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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by credit_guy »

kragen wrote: post #535
credit_guy wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think like that, and nobody thinks like that. The first target before we think about getting back to preindustrial levels, is to get to net zero by 2050. If you start measuring things against a goal that's too distant in the future, you just give up. Ok, if we talk net zero, then the what does it take the US to do that? The US is not the entire globe. Currently the US emits about 6.34 gigatons of CO2-equivale…

> The first target before we think about getting back to preindustrial levels, is to get to net zero by 2050. yes, getting to net zero is what my calculations of 13 gigatonnes of carbon per year are based on. i didn't base any calculations on the 950 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide to get back to preindustrial levels however, a crucial point that i was missing was that your 187 million m³ was annual consumption of solid…

> point-source capture is immensely cheaper because ...

But then, why stop there? Why not make hydrogen from CH4 at the point of extraction and pump the CO2 back into the ground right there? Then sent the hydrogen via the pipe system as a drop-in replacement for the CH4.

> synfuels are clearly not economical in current market conditions. they are currently too expensive to compete with fossil fuels, because there isn't yet enough pv installed to meet energy demand

There's a big assumption there, that the energy cost for synfuels dominate the capital costs. I doubt that. I recently did a back of the envelope for the Carlsbad desalination plant in San Diego. It turns out that the capital cost is at least twice higher than the cost of the electricity, so even if you can purchase electricity for free, you reduce the total cost of desalination by less than 30%.

I'd venture to say that capital costs for synfuel plans are significantly higher than the capital cost of a desalination plant, although the electricity input is also higher. But even if it turns out the capital and operation costs are, let's say half the cost of the electricity, it's still not going to work. I googled recently and found that Porsche invested in a synfuel plant in Chile. It appears to be a PR stunt, they call their synfuel e-fuel, and are scared to death of a ban on ICE cars starting in 2035 in Europe. So, they are trying to push the narrative that "e-fuels" can become a viable alternative to EV vehicles. And for now the cost of their e-fuel is about $40 per gallon. For comparison today's average gasoline price in the US is $3.12, and that includes distribution and taxes.

Porsche thinks they can bring the cost of e-fuel down to some reasonable level. But here's the thing: 90% of Porsche buyers are not sensitive to the price of gasoline. They would probably be ok with a $20/gallon price, in a world where non-e-fuels are banned, if they get to keep their beloved 911.

Do I see a path from $40/gallon to $4/gallon? I wish you good luck, but even with free electricity, I can't see that happening in a few decades.

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

#922

Post by huytersd »

pfdietz wrote: post #888
huytersd wrote: post #552

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.

Are they building or are they "building" (as in, talking and planning and not actually building.) India is famous for talking about nuclear. Building it, not as much. India gets 2x as much energy from PV as it does from nuclear, and the PV is growing rapidly.

Under construction

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PHWR_under_Construct...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_India?wprov=s...

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

#923

Post by pfdietz »

_ph_ wrote: post #597
gretch wrote: post #82

I see a lot of the arguments from all sides on “the future is X, it cannot be Y!” To me, this is a false dichotomy. In my opinion energy is one of the most important pillars of society. It is so important that it must be hedged. I don’t think we can afford to put all of eggs in 1 basket, no matter how confident we are in a single basket. I support all forms of sustainable energy advancement and research. We need more…

Yes, we need a mix of technologies. But at the current state of things, nuclear shouldn't be something to invest into. Yes, existing reactors should be used for their full life time, but there is far too much speaking against building new ones.

I think it still makes sense to do R&D on nuclear, for example new reactor types, just as insurance. There's a low bar to justify R&D.

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

#924

Post by pfdietz »

elcritch wrote: post #387
louwrentius wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try and imagine how much solar/wind and grid-scale energy storage that money could have bought … I don’t think nuclear power is the future. In my country, 7% of the time electricity prices are like 1 cent or even negative. Try to run your nuclear reactor at a profit in this environment.

How much were the solar and wind propped up by baseline fossil fuels that are cheap because they don’t include externalities in their cost?

Baseline power can't prop up renewables. Dispatchable power, on the other hand...

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

#925

Post by pfdietz »

jerry1979 wrote: post #42
evilos wrote: post #35

We paid the first-of-a-kind costs, we should reap the Nth-of-a-kind rewards. Replace all the coal capacity with AP1000s.

I have head that molten salt is much safer but also more expensive. Would there be a reason not to go with molten salt?

The world only produces a few hundred tonnes of beryllium a year, so MSRs using FLiBe do not scale.

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

#926

Post by pfdietz »

indysigners wrote: post #815

Since the usual arguments pro RE are being made: One of the main downsides of RE is a) its need of fossil backup and b) profits of solar / wind goes into the pockets of its owners while c) the costs of fossil backup and increased network capacities are to be borne by the general public so that d) wealth is distributed from the bottom to the top whose e) RE systems a being subsidized by the public too. In conclusio, t…

There is no need for fossil backup. Renewables can scale to 100% and will work fine (and probably cheaper than nuclear) in a post-fossil world.

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

#927

Post by pfdietz »

tills13 wrote: post #705
rareitem wrote: post #622

Pretend I’m country’s government A. Am I incentivized to make sure that country B doesn't get access to nuclear energy, since that is the precursor to a nuclear program? Therefore, I have to make sure that nuclear energy stays unpopular

Please correct me if I'm wrong but a) it's not possible to convert spent nuclear fuel into nuclear weapons (or am I misunderstanding your point?) and b) I'm pretty sure you can just Google how to make a nuclear bomb at this point so what are you really protecting against.

