First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia
First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia
Nuclear power now makes up about 25% of the generation of Georgia Power, the largest unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co.
First U.S. nuclear reactor built from scratch in decades enters commercial operation in Georgia::ATLANTA — A new reactor at a nuclear power plant in Georgia has entered commercial operation, becoming the first new American reactor built from scratch in decades.
You're viewing a single thread.
The nameplate cost of this plant is $32 per watt. Even at smaller scales, utility-scale solar plants are $1 per watt. Do you know how many grid storage batteries you could buy with the extra $31 per watt? (6 hour storage is around $2.50 per watt or $.40/Wh.) You could build a solar plant 4x the nameplate capacity of the nuke (in order to match the capacity factor), and add 24 hours of storage to make it fully dispatchable, and still have enough money left over to build 2 more of the same thing. This doesn't even include the fact the nuclear has fuel costs, waste disposal, higher continued operational costs, and unaccounted publicly involuntarily subsidized disaster insurance.
Even at smaller scales, utility-scale solar plants are $1 per watt.
Solar is being built at 100% speed. We're utilizing all the solar panel manufacturing capacity in the world building and deploying solar right now. There's simply not enough rare earth metals to increase production more. Wind, Hydro, Nuclear and Geothermal are all needed of we want to replace coal and LNG power plants.
Speaking of geothermal did you hear about the brrak through in drilling using mocrowaves. It radially speeds up driving
I didn't, have a link?
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=g8sjdOjNxIE
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
oyo
You can build entirely new solar supply chains from mining through manufacturing faster than a single new nuclear plant.
That probably depends on how well connected and moneyed you are. Though, in fairness, it took nearly 15 years for this reactor to come online.
But solar panels take up a lot more space for the energy they give out than a nuclear plant iirc
But solar panels take up a lot more space for the energy they give out than a nuclear plant iirc
But it's not like we need to pave over pristine wilderness to build out solar: it's easy to deploy rooftop solar on tens of thousands of square miles of rooftop surface, or on top of tens of thousands of square miles of area that has already been sealed for parking lots while simultaneously providing shade and protection for parked cars.
And we could do all of that at a fraction of the cost of building new nuclear power plants.
I think a nuclear would be better in the short term. But I agree that we should have a lot more solar etc. But its up to the individual home owner so not much we can do there. But as transitional energy nuclear is the best option imo. Plus theres days without sun, wind or whatever else. So those days youd need a reserve or some other way to get energy
i mean if you mix them all together and use land area for geothermal and solar or nuclear and solar you kinda fix the issue because solar's issue is it takes up space but it can go in the same place as another thing like wind or nuclear or geothermal or hydro but it doesn't work the other way too well, you can't have wind efficiently at a nuclear place all the time, nor can you do geothermal at every nuclear plant or hydro
so tl;dr solar is useful for combined energy sources on already used land areas but otherwise its kinda dumb as a primary energy source so is wind on land for other reasons but if you combined wave or other hydro, wind, and solar all together it'd be great though idk how good that'd be for the ocean cuz you're occluding sunlight
its a whole intricate balance tbh
As far as space is concerned, we have plenty of square footage for panels on the roof of every building/structure.
Some places are requiring solar to be installed on new construction which does increase cost but will pay off as installs become more ubiquitous.
Not only is the amount of land required insignificant, and optional (agrivoltaics and built up areas are capable of providing enough for marginally higher labour cost). Low yield uranium mines like Inkai (so most of them going forward) take up more space than a solar farm with the same energy output because the ore has lower energy density than coal.
If you're going to pearl clutch about land use, pearl clutch about the idea of developing any of the 90% of Uranium resource that has abysmal yield.
Monocrystalline solar doesn't involve rare earths at all, idiot.
If you want to pearl clutch about them, pearl clutch about gadolinium in nuclear plants.
They aren't pearl clutching, they're stating the obvious fact that humanity is pumping out solar panels as fast as macroeconomic (or perhaps geographic) forces will allow.
Monocrystalline panels take quite a lot of pure silicon, which may not technically be rare earth, but it is in quite high demand right now.
This is even more ridiculous.
It's sand. Literally the most abundant element in earth's crust. And quartz sand isn't even as particular as construction sand, because only the composition is important, not the shape.
You're literally pearl clutching about the scarcity of Silicon as a way of justifying calling it a rare earth.
