First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in operation • Hacker News Board

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

#971

Post by cycomanic » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 8:59 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #962

c0llision wrote: post #952

Earlier quoted context omitted.

gas power plant != natural gas power plant. Green hydrogen gas generated from excess renewables and biogas exist, and can often be used in existing power plants. Though they are expensive right now, we've no idea how the technology may evolve in the next few years. In Ireland they are actually building natural gas power plants with the assumption they will be stop operation as little as 5 years and only used for emer…

Fun fact. Nuclear power can technically load follow. It just generally isn't a good idea because it isn't very cost effective to not be running your nuclear power plant at all times. Also fun fact, nuclear power is really useful for high energy intensive operations such as splitting oxygen and hydrogen atoms from one another. Side note: The France story is much more complicated. It doesn't sell narratives well, but w…

I think the point is that people often point to France as "look it works" (while simultaneously saying "there Germany terrible") when the reality is that no France doesn't just work (and yes failure modes are always about multiple disadvantages coincidences, all the other stuff is usually covered).

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

#972

Post by godelski » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 9:55 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #971

godelski wrote: post #962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun fact. Nuclear power can technically load follow. It just generally isn't a good idea because it isn't very cost effective to not be running your nuclear power plant at all times. Also fun fact, nuclear power is really useful for high energy intensive operations such as splitting oxygen and hydrogen atoms from one another. Side note: The France story is much more complicated. It doesn't sell narratives well, but w…

I think the point is that people often point to France as "look it works" (while simultaneously saying "there Germany terrible") when the reality is that no France doesn't just work (and yes failure modes are always about multiple disadvantages coincidences, all the other stuff is usually covered).

Saying France "works" or "doesn't work" isn't so straight forward, but I definitely lean more towards the "it works" side. I mean it is a net exporter of energy and is only rivaled by Sweden in terms of emissions per kWhr (Sweden has a lot of hydro, which is great, but not available to everyone. Can also be dangerous, see Banqiao, but that's not very relevant tbh). Germany on the other hand has 6x the emissions. They've been making great strides, but still have yet to be able to remove themselves from their coal and gas addictions (gas is potentially worse than typical accounting but let's use official numbers to keep fair). That is also what put them at the mercy of Russia (and consequently several other EU countries who depended on either Russia or Germany for power, which increased demand from French power), but also can be seen as a strategic move politically since trade partners are less likely to go to war but it can also be leverage. As you might see, this is in fact a pretty complicated clusterfuck. But we can all agree that German electricity is procured at 6x the emissions of French electricity. Success does depend upon which metrics you care about, but if we're talking climate, emissions are definitely one of the most important ones. A big issue is that Germany is often viewed as a mover and role model in the climate space but even by EU standards they are one of the worst offenders (doubly so if you bin the countries by economic size. i.e. Poorer countries have worse emissions). So I get why people push back against Germany because while we should congratulate them for their large rollout of renewables we should still criticize them for their emission levels and inability to actually match what others have done (even many with little to no nuclear, see UK)

You may find this site useful strictly for the electricity and subsequent emissions side. It'll be insufficient for total emissions though (as that includes many things beyond electricity) and certainly isn't adequate for understanding geopolitics or other things. I suggest poking around, using the emission tab per region (defaults on production) and also changing the time scale to at least 30 days to be a more accurate view of this specific question we're addressing.

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR

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

#973

Post by manvillej » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 9:58 PM UTC

credit_guy wrote: post #878

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…

> and 1100 MW peak continuous operation it will take 36 years to make the money back That total cost is for 2 reactors, not one. Vogtle 3 just started operating and Vogtle 4 will start in a few months. If you divide your 36 years by 2, you get 18 years.

add in increasing energy demand, fossil fuel scarcity, battery storage for off peak solar and wind,

The reason they're built it is because its worth it. Nuclear has always been worth it, sensationalism has always been the problem

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

#974

Post by manvillej » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:12 PM UTC

hylaride wrote: post #889

qwebfdzsh wrote: post #840

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I dislike the potential for a meltdown of course no matter how 'unlikely' Why? A meltdown is really not a big deal at all. If we're fine with burning coal we should be perfectly with a having a meltdown or two every few years (even if we 100% ignored climate change the degree of damage caused by either of those is not that different)

People think "meltdown" means Chernobyl. For those who don't know, a nuclear meltdown means the fuel inside the reactor overheated, (possibly permanently) damaging the reactor. It's essentially happened at some level three times in the United States: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown#Core_damage_e... A meltdown essentially means an expensive remediation. A Chernobyl style event in the west is extremely u…

in addition; Chernobyl, three mile island, and fukushima were all early nuclear design. Construction began in 1972, 1968, and 1967.

The first nuclear reactor was built in 1942. We have more than 50 YEARS of technological advancement in nuclear design gained after any one of those reactors.

Modern reactors have made radical improvements. Imagine comparing the safety of a car from the 1960-70s to the safety of a modern car. They are NOT equivalent.

