Live data from Hacker News

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

eia.gov

601–610 of 1001 posts

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

#601
post #586
post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under construction. And then decide whether it is prudent to continue with the construction and which changes would be required.

In effect they did through overzealous safety requirements (which made it more expensive compared to other forms of electricity generation) this regulatory inconsistency is mostly irrational, because it's clear through other policies that society values safety much less in other policies (eg. driving, all the emissions from other sources, gun safety, etc) of course regulations are not perfect mirrors of society's pre…

Considering the potential damage, nuclear is right up there with aviation, medical and life science when it comes to safety standards. Because each and every incident can be traced back to ignoring whatever safety standards and practices where applicable at the time these accidents happened.

Someone would have to pay for those 1000 NPPs, and in the current market conditions no one is willing to, because the ROI isn't there. Even you said so, there is no NPP standard in place to begin with, so before those 1000 plants are ordered, this standard design has to defined, agreed upon and developed first. And that takes how long in your opinion?

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

#602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"the people saying solar and battery only future" I think I never, ever heard or read anyone saying this, and I think I follow/participate in the debates, before it was cool and everywhere. Renewable people rather sound like this: "Employing a variety of power generation methods will give you the most stable power grid." Where of course quite many "green" people don't want nuclear at all in the mix. Rather more of lo…

I'd love to know what you're reading and who you're talking to. I regularly and often speak to and read comments by people who insist on a solar+battery only future. I'd like to be a part of the communities you're describing.

Can you show me one example of someone who insist on that?

And I mean literal and globally, not people who say this in the context of being in a sunny desert.

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

#603
post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one banned nuclear. But of course it is the only sensible reaction to such an incident to check your designs for faults and review all reactors under construction. And then decide whether it is prudent to continue with the construction and which changes would be required.

Coal cause more cancer and pumps a huge amount of radioactive material into the sky but I've not seen anyone closing coal power stations to stop that. The fear of nuclear power is just one of those irrational fears..

Of course people want to close coal power stations too. One might argue about the relative timing, but the goal is to get rid of nuclear and coal. And while a safely operating nuclear plant is actually pretty low on radiation, we unfortunately had severe incidents which released a lot of radiation. Here in Bavaria, the forests are still contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster. Wild boar meat still has to be checked for radiation and a lot of it destroyed as not fit for consumption. Never mind the meat which probably gets eaten unchecked.

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

#604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile India is building 8 reactors right now with 10 more planned over the next decade. China is actively building 23 right now.

That's incredibly impressive. Since it takes approximately 6 years to build a reactor in China that amounts to about 4 reactors per year.

And total caoacity of zhose pales in comparison to wind, solar coal being built at the same time. Funny, the numbers are all there, all you have to do is comparing them to realize nuclear is far from growing.

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

#605
post #583

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, evidently I missed the news that after 20 years of Energiewende, Germany has the 2nd most expensive AND the 2nd dirtiest electricity in Europe and that the old plan of "we'll use wind and solar when the wind blows and the sun shines, and when they do not " really worked out perfectly, particularly when the miracle turned out to be "Russian gas" and exploded in our face, causing us to have to buy up essentially…

I am from Germany, and I am just replying for the record: You are just repeating right wing propaganda, which tries to paint black pictures about a policy they helped implementing. But the truth is, the current government was able to avoid a gas shortage after Russia had cut off deliveries to Germany and that was the only possible problematic point in the winter of 22. By now we have enough capacity to import LNG to…

I am also from Germany.

The fact that the left (my side, I have never voted for an even moderate right party in my life) won't let go of this purely ideologically driven energy policy that is proving disastrous and that 59% of the population (and rising) oppose maybe one of the reasons the current ruling coalition has fallen to 32% in the polls (those numbers match surprisingly well), and there is starting to be unrest in the streets.

For example the most recent demonstrations by farmers. They are supposed to pay billions of Euros extra for the Diesel fuel for their tractors because the constitutional court declared all the off-books vehicles the government tried to use to hide the subsidies for the energy crisis illegal. And so the government now has to actually account for all that money, and is scrambling to find places to cut in the budget. All the little white lies are coming out. It's not pretty.

And the failed energy policy is also one of the primary reasons the really, really awful far right parties like the AfD have doubled from ~10% last election to 20% in current polls. That was one of the catastrophic results of this catastrophic energy policy that I didn't mention before, because I am not that interested in party politics.