The only limitation is manufacturing, and you can build manufacturing and the output faster than you can build a nuclear reactor. You're also comparing an industry that's adding >300TWh/yr to one that is adding zero net (and about 20TWh/yr gross) as if the latter is significant and the former is not.
The insane reaches that nukebros go to to justify their insanity would be comical if it wasn't so harmful.
Let's play around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables. America’s coal, gas, petroleum and nuclear plants generate a combined baseload power of 405 GWavg, or “gigawatts average.” (Remember, a gigawatt is a thousand megawatts.) Let’s replace all of them with a 50 / 50 mix of onshore wind and CSP (solar), and since our energy needs are constantly growing, let’s round up the total to 500 GWs, which is likely what we’ll need by the time we finish. Some folks say that we should level off or reduce our consumption by conserving and using more efficient devices, which is true in principle. But in practice, human nature is such that whatever energy we save, we just gobble up with more gadgets. So we’d better figure on 500 GWs.
To generate this much energy with 1,000 of our 500 MW renewables farms, we’ll put 500 wind farms in the Midwest (and hope the wind patterns don’t change…) and we’ll put 500 CSP farms in the southwest deserts—all of it on free federal land and hooked into the grid. Aside from whatever branch transmission lines we’ll need (which will be chump change), here’s the lowdown:
Powering the U.S. with 500 wind and 500 CSP farms, at 500 MWavg apiece.
Steel ……………….. 503 Million tonnes (5.6 times annual U.S. production) Concrete ………….. 1.57 Billion t (3.2 times annual U.S. production) CO2 …………………. 3.3 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.5 years) Land ………………… 91,000 km2 (302 km / side)35,135 sq. miles (169 mi / side)
(the size of Indiana)
60-year cost ……… $29.25 Trillion
That’s 29 times the 2014 discretionary federal budget.
If we can convince the wind lobby that they’re outclassed by CSP, we could do the entire project for a lot less, and put the whole enchilada in the desert:
Powering the U.S. with 1,000 CSP farms, producing 500 MWavg apiece.
Steel ………………. 787 Million t (1.6 times annual U.S. production) Concrete …………. 2.52 Billion t (5.14 times annual U.S. production) CO2 ………………… 3.02 Billion t (all U.S. passenger cars for 2.3 years) Land ……………….. 63,000 km2 (251 km / side)24,234 sq. miles (105.8 mi / side)
(the size of West Virginia)
60-year cost ……. $18.45 Trillion
#That’s to 18 times the 2014 federal budget.
Or, we could power the U.S. with 500 AP-1000 reactors.
Rated at 1,117 MWp, and with a reactor’s typical uptime of 90%, an AP-1000 will deliver 1,005 MWav. Five hundred APs will produce 502.5 GWav, replacing all existing U.S. electrical power plants, including our aging fleet of reactors.
The AP-1000 uses 5,800 tonnes of steel, 90,000 tonnes of concrete, with a combined carbon karma of 115,000 t of CO2 that can be paid down in less than 5 days. The entire plant requires 0.04km2, a patch of land just 200 meters on a side, next to an ample body of water for cooling. (Remember, it’s a Gen-3+ reactor. Most Gen-4 reactors won’t need external cooling.) Here’s the digits:
Steel ………. 2.9 Million t (0.5% of W & CSP / 0.36% of CSP) Concrete … 46.5 Million t (3.3% of W & CSP / 1.8% of CSP) CO2 ……….. 59.8 Million tonnes (2% of W & CSP / 1.5% of CSP) Land ………. 20.8 km2 (4.56 km / side) (0.028% W & CSP / 0.07% of CSP)1.95 sq. miles (1.39 miles / side)
(1.5 times the size of Central Park)
60-year cost ……… $2.94 Trillion
#That’s 2.9 times the 2014 federal budget.
Small Modular Reactors may cost a quarter or half again as much, but the buy-in is significantly less, the build-out is much faster (picture jetliners rolling off the assembly line), the resources and CO2 are just as minuscule, and they can be more widely distributed, ensuring the resiliency of the grid with multiple nodes.
And this is without even mentioning MSRs.
Was this project a complete shitshow of sheldon before seen-proportions?
Yes.
Does this mean that we should make the move towards powering the US from 100% renewables instead?
Well if you hate math and logic enough to even consider it, sure. Go ahead.
Solar doesn’t perform at its nameplate capacity, so you have to overbuild the capacity by about 200% in order to achieve the same baseload as a constant output thermal plant.
