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…
First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
61–70 of 1001 posts
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#62Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#63Seems 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 to weather.
One technology for power generation should not “win”. Employing a variety of power generation methods will give you the most stable power grid.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#64If 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.
Perhaps, but so far in the US we still don't have any really large battery storage facilities connected to the grid. These will be necessary if want to have reliable base load capacity without building more nuclear or fossil fuel power plants. The largest battery storage facility being built right now only has 2165 MWh of capacity, which is a drop in the bucket relative to demand.
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/edwards-sanborn-so...
Battery prices keep falling, but the supply chain is still constrained and there are huge expenses involved in building storage facilities that go beyond the cost of the cells. Other storage systems such as pumped hydroelectric or electrolyzed hydrogen may play a role but aren't cheap either.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#65Earlier 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…
Nuclear might not be able to compete in the U.S. and Europe, but that’s largely because of a ridiculous regulatory regime and has very little to do with the actual tech.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#66Earlier 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.
Aside from the environmental benefit right? Don’t lots of large ships burn cheaper fuel higher in pollutants when on unregulated wafers?
Ships and planes together account for single digit percentages of global fossil fuel use and emissions.
It’s almost all cars, trucks, and electric power, so those are the things it makes the most sense to worry about as opposed to things that are much harder to decarbonize and account for less emissions.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#67If 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…
We need two things:
- More energy
- Energy diversification
That includes nuclear, solar, and even more fossil fuels as we wean ourselves off of them.
Writing off any form of energy is ideological, not practical.
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Somehow all the articles criticizing Vogtle keep mentioning the cost overruns, the additional cost to consumers, but don't mention that in Georgia people pay less than the national average price per kWh (11 cents vs 12.7) while sunny California, for example pays about twice the average (24.3 cents per kWh). In my state, NY, where 2 reactors were decommissioned in 2020 and 2021, the average price is 22 cents per kWh.…
This cost premium has always existed. https://ballotpedia.org/Historical_state_electricity_prices
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?
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely much of the crippling cost is due to hostile lawfare and regulation.
Damn, if only we didn't have to build them safely we could make them so cheaply.
They are subject to a regulatory ratchet that almost guarantees that you won't make a profit. I.e. if a new safety measure becomes "economically feasible" because you increased cost efficiency somewhere else then regulators would adjust their calculations in the future and make additional requirements because they would now be feasible. This can even lead to requirements changing during the construction time of a plant and require expensive retrofits.
https://freopp.org/rethinking-u-s-nuclear-energy-regulation-...
Re: First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't really build anything anymore. The "expertise" has transferred to Asia. Anything we build we'll build worse, slower and more expensive. Except for airplanes that's one of the few things we still do better. My overall point is I highly doubt nuclear powerplants will be built here in any major way. Will it happen in Asia? Far more likely.
To be specific it's airplane engines, 5th gen turbofan engines. China started building COMAC airplanes too, probably with questionable maintenance and serviceability story, that they can push with govt airlines. They are still having trouble with modern turbofan engines though.
One airplane isn't a full story. The US and Europe still lead the way here.
I believe engines are from Rolls Royce which is European.