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

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 332 posts

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#81

Post by cesarb »

camel_gopher wrote: post #77
cesarb wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. You are making it harder by adding that "cleanly" requirement, because the simple answer is going to be "natural gas". Unlike coal or nuclear, natural gas power plants are fast to start and stop (hydroelectric is even faster, but depends on favorable geography), so they can be left powered down (using no fuel)…

The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity. Good problem for the natural gas industry. Going clean with nuclear isn’t cheap right now, and it shouldn’t be. It wasn’t at the start of renewables when solar was expensive. Cheap, reliable, clean; pick two.

> The problem with this 90% solution is that the more renewables are added, the more natural gas capacity is required to cover the capacity.

That can be the case only if the demand also increases. If the demand stays the same, adding more wind and solar can only decrease how much the natural gas power plants are used, and the required capacity (that is, how much they can produce at full power) either stays the same or decreases (if the newly added wind and solar are non-correlated enough to reduce the chance of all of them "going dark" at the same time).

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#82

Post by cesarb »

iamthemonster wrote: post #58
bradbot wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible to transport wind / solar energy across the country via high powered transmission lines?

Ignore the sibling comment, it is definitely possible, typically via HVDC transmission. With 3% losses per 1000km, HVDC transmission of variable renewable energy is absolutely part of our future energy systems. Wind is especially well suited to this - to a certain extent it's always windy SOMEWHERE whereas with solar you ain't generating any at night, no matter what.

> whereas with solar you ain't generating any at night, no matter what.

Nitpicking: that's only the case for photovoltaics. Solar thermal can store the heat for a while, and keep generating even after the sun goes down.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#83

Post by ksec »

throw0101b wrote: post #52

Ontario announced one GE Hitachi BWRX-300 in December 2022, and three more in July 2023: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-darlington-nu... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300 This is in addition to a new large-scale plant: * https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-new-nuclear-bu...

Also much more interested in BWRX300 as well. Old and proven working technology fine tuned. And will continue to get cheaper as they are much more standardised.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#84

Post by kragen »

donny2018 wrote: post #80
kragen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

agreed a couple of quibbles, tho the efficiency of photovoltaics and wind is only relevant here if you're powering them from stored energy, such as white-hot graphite blocks, rather than from the sun. or in the far future when human energy consumption has grown by two orders of magnitude gas turbines are only 'renewables-only' if you make the gas from renewable energy

>gas turbines are only 'renewables-only' if you make the gas from renewable energy There are ways to make hydrocarbons from atmospheric carbon (using any energy, including renewable) but that is nightmarishly inefficient. Anti-nuclear people's plan though is to use good ol' fossil gas for the times when the weather is unsuitable for renewables. >the efficiency of photovoltaics and wind is only relevant here if Agreed…

fischer-tropsch is about 60% efficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... but that's being fed from energy that's already in the form of carbon

water electrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien... is about 80% efficient, except that there's an experimental capillary-fed process that is supposedly 98% efficient

i wouldn't call that 'nightmarishly inefficient', particularly if you can do it at hours when electricity prices would otherwise be zero or negative because of abundant solar or wind power

but i don't know how efficient carbon dioxide reduction is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_utilization

nuclear power plants are not normally highly dispatchable, though obviously the naval ones are

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#85

Post by donny2018 »

kragen wrote: post #84
donny2018 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gas turbines are only 'renewables-only' if you make the gas from renewable energy There are ways to make hydrocarbons from atmospheric carbon (using any energy, including renewable) but that is nightmarishly inefficient. Anti-nuclear people's plan though is to use good ol' fossil gas for the times when the weather is unsuitable for renewables. >the efficiency of photovoltaics and wind is only relevant here if Agreed…

fischer-tropsch is about 60% efficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... but that's being fed from energy that's already in the form of carbon water electrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien... is about 80% efficient, except that there's an experimental capillary-fed process that is supposedly 98% efficient i wouldn't call that 'nightmarishly inefficient',…

>water electrolysis ... 80% efficient

It's only to get hydrogen, also there is cost to make it liquid, to store it (it's neither trivial nor cheap) and to extract energy from it in fuel cells.