And that doesn’t even touch on the fact that solar doesn’t work at night, and the capacity is much lower during the different seasons in Northern latitudes.
So you either build a shitton of batteries, provide backup power sources, or tell people not to use energy during the winter. According to Tesla, they sell their Megapack batteries for around $1/watt-hour of storage. Still, lets figure a 1 Ghwr battery for every 1 GW of installed capacity of solar. That should give the system a few hours of runtime after it gets dark.
So instead of your 500 GW solar capacity, we need 1,000 GW. And 1,000 Gwhr of batteries. $68.50 Trillion worth of solar + $1 Trillion for batteries.
However, I’m a little skeptical on your solar costs. Utility scale solar is typically cited as between $1-$2/watt installed. So for 1,000 GW that gives you $1 Trillion installed. Which is a lot of money, but less than Biden’s student load forgiveness plan.
I personally believe, after spending 3 years listening to the Energy Gang podcast, that decarbonizing the energy system is an ‘all-hands on deck’ emergency that will require every trick in the book to tackle. We will likely max out every type of cheap and readily financeable energy system on this road.
Why are your only considerations concentrated solar farms and wind farms? What about hydro power, geothermal, and scattered solar installations?
Why do your numbers assume we would be building everything at once nationwide?
Why don't you include the costs of building and running the equivalent coal plants?
It seems your comment boils down to "if we limit ourselves to implementing the most expensive options for renewables and do it on an accelerated timeframe, it's going to cost more than if we didn't do anything." Not a very helpful analysis.
If you take a look at the comment that I was replying to, you will have your answer for the first question.
Because it was the scenario I chose. You are more than welcome to submit your own analysis with your own scenario and eventual limitations etc.
I didn't include coal plants because we weren't talking about coal plants. You are more than welcome to submit your own rundown including coal plants.
Solar is not one of the "most expensive" forms of renewable.
If you didn't find the analysis helpful, you are once again, more than welcome to submit your own. The analysis is very helpful in the context of the comment I replied too.
If you take a look at the comment that I was replying to, you will have your answer for the first question
I didn't include coal plants because we weren't talking about coal plants.
So I should just ignore the first paragraph of your comment, where you introduce your own context for the rest of the comment and mention replacing coal, oil, and nuclear plants?
Let's play around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables. America’s coal, gas, petroleum and nuclear plants generate a combined baseload power of 405 GWavg, or “gigawatts average.” (Remember, a gigawatt is a thousand megawatts.) Let’s replace all of them with a 50 / 50 mix of onshore wind and CSP (solar)
The person you replied to suggested a solar panel array. You stated you wanted to "play around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables" but then excluded all forms of renewables from your analysis except for two very specific options.
Solar is not one of the "most expensive" forms of renewable.
Who said it was? I said you chose the most expensive way of implementing it with concentrated solar power, a giant array of mirrors that focus light into a central tower. What about regular solar panel installations that don't require a gigantic central facility hundreds of miles from population centers?
Your analysis reads like pure misinformation intent on leading people to believe our only two choices are to stick with coal, oil, and nuclear or pay multiples of our nation's GDP and use several years worth of resources like steel in order to go the "renewable" route.
It'd be like me "playing around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables" and suggesting our only course of action with renewables is putting a giant dome over Hawaii to harness geothermal power from the active volcanoes and then running multiple 10ft thick cables 2,500 miles across the Pacific in order to feed the mainland at a cost of 200 trillion dollars and a 100 year supply of copper. It's an absurd and misleading proposal.
Now I am actually honestly not sure if you are actually being serious or if you are trying to troll.
"It’d be like me “playing around with the thought of powering all of America with renewables” and suggesting our only course of action with renewables is putting a giant dome over Hawaii to harness geothermal power from the active volcanoes and then running multiple 10ft thick cables 2,500 miles across the Pacific in order to feed the mainland at a cost of 200 trillion dollars and a 100 year supply of copper. It’s an absurd and misleading proposal."
Have you been smoking crack perhaps?
Yes I could have clarified that I was discussing solar but I thought the context of the conversation was enough. But sure, "renewables" was bad formulation on my part.
It would probably be unironically cheaper to power Hawaii by running an underwater DC high voltage cable from California to the island, then what they are currently doing.
