully insuring against these dangers.

Until the subsidy is repealed and taxpayers stops insuring it, the industry's frequent claims of its own safety ring kind of hollow.

It's particularly galling to see them cynically demand that safety regulations be watered down to bring down costs while the act still exists. Imagine if we made taxpayers responsible for cleaning up oil spills.

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

#512

Post by unethical_ban »

BeefWellington wrote: post #372
dkobia wrote: post #369

As exciting as this should be, the soaring cost overruns on this project means we Georgians have been left holding the bag. There’s now a “Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery” line item on my bill, so electricity costs more rather than less.

"Cost overruns" is underselling it - according to what I can find online it seems like the cost nearly doubled from 14B to 27B. I've never seen a public/private setup like this actually yield benefit for the consumer.

Arguably, the benefit is "less coal and CO2 in your family's lungs".

The military doesn't make you money, it makes you safe. The post office doesn't make you money, it ensures communication and logistics. Roads don't make you money, they undergird the economy.

Nuclear power doesn't save you money on your power bill. It establishes energy independence for our country and clean power for our atmosphere.

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

#513

Post by sarchertech »

bobthepanda wrote: post #92
credit_guy wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point. Could it be that Georgia already generates a lot of power from its existing nuclear reactors, and has been doing that for a few decades?

I mean, all that data is also from when California and New York both had operational reactors. In 2013, CA generated 17 out of 200 GW from nuclear. GA generated 32/120 GW. NY generated 44/136GW. So at least in the case of New York, it generated more power from nuclear as a percentage than GA, and had higher electricity prices, so there doesn't seem to be a correlation. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/ It p…

What’s interesting about those numbers is that Georgia generates much more power per person than California or New York. Georgia has a population of 10 million. California is at 40 Million and New York 20 million.

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

#514

Post by wolverine876 »

zdragnar wrote: post #510
wolverine876 wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We'll probably just keep winging it, badly.

I'm not sure we are 'winging it' at all, or doing badly. It may just be an irreduceable problem.

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

#515

Post by wolverine876 »

Manuel_D wrote: post #465
angiosperm wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other words, nuke cost has only ever increased, however much was built.

On a per-MW basis nuclear power dropped in cost during the 1950s. See the small blue dots round the late 1950s and early 60s? Compare that with the cluster of red dots.

Early, low-hanging fruit?

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

#516

Post by Manuel_D »

wolverine876 wrote: post #515
Manuel_D wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a per-MW basis nuclear power dropped in cost during the 1950s. See the small blue dots round the late 1950s and early 60s? Compare that with the cluster of red dots.

Early, low-hanging fruit?

That, and larger plants. Things like concrete containment vessels have costs relative to the surface area of a hemisphere, while power output scales with the volume. But the big driver was economies of scale. Building multiple copies of the same or similar design means you can have longer production runs of steam generators, pressure vessels, turbines, etc.

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

#517

Post by dmix »

hef19898 wrote: post #477
keep_reading wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is renewable for the same reason geothermal is renewable, and you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it https://www.tiktok.com/@nuclearsciencelover/video/7092135813...

So we moved from using Twitter as a source to TikTok? We live in dark times...

I get the old man yells at sky reaction but it's just a short video... A snapshot of information which directly references with overlayed text a citation to the study he's discussing.

Not much different than most HN comments which 90% of the time are only one or two sentences.

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

#518

Post by XorNot »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #411
XorNot wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus answering the challenge: they're not storage . They're grid stabilization utilities. Because no one expects to run them for more then 30 minutes to an hour while they bring dispatchable generation online. Which means they're irrelevant to the idea of grid scale energy storage, because they don't meaningfully store anything.

Last year you said they couldn't even meet enough demand for the grid. Now it is 30 minutes to an hour. Next year it will be hours. How does it feel when the Overton windows moves while nuclear is stuck in the past? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

Because as we all know, the grid is supplied by exactly 1 powerplant, with one energy source, at all times. /s

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

#519

Post by c0pium »

keep_reading wrote: post #301
sandworm101 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is way way more uranium than that. It is surprisingly common. And harvesting it from seawater opens up a supply that dwarfs any mining concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_in_the_environment >> Uranium is a naturally occurring element found in low levels within all rock, soil, and water . This is the highest-numbered element to be found naturally in significant quantities on earth. According to the Un…

Nuclear is renewable for the same reason geothermal is renewable, and you can get uranium out of seawater for the same price as mining it https://www.tiktok.com/@nuclearsciencelover/video/7092135813...

TikTok is not credible. You can’t click the links or easily verify the conclusions. It’s the ultimate in trust me bro science.

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

#520

Post by c0pium »

dmix wrote: post #517
hef19898 wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So we moved from using Twitter as a source to TikTok? We live in dark times...

I get the old man yells at sky reaction but it's just a short video... A snapshot of information which directly references with overlayed text a citation to the study he's discussing. Not much different than most HN comments which 90% of the time are only one or two sentences.

None of this is true. Highly upvoted hn comments (the ones people read) bring receipts. This is just someone’s low effort opinion.

For what it’s worth, the cost to extract uranium from seawater is actually a very complicated subject. It is generally cited that the cost is approximately 2x the mining cost, but that’s based on estimates for seawater extraction.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280745206_Cost_Esti...

Post reply on HN