>i don't know how efficient carbon dioxide reduction is

If we want to capture carbon from atmosphere and turn it back into hydrocarbon fuel like gas or diesel, thus achieving net zero emissions, that process is still "nightmarishly inefficient". There is a startup that I'm watching (Prometheus Fuels) that promises to do that cheaply, but there haven't been any positive news from them recently

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#86

Post by kragen »

donny2018 wrote: post #85
kragen wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fischer-tropsch is about 60% efficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_proces... but that's being fed from energy that's already in the form of carbon water electrolysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis_of_water#Efficien... is about 80% efficient, except that there's an experimental capillary-fed process that is supposedly 98% efficient i wouldn't call that 'nightmarishly inefficient',…

>water electrolysis ... 80% efficient It's only to get hydrogen, also there is cost to make it liquid, to store it (it's neither trivial nor cheap) and to extract energy from it in fuel cells. >i don't know how efficient carbon dioxide reduction is If we want to capture carbon from atmosphere and turn it back into hydrocarbon fuel like gas or diesel, thus achieving net zero emissions, that process is still "nightmari…

i'm surprised to see you still haven't posted any numbers or cited any sources

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#87

Post by kragen »

gravitronic wrote: post #67
kragen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no because even though pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight) it still uses two orders of magnitude less land than is available please do the math instead of posting random bullshit without any regard to whether or not it is true i did https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html

> pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt Glad we agree If anyone's reading this and wants a decent resource I suggest Bill Gates's book How to Avoid a Climate Disaster

i suggest learning the basics of the field, so you can do a modicum of critical thinking, instead of parroting talking points from thought leaders, without any idea of what it would mean for them to be true or false

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#88

Post by kragen »

Retric wrote: post #15
apatheticonion wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turkey is set to get 10% of its grid electricity from the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant [1] The build cost has been 22B (excluding loans) and it will have a capacity of 4456MW meaning it's $4.9/W. On average the cost per Watt for solar is 27 cents (excluding loans and costs for storage) [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices EDIT: incorrect…

That project isn’t finished they are targeting 2026 and hope it’s only ~10% over budget. Your solar numbers are wildly inflated because that’s per watt not per watt hour. Over 2/3 of nuclear power plants costs occur after you build the things. It would be comparable if 22B was the total cost and if nuclear didn’t need ~1,000 full time employees, fuel, decommissioning etc. Those costs delay how quickly you can pay bac…

1.5 cents per kilowatt hour even

https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/05/28/record-low-solar-ppas...

note that the coal plant mentioned in that article has since been decommissioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Generating_Station

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#89

Post by kragen »

atoav wrote: post #49
threeseed wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have edited to mean uninhabitable. e.g. places like outback Australia where it reaches 50C and is a long distance from water.

So the solar panels will have dust and extremely harsh temperature cycles. I don't have any source on that, but I don't think the gained efficiency from the hot sun is going to outweigh the pain (and efficiency loss) from maintaining that efficiency in such an environment.

typically desert solar farms have higher capacity factors, like 25% to 29%, than non-desert solar farms, which are typically more like 20%, or 10% in very polar countries like the uk, germany, or the netherlands; possibly faster degradation will eventually reverse the relationship

but, for the time being, the gained efficiency from the hot sun does seem to outweigh the efficiency loss

as an ai language model, i cannot feel pain, so i do not know what outweighs it

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#90

Post by kragen »

monero-xmr wrote: post #72
cesarb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it's already done today; for instance, in Brazil these high power transmission lines transport wind power from the northeast region (which has lots of wind due to favorable geography) to the southeast region (where most of the electricity consumption is). The total distance is on the order of 2000 km. (A fun fact: many of these high power transmission lines were originally to send power from the hydroelectri…

Genuinely curious - why is wind power being cancelled in the North East because it isn't cost competitive, if it's so easy to do? https://apnews.com/article/offshore-wind-orsted-cancellation...

you're confusing the northeast of brazil, which is what cesar was talking about, with the northeast of the usa

these are not just in different countries but in vastly different climates in different hemispheres

the exact page you linked in your comment literally answers your question: 'due to problems with supply chains, higher interest rates and a failure to obtain the amount of tax credits the company wanted. ... High inflation, supply chain disruptions and the rising cost of capital and building materials are making projects more expensive while developers are trying to get the first large U.S. offshore wind farms opened.'

maybe you should have read it

please don't post random bullshit without respect to whether it's true or not

Post reply on HN