I mean, if Japan can connect all of their islands with DCHV, and the UK can run a DCHV line from Morocco under the Atlantic, Hawaii wouldn’t be that expensive. There are thousands of miles of underwater DCHV lines around the world. We have one that runs from Washington to Southern California, which is ~1,000 miles.
Based and clean energy pilled.
Uh.
The nuke plant is expensive. Renewables aren't. And your argument ist essentially "but based on made up numbers that illustrate how inexpensive nuke plants could be, nuke plants could be much less expensive! Duh!"
Yeah, no. Build renewables.
I’m not quite why the argument is “nuclear or renewables.” It should be nuclear AND renewables.
Renewable energy generators have improved significantly in the last two decades. I’m sure they will continue to improve.
Nuclear power is a hell of a lot cleaner than coal. And it seems nuclear power plants have improved tremendously. We should use them.
This right here, we could more easily transition to nuclear from coal/oil while building up the infrastructure and scale needed for renewables. In time we can phase out nuclear but at least we could have a stop gap fix in the meantime.
It should be nuclear AND renewables.
It really shouldn't be. Nuclear plants don't emit co2, that's right and that's nice. However, they have so many disadvantages that I can't wrap my head around how they could be considered a viable alternative to renewables.
- They are not economical. Full stop. Building and running them is expensive as fuck, like an order of magnitude over renewables.
- They're risky. People usually argue that this point would be fearmongering, but there's a simple solution for that: get insurance. That's impossible though, no company wants to offer an insurance for nuke plants. Gee, I wonder why? This point adds to the economical issues - if the risk was properly calculated and the according price added to every watt, they would be even more expensive. The only solution here is to socialise the losses and risks - if one of them should ever blow up, society just has to eat it. There's no other way to ruin these things.
- They need to be cooled. With the climate crisis just getting started, this is hard to calculate, but it's already showing. France, with their 80-something percentage of nuclear power, has constant issues to power the country in summer when the rivers get too warm to efficiently cool the reactors. And god forbid one of those larger rivers ever running dry.
- The fuel is hard to get. Most countries need to import the fuel from countries you don't want to depend on, like Russia. It's also limited.
- It's a very centralised solution. That means you'll probably have to rely on corporate solutions, with community-run or private projects being essentially ruled out. That means, power will remain in corporate, for-profit hands. This is also the reason why I think a lot of astroturfing is taking place. Of all the carbon-neutral methods to generate electricity, this is the only one that is almost guaranteed to remain in the hands of the largest corporations. I also predict that any reactor that is at least said to be runnable by smaller communities won't deliver on that promise for whatever reasons, probably safety and security.
- It's not available. A new plant takes decades to build. Any of the new designs that are at least said to offer a solution to one or two of all those issues are not yet tested and will take even longer to be built in larger quantities. We need, however, to ramp up carbon neutral energy production now, not in ten years.
There's my unpopular opinion.
I take it you didn't even bother to read my comment. So why answer it?
The fact that you are even considering CSP shows you know nothing about the current state of renewables. What's more likely is you're parroting or copy-pasting some bullshit talking points from a right wing think tank. Nukes have ALWAYS gotten more expensive. I'm waiting for any production plant SMR, MSR whatever to buck this trend but it hasn't happened.
Maybe you should try reading the comment I was replying too?
Very funny how everything that you don't agree with suddenly becomes "right wing". But please prove me wrong, provide me with said "right wing think tank" that I supposedly copied from. Shouldn't be hard to find if that's the case.
Where are you getting this "$32 per watt" number from?From googling I cannot find anything even close to that ballpark
It's from this article: $35 billion spent / 1.1GW output = $31.8/watt
I think $31 billion would have been the more accurate number to use. There wouldn't the same contractor buyout thing for every reactor.
It was actually $27.3 billion because the journalist was an idiot and couldn’t do math.
Sorry, what article?
The article this post is about did you read the link?
I do not see any link
The article this post is about.
I took it he was quoting a title after the ":" but I get it.
Utility scale PV is currently around $1 to $2 a watt installed, depending on your region. Some projects have come under $1/watt.
But, you still need batteries and a solution for winter and clouds. So pumped storage, nuclear, hydrogen etc are all options.
Thanks I posted something similar and now I can't find the post idk if it's the app or what but this crowd has a hard on for wasting money and taking forever to do it.
I assume the economics were quite different when they signed the contracts.
Wait, what? The hivemind here isn't staunchly pro nucular?
Color me surprised.