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

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901

Post by ben_w »

tjoff wrote: post #880
pfdietz wrote: post #877

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't have a good handle on how experience curves and exponential growth work. Solar and storage were coming forever, because they cost too much and were rolled out too little. But eventually a tipping point is reached and suddenly prices collapse and deployment explodes. It's not that nothing was happening the long incubation period; the technology was working its way down the experience curve. Solar has already…

Solar has had exponential growth for 40 years. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/... ( https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christ... ) How do you compare storage to that? What storage btw? Because all we have kind of suck for the grid usecase. So there is of course a ton of research for better suited batteries. But we haven't even started production on those. Are you not un…

> How do you compare storage to that? What storage btw?

Li-Ion production rates have also been growing exponentially since at least 2010[0].

> Especially not compared to solar and wind which of course have huge storage implications.

Not so: the absolute worst case for renewables is wasting some of their output when they produce more than needed and using the existing dispatchable power plants when they don't produce enough. This can be transitioned gradually or quickly as more storage comes online.

[0] possibly even longer, but the infographics I've found are annoyingly limited to 2010-${production date} at best, so here's one ending in 2020: https://www.freeingenergy.com/facts/learning-lithium-ion-bat...

And this figure for 2023 is nearly 3.5 times that figure for 2020: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1419540/global-lithium-i...

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

#902

Post by mpweiher »

adrianN wrote: post #679
mpweiher wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Construction time is misleading. Please support your claim. We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.

It’sa lot harder to find investors for a project that takes 20+ years from planning to first income than for a project that takes seven and a half years. I’m still waiting for better cost estimates than what Lazard gives.

"LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years"

https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...

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

#903

Post by pfdietz »

margalabargala wrote: post #355
evilos wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading some article that said we could offset all of human emissions by painting Vermont stark white or something along those lines. Covering a desert in solar panels seems like the exact opposite of that plan.

If you ignore all other variables, then of course the situation looks like what one variable would make it do. Would covering a desert in solar panels cause more thermal solar absorption in that area than would otherwise happen? Yes. But if we're optimizing for "offsetting the heating effect of human GHG emissions", then installing 4.5TW of solar (about 4x what has been installed worldwide to date) would have a much…

> Would covering a desert in solar panels cause more thermal solar absorption in that area than would otherwise happen? Yes.

This depends on the efficiency of the PV modules. When it's greater than the albedo of the desert, it will cool the desert, not warm it. Remember, the electrical energy produced isn't heat. It's turned to heat at the consumer, but that's true of electrical energy from a nuclear plant too. Oh, and did you know that nuclear plants also add 2x as much heat energy in the exhaust of their cooling system?

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

#904

Post by pfdietz »

est31 wrote: post #221
internetter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. That's missing the huge and expensive nuclear power plant around that kilogram of uranium. If you don't account for the conversion device (for which solar is cheaper per GJ than nuclear power plants), then light is a much better medium: assuming 15% efficiency, which is a conservative estimate, solar panels can convert on…

You dropped a decimal point. The 1 kg of sunlight at 15% efficiency produces 13.5 petajoules of electricity.

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

#905

Post by Retric »

tjoff wrote: post #874
Retric wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Coal is already dead. We where at 51% coal in 2001 and hit 19.5% in 2022. Existing power plants keep aging and not being replaced. People will bring storage online when it’s needed, but we don’t need it thus we don’t build it. So keep building Solar/Wind and soon enough storage will come online.

We have needed solar for decades. And thus solar has been coming for decades. How long after we have an abundance of solar can we wait for good storage? How many decades can we wait for that to ramp up? (we didn't exactly start our solar journey yesterday). I feel storage is of immediate urgency, as of yesterday. We don't have a plan and scaling will be a huge challenge. Using EVs is really tempting though.

People build manufacturing capacity to come online when they predict demand will be high enough. So there isn’t lag involved with building capacity just viability.

As to solar it’s only 2.8% of total supply right now but it’s growing fast. That can ramp to ~20-40% without significant storage depending on how cheap solar becomes and how expensive storage stays and how much transmission capacity is available. The tipping point where daily rates are cheaper than nighttime rates will shift a lot of nighttime demand.

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

#906

Post by tjoff »

ben_w wrote: post #901
tjoff wrote: post #880

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar has had exponential growth for 40 years. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/... ( https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/12/25/all-i-want-for-christ... ) How do you compare storage to that? What storage btw? Because all we have kind of suck for the grid usecase. So there is of course a ton of research for better suited batteries. But we haven't even started production on those. Are you not un…

> How do you compare storage to that? What storage btw? Li-Ion production rates have also been growing exponentially since at least 2010[0]. > Especially not compared to solar and wind which of course have huge storage implications. Not so: the absolute worst case for renewables is wasting some of their output when they produce more than needed and using the existing dispatchable power plants when they don't produce…

Assuming we want li-ion for grid storage. I feel we don't have a choice but hardly optimal.

The worst case is an unbalanced grid that leads to blackouts and/or disruptions. Not that we waste energy.

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

#907

Post by scrlk »

fennecfoxy wrote: post #856
mgoetzke wrote: post #823

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is also quite a lot more expensive than people sometimes calculate here. It cost about 35 billion USD (total cost during build, no maintenance, no fuel) At current potential earning rates of eg. max 10ct/kWh (Georgia) and 1100 MW peak continuous operation it will take 36 years to make the money back. That is without just investing that 35 billion into something else or even adding maintenance and fuel cost wh…

Not only that but the cost to decommission one is absurdly high and I've read in previous articles that this cost isn't even a consideration at all when building a reactor. Like it's just completely unplanned for and often paid into by the taxpayer.

In the UK, the decommissioning process is definitely considered for new nuclear reactors:

> The Funded Decommissioning Programme (FDP) ensures that the developer will meet the costs of decommissioning the plant and managing and disposing of its waste so that the taxpayer does not to bear the burden of these costs in future.

> Under the Energy Act 2008 operators of new nuclear power stations are required to have secure financing arrangements in place to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management and disposal costs. These arrangements are set out in a FDP.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hinkley-point-c-f...

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

#908

Post by pfdietz »

angiosperm wrote: post #447
cool_dude85 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's absolutely true, but the economic argument still carries weight. How many acres of land, how many rare earth minerals, etc. are required to produce the load profile you need with batteries and renewables vs including baseload flat generation from nuclear? This is still an economic question but very relevant.

Literally no "rare earth minerals" are used in production of solar or batteries. Exactly zero.

Nor in wind turbines, if you don't use permanent magnet generators.

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

#909

Post by [deleted] »

pfdietz wrote: post #886
cheschire wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well the Three Mile Island accident was in 1979, so I imagine that created a lot of resistance to continued construction across the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

The first nuclear build out in the US was already in deep trouble before TMI. Nuclear costs were exploding, demand had stopped growing at the rates assumed for the nuclear plans (this helped drive WPPSS into bankruptcy), and with the passage of PURPA in 1978 grids were opened to non-utility suppliers.

[deleted]

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

#910

Post by chris222 »

JoachimS wrote: post #852
chris222 wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing you are missing is regulatory costs. All of those examples are great but they are not dealing with the United States regulatory frameworks. It’s extremely difficult to get Nuclear projects developed here.

Don't know about the United States regulatory frameworks, but in Europe, building hydro power, or big wind farms for that matter is getting hard too. Both with local protests and regulatory requirements.

There is a lot of FUD about wind (less so for hydro which has some real issues) but the scale of the problems that can occur are orders of magnitude less than Nuclear.
Post reply on HN