News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by spiderfarmer on Friday December 29, 2023 @06:37AM (#38803934)
People who underestimated the solar boom will underestimate the upcoming storage boom as well.
Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by OsrsNeedsf2P on Friday December 29, 2023 @06:50AM (#38804010)
And so, we should keep burning coal until that hopefully later happens!
Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by Retric on Friday December 29, 2023 @06:54AM (#38804023)
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.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by tjoff on Friday December 29, 2023 @08:28AM (#38804640)
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.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by Retric on Friday December 29, 2023 @10:13AM (#38805782)
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 opera... by pfdietz on Friday December 29, 2023 @09:02AM (#38804942)
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 passed the tipping point and battery storage is doing it right now.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by tjoff on Friday December 29, 2023 @09:11AM (#38805040)
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 underestimating the time to ramp up production? Exponential growth is not gonna save you short to mid term. Especially not compared to solar and wind which of course have huge storage implications.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by ben_w on Friday December 29, 2023 @09:59AM (#38805630)
> 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 opera... by tjoff on Friday December 29, 2023 @10:14AM (#38805785)
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 opera... by ben_w on Friday December 29, 2023 @11:39AM (#38806912)
> The worst case is an unbalanced grid that leads to blackouts and/or disruptions. Not that we waste energy.

As the old gas plants don't magically cease to exist after N years, while this is technically correct it's about as important as pointing out the non-zero risk of a supervolcano blocking out 80% of sunlight worldwide for a decade.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by tjoff on Friday December 29, 2023 @11:49AM (#38807044)
Sigh, not with the expected increase in energy consumption. And other sources that we do intend to shut down.

Also depends on where you live.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by ben_w on Friday December 29, 2023 @01:28PM (#38808428)
> not with the expected increase in energy consumption

Energy consumption is always strictly limited by energy supply.

> And other sources that we do intend to shut down.

"We" "intend" many things, but if there's a danger of blackouts or brownouts, we find ways to keep power plants running longer because (despite appearances) the people in charge mostly aren't idiots, and the few exceptions (in this context, Texas) provide ample evidence to everyone else.

> Also depends on where you live.

Unless you mean the imminent danger of airstrikes to Ukrainian, Gazan, etc. power stations, that sentence fragment is too vague to communicate anything. And if you do, sure, but that's still an issue for literally all possible power plants given no structures are safe in war zones.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by tjoff on Saturday December 30, 2023 @02:03AM (#38813333)
Ironic...

Anyway, I'm comforted to know that the magic hand of the market will solve this problem in the most efficient way and with a proper focus on the climate, as it always has.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by ben_w on Saturday December 30, 2023 @04:31AM (#38813919)
I didn't say that.

It will fix it, but it is only aligned to profit, which just happens to currently be aligned with climate, and that might well be mere luck.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by Retric on Friday December 29, 2023 @09:47AM (#38805498)
We already have enough battery manufacturing capacity to build hours worth of grid storage over the next 5 years and more is coming online at double digit growth rates. What’s missing is the demand for grid batteries which is still relatively low.

Right now California only wastes ~5% of its solar output per year but most days don’t have a surplus. That’s not enough capacity for nighttime storage to be worth it, you need consistent daily oversupply before charging becomes “free”.

However, because of the demand curve batteries are viable for peaking power. Which is why some farms are built with “4h” aka 50% of daily output worth of battery storage. Thus we are past the initial tipping point of occasional viability where sometimes it’s a good idea. The big one is at roughly 5c/kWh where natural gas is no longer economically viable and the grid isn’t dependent on fossil fuels.

5c/kWh * 3,000 full discharge cycles ~= 150$/kWh total instillation cost including labor etc. Increase or decrease based on specific battery technology and it’s lifespan.

Re:First new U.S. nuclear reactor since 2016 is now in opera... by pfdietz on Saturday December 30, 2023 @08:10PM (#38820909)
> We already have enough battery manufacturing capacity

It's amusing going back to HN threads from a few years ago and see people arguing that batteries are ruled out because we don't have enough battery building capacity.

I'm not sure what could lead a person to believe that new factories cannot be built.