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

#975

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:23 PM UTC

chris222 wrote: post #814

DrBazza wrote: post #653

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like up-front monetary 'cost' is continually used to bash nuclear. And 100% from the perspective of human beings. To put it into context, nuclear * total human deaths due to nuclear since its inception is in the low thousands at worst, for the entire industry. * total animal deaths due to nuclear since its inception is minimal, in fact, for example, wildlife around Chernobyl has flourished * damage to the en…

The Fukushima cleanup costs are estimated at damn near a half a trillion dollars! Chernobyl was estimated at 50 billion+ adjusted. Accidents are rare but they are costly.

And yet both Ukraine and Japan find those costs acceptable.

Both are part of the pledge to triple nuclear generation by 2050.

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

#976

Post by mpweiher » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 10:24 PM UTC

grecy wrote: post #784

djur wrote: post #741

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By definition you don't want wildlife as a pet. Is there a reason you think this is the "wrong" type of wildlife?

Yes, because it is extremely sick, and their DNA is severely damaged. it would be a very bad thing to pass that on to future generations

That turns out not to be the case.

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

#977

Post by cauch » Sat, Dec 30, 2023, 11:54 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #972

cycomanic wrote: post #971

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point is that people often point to France as "look it works" (while simultaneously saying "there Germany terrible") when the reality is that no France doesn't just work (and yes failure modes are always about multiple disadvantages coincidences, all the other stuff is usually covered).

Saying France "works" or "doesn't work" isn't so straight forward, but I definitely lean more towards the "it works" side. I mean it is a net exporter of energy and is only rivaled by Sweden in terms of emissions per kWhr (Sweden has a lot of hydro, which is great, but not available to everyone. Can also be dangerous, see Banqiao, but that's not very relevant tbh). Germany on the other hand has 6x the emissions. They…

I liked you first comment about things being complicated and that "good" or "bad" is difficult to tell because people will give more importance to the partial elements they see.

Unfortunately, you've done just that in this last comment.

One detail that I see too often with people advancing similar arguments than you here is that they just take two countries and compare them if it was two lab experiments done within the same conditions and repeated sufficiently to bring conclusive results.

There are plenty of elements about that: the way France and Germany are industrialised is pretty different so what worked/did not work for one does not mean it would have worked or not for the other, maybe if Germany would have followed the same path as France the German specificity would have made Germany emitting 8x more instead of 6x (or not, of course), maybe the German way had 60% chance of success and bad luck failed while the France way had 40% chance of success and lucky then they did not failed (not saying it's the case, just that it's tricky to pretend getting lessons from what happened), maybe one country had pushed itself in a corner and will struggle on the last few yards while the other had a worst initial score because they were paving the road (again, not saying it's the case), maybe the success of France relied on having Germany going that way (who knows how the French nuclear park would have evolved if they had Germany that would have provided electricity with exactly the same characteristics and fulfilling the same needs on the same market but having the same drawbacks on the same market), ...

It does not mean we cannot get lessons, but the lessons you bring (or the method itself) are just invalid: no, looking at the electricity map today is just not a way to conclude which strategy is the best. And everyone who reasons like that is just muddying the water rather than being helpful.

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

#978

Post by billytetrud » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 12:01 AM UTC

cesarb wrote: post #867

Georgelemental wrote: post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. That's the value proposition. (And nuclear does operate more cheaply in China and South Korea)

> Nuclear works 24/7/365. Renewables don't. Wait, what? Other than solar (for obvious reasons), renewables can run 24/7/365, and that's extremely common; as an example, the Itaipu power plant has run continuously since 1984, and it only powered down once in 2009, when several of the transmission lines taking power from it failed at nearly the same time due to lightning.

Solar doesn't. Wind doesn't. Hydro does (usually). You know he was talking about solar and wind. Why are you being a turd? Hydro is tapped, we can't build significantly more hydro in this world.

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

#979

Post by billytetrud » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 12:05 AM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #969

billytetrud wrote: post #946

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why you think that Exelon didn't consider regulatory risk as one of the things that made it not make sense for them. It was certainly a large factor. The idea that existing nuclear power plants are losing money because they aren't operationally competitive with oil and gas does not square with the facts. The total cost of running a nuclear plant is 30% less than oil and gas per kilowatt-hour. And if all…

> I'm not sure why you think that Exelon didn't consider regulatory risk as one of the things that made it not make sense for them. It was certainly a large factor. Who cares? That putative issue would be beating a dead horse. If it didn't make sense economically anyway, why worry about that? > The idea that existing nuclear power plants are losing money because they aren't operationally competitive with oil and gas…

Sounds like you're ignoring my whole post. I guess this conversation is over then.

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

#980

Post by kbelder » Sun, Dec 31, 2023, 1:06 AM UTC

billytetrud wrote: post #778

pmayrgundter wrote: post #667

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The actuarial account for fossil fuels is important, but I've come across this set of summary items many times and it ignores the positive effects of CO2, which have been substantial. This is a great benefit for many ecosystems and also improves crop yields, to your monetary cost point. The overall phenomenon is well documented, so I'll give just one highly credible account: "The greening [over the last 35 years] rep…

I see you've been massively down voted, even tho none of them can manage to even disagree with your facts. Regardless, I don't think greening offsets the millions that die from air pollution every year, not including any climate change effects.

I once saw a paper arguing that one of the deleterious effects of climate change over the next hundred years was the proliferation of poison ivy. They found that greening was occurring because of increased CO2 and temperature increase, and plucked out 'oh no, there'll be more poison ivy' as their topic.