It is possible (especially if you have access to tritium for boosting), it's just more difficult.

Japan's reactor grade Pu stockpile, ostensibly for a now-cancelled fast reactor program, is likely there as deniable insurance in case the US withdraws the nuclear umbrella.

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

#928

Post by pfdietz »

Georgelemental wrote: post #292
p1mrx wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fusion has worked since 1952, just not in power plants.

It has worked since over 13 billion BC, just not on Earth.

The fusion reactions in stars are different than the ones to be used in fusion reactors (or used in bombs).

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

#929

Post by philwelch »

natmaka wrote: post #872
philwelch wrote: post #802

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don’t count fatalities that were caused by the dysfunction of communism, that also eliminates all the fatalities from Chernobyl.

Such dysfunctions of the Mega-Central-Omniscient-Organization are common to all political regimes, as shown by the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Japan isn't exactly a communist nation, and the Oganawa nuclear plant, closer to the tsunami, did not trigger a disaster thanks to a sole guy acting against the whole local Mega-Central-Omniscient-Organization. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... No…

Then you have to count the Banqiao disaster after all.

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

#930

Post by grecy »

rank0 wrote: post #819
grecy wrote: post #810

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For starters, you took near the bottom range from your source, and omitted the 25% labor fee. Here's the National Renewable Energy Laboratory site saying large solar farms are $1.06 per watt, fully installed and operational. [1] Also the 2,245 mW solar farm of Bhadla Solar Park cost $2.175 billion [2]. Less that $1/watt. Let's just build three of those and we're good for our 7mW of solar, proven very doable. > Also…

You’re comparing the largest solar plant in the world to a SINGLE reactor at a nuclear plant. You’re forgetting that solar plants are not able to produce anywhere near their nameplate capacity (and the fraction they do produce is not reliable). You misunderstood that the $30B figure is for two reactors, only one of which is operational atm. Solar farms have much shorter lifespans, and the panels are toxic and non rec…

> You’re comparing the largest solar plant in the world to a SINGLE reactor at a nuclear plant.

I'm using that as an illustration of what is possible. You know, be inspired to do new and better things. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (in the US) says solar is $1.06/watt installed, today. Go with that if you don't want to believe the US can do things that other countries have already done.

> You’re forgetting that solar plants are not able to produce anywhere near their nameplate capacity (and the fraction they do produce is not reliable).

No I'm not. I very clearly show the fact that the nameplate number of solar needs to be divided by 6 to account for night and seasonality. Read the numbers again. I proposed installing 7mW of solar to "equal" 1,114 mW of nuke.

> You misunderstood that the $30B figure is for two reactors, only one of which is operational atm.

OK, so let's say it's $30 billion for 2,228mW of nuke capacity (even though the article clearly says it's more than $30 billion... but it doesn't say how much more).

So now we need 13,368 mW of Solar to allow for our nameplate capacity thing of 6 for solar, leaving only $16.7 billion for storage.

At $500 kWh as pointed out by another comment from a real installation that has happened, we can buy 33,400,000 kWh of storage (33,400 mWh), or enough to output the required 13,368 mW for about two and a half hours.

> Solar farms have much shorter lifespans

This [1] says most nuclear plants were designed for a thirty year lifespan, while new plants are more like 40-60. I couldn't find real-world numbers on the nuke being discussed in the article.

> the solar panels are toxic and non recyclable.

... ahh, are they as toxic and non recyclable as nuclear waste and the entire nuclear facility and the land it's built on? Also how much of that is recyclable?

Remember we're comparing the nuke to solar+storage here, so it is the comparison that is relevant.

> Also why do we pretend that we can just magically clone 3x of the Bhadla plant from pakistan to the US for identical costs?

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (that is .gov in the US) says installed solar farms are $1.06/watt installed, today. So we're not magically assuming anything.

> Why do we assume we have infinite rare earth metals for panel/battery production?

From this article [2] "A new report by the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (Ademe) shows that rare earth minerals are not widely used in solar energy and battery storage technologies. And despite their name, they aren't actually that rare at all."

Do you know something the French Environment and Energy Management Agency doesn't?

Please enlighten us.

> Im down to have a discussion, but youre leaving so much out that its hard to take the argument seriously.

I'm not leaving anything out, you're just conveniently ignoring parts of what I'm saying.

I understand nukes have made a lot of sense for a lot of years, and if we had built a ton of them in the 80s and 90s we'd be in a better position today. We didn't do that, and we shouldn't start building hundreds of billions of dollars worth of things in 2024 using assumptions and numbers from the 80s and 90s. We need to realize the equation has shifted DRASTICALLY in those years, and it's going to continue to do so.

Look at the price of installed solar and installed storage capacity prices by year [3]. Where do you think they'll be in just five years before a single nuke is even approved? Where do you think they'll be in 10 years before a single nuke is even built?

What do you think that will do to all my calculations above?

It feels like you want to spend decades building out new regular trains when other countries have tens of thousands of miles of bullet trains operating TODAY.

Skate to where the puck is going, not where it is now.

[1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

[2] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/11/28/are-rare-earths-used-...

[3] https://www.nrel.gov/solar/market-research-analysis/solar-in...

Post reply on HN