"Die in weiten Teilen rechtsextreme AfD erzielt vor allem in Regionen gute Wahlergebnisse, in denen die Industrie wegen der Klimapolitik vor Umbrüchen steht."

https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/deutschland/klimaziele-...

The vast majority of AfD voters (75% according to stats I have seen) do not vote for the AfD because they are Nazis. They hold their noses at the awful ideology, but don't see an alternative to some of the awful policies being enacted.

And I am 100% in agreement with you that the moderate right like the CDU are just as much to blame as the current government. They had the chance to stop the madness, but instead they made a populistic calculation that keeping this irrational energy policy would keep them in power a little longer. Pathetic. Particularly pathetic because they knew it was wrong, whereas the Greens apparently believe their BS.

Now the CDU/CSU seems to be turning around (also pathetically) to be more pro-nuclear, conveniently "forgetting" that it was them that passed the current laws mandating getting out of nuclear, but at least they are providing an alternative to the current failed policies that isn't the AfD. Lesser of three evils, I guess.

Our catastrophic energy policy also contributed to the war in Ukraine, because Putin (incorrectly, it turned out, partly because Habeck did am amazing job of crisis management) assumed he could blackmail us into not supporting Ukraine.

You denounce what I write as "right wing propaganda", without being able to list a single thing about it that is wrong. Because it is not wrong. What I write is correct. When the only political parties telling the truth about an important subject are the far right, we are in serious trouble as a democracy. Serious, serious trouble.

I don't want the AfD. Please stop the madness that is bringing them to power.

I have already debunked the narrative about French reactors in '22 in detail elsewhere, here's the summary:

"The shutdowns for the inspections and maintenance were planned. Not for a single plant, for a lot of plants. The inspections found a problem. The shutdowns were extended so they could be fixed, in the original plants and in other plants that might also be affected.

The shutdowns, the inspections and the maintenance were planned.

What they found was obviously not planned. If you could plan for what you find during an inspection, you wouldn't need an inspection. That's why you inspect."

France was able to plan their inspections and routine maintenance for the summer, because nuclear can be planned, the capacity factor is generally >90%. Have you tried planning a storm? The capacity factor for wind/solar is <15%.

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

#607
post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> before the carbon industry start the smear campaign against nuclear. The environmental Greens had a lot to do with the smear. Even recently, they were the ones who pushed for the shutdown of German nuclear power which ended up increasing German CO2 output.

No need for pushing as the coalition of CDU/CSU and FDP had decided to shut down the reactors in Germany and had set the date.

That's true. And it was Green ministers that pushed to keep the last German NPPS running longer, as long as possible. It was also the Greens who sent the first German troops abroad under NATO mandates, so one can say tge reputation of the Greens is not always matched by their actions. They are very easy scape goats so.

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

#608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criticism still stands. It should not take 47 years from recognition that a road is needed to actually building it.

The irony of software engineers complaining about a project not being feature complete and on time.

When a project that should take 5 months takes 500 months, this isn't a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

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

#609
post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this actually been quantified? Earth's albedo is a critical factor in the portion of the sun's energy that is rejected into space, just as GHG incidence in the atmosphere is. In theory, darkening a portion of the Earth with high albedo (snow, sand) is worse than darkening a portion of the Earth with low albedo (roads, roofs, forest). Then it should be better to use a greener area for solar panels so long as the c…

Millions of square kilometers of the arctic are being "darkened" by loss of sea ice. Nothing humans can do can approach even a tiny fraction of that.

Many people would argue that humans did cause this loss of sea ice.

Also I don't see how that justifies adding to the effect? Especially if we don't know can't compute the trade off? I'm sure someone has done that work but my it didn't immediately jump out at me during a cursory search.

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

#610
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will likely take a minimum of ten years to get a non light water reactor certified by the NRC. And that is very optimistic. Then you have to build the first of a kind plant which is always more expensive and takes longer. Then you have to get good at operating these new kinds of plants. It's true that MSR and Breeder reactors have lots of potential benefits over traditional LWRs but the truth is, LWRs are more tha…

FYI, an MSR got green lit recently: https://fortune.com/2023/12/13/nuclear-reactor-approval-molt...

Yes while that is great news, it's a demonstration reactor. An commercial operating license is a far greater hurdle.
Post reply on HN