TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The US is getting its first new nuclear reactor in 40 years

190 点作者 DantesKite将近 2 年前

18 条评论

bcatanzaro将近 2 年前
The people who oppose nuclear power always point to the construction cost and long delays.<p>BUT.<p>The reason for the long and expensive construction has a lot to do with the people opposing the construction! We could build these reactors so much more cheaply and quickly (and more safely!) if we decided to!<p>This in an argument from unclean hands. Nuclear skeptics, like the ones given so much airtime in the linked article, have been very successful in driving up costs and adding delay. But these costs and delays are not intrinsic to the technology. It&#x27;s not fair if I delay a thing for me to claim the thing has failed because it was late. No, it failed because I delayed it.<p>I wish the nuclear skeptics would apply their delay tactics to coal power plants, which spew staggering amounts of radionuclides over huge swaths of the world, not to mention their carbon emissions.
评论 #36253043 未加载
评论 #36253123 未加载
评论 #36253058 未加载
评论 #36252929 未加载
评论 #36255130 未加载
评论 #36255187 未加载
评论 #36253629 未加载
评论 #36258182 未加载
评论 #36253095 未加载
评论 #36254620 未加载
评论 #36255007 未加载
theoldlove将近 2 年前
“ The Public Interest Advocacy staff of the Georgia Public Service Commission warned back in 2008 that the costs could skyrocket. They advocated for a risk-sharing mechanism to incentivize Georgia Power to keep the construction costs down and opposed plans to bill customers for the Vogtle construction while it was underway.<p>Both proposals failed. Thanks to a 2009 state law, Georgia Power ratepayers are billed a monthly Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery fee. They will begin paying an additional monthly charge when each of the new Plant Vogtle units come online.”<p>If I were a Georgia Power customer I’d be livid. Why on Earth should I be on the hook for cost overruns instead of the company building the thing?
评论 #36252297 未加载
评论 #36255034 未加载
评论 #36252936 未加载
thinkcontext将近 2 年前
Given how badly both AP1000 projects in the US have gone (the other project was cancelled after spending $9B on a hole in the ground) its extremely unlikely it or any other big reactors will ever be built here. All the previous AP1000 projects that were in the development pipeline were cancelled and no generator in their right mind would order one without the feds agreeing to take on construction risk.<p>Looks like the only game in town are SMRs and none of those are supposed to come online until 2030. But everything about them is highly speculative, who knows which ones will work or be economic. The costs of the one furthest ahead, NuScale, are already exploding and the power will be way more expensive than planned, even with big new money from the feds.
评论 #36252446 未加载
评论 #36252746 未加载
评论 #36257579 未加载
评论 #36252383 未加载
burnte将近 2 年前
As an Atlanta resident, I LOVED when this was announced, and I&#x27;m thrilled to live in GA with this plant, and I hope to see more. Yeah, it&#x27;s going to drive my bills up a few bucks for a while, but I get to know we&#x27;re burning that much less coal and gas.
评论 #36252648 未加载
fdye将近 2 年前
Did a tour on some business of Vogtle-3&#x2F;4 several years back. You have no idea how big or complex these things are until you see it up close. It feels like watching the pyramids go up. Just the amount of rebar on the ground was impressive. So happy to see it going into operation even with all the delays!<p>Really cool timelapse: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=LSEv_K9861E">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=LSEv_K9861E</a>
milar将近 2 年前
Please more. And next time without so much wasted time. We don’t have much time.
评论 #36252386 未加载
MattGaiser将近 2 年前
&gt; “They just want to have coal plants without coal,” he said. “We’ll never solve the climate problem that way.”<p>Given that the coal specifically (as well as oil and gas) is the problem, why is that bad? Coal plants without emissions sounds great!
评论 #36252113 未加载
评论 #36251975 未加载
actuallyalys将近 2 年前
One of the opponents in the article says nuclear power is not a silver bullet. But that argument only makes sense if people are advocating nuclear power to the exclusion of other techniques to deal with renewable generation being unavailable. Are there many nuclear power advocates who oppose grid upgrades or moving energy use toward times of day when renewables are generating a surplus?
评论 #36252262 未加载
nocoiner将近 2 年前
I don’t understand how they figure this is the first new reactor in the US in 40 years? The page that that assertion links to says that one of the reactors at Watts Bar came online in 2016, and the prior reactor there came online in 1996. And I know that there was at least one nuclear power plant that came online in the early 90s which is, urk, 30 years ago, but hey, still not 40.
评论 #36252247 未加载
评论 #36252222 未加载
评论 #36252229 未加载
ChrisMarshallNY将近 2 年前
<i>&gt; The lesson I think we should learn from this is: What works on the computer doesn’t work in the real world,</i><p>This seems to dovetail with Rickover’s “Paper Reactor” memo, that was referenced here, recently: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36080015" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=36080015</a>
claytongulick将近 2 年前
One of the things that I find fascinating about nuclear power is how it is insured (or was).<p>In the early 2000&#x27;s I actually wrote the software that enabled this*.<p>There was a single insurance company, NEIL (Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd) that wrote the policies for all of the nuclear power plants in the U.S.<p>This company was wholly owned by the energy companies, so they self-insured through cost-based rate hikes.<p>I got to see pictures of some of the claims that had been filed.<p>Let&#x27;s just say... it still keeps me up at night.<p>Many things don&#x27;t make it to the news.<p>* As an aside, one of the applications I wrote for them to track fires in plants still stands out as the single worst web app I&#x27;ve ever written. Visual Interdev with server events that reloaded the page every click and an OCX control with an animated fire. Omg.
ttul将近 2 年前
Nuclear plants are complex, bespoke machines. This is the first new reactor complex in 40 years! It’s ludicrous to expect it would somehow be built on time and under budget.<p>If we can somehow start building several plants per year, then a supply chain will develop, skilled labour will be trained, and reusable parts and know how will emerge. But when you only build one thing every few decades, there are no economies of scale.
learyjk将近 2 年前
What about all the nuclear powered submarines and carriers? Don’t count?
评论 #36257789 未加载
jimt1234将近 2 年前
3 great articles about nuclear energy:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;reactor_history.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;reactor_history.html</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;economics.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;economics.html</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;waste.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;whatisnuclear.com&#x2F;waste.html</a>
rendaw将近 2 年前
In 40 years? So roughly 2060?
评论 #36252285 未加载
评论 #36252156 未加载
0xGod将近 2 年前
More.
评论 #36253244 未加载
sharts将近 2 年前
Too little, too late.
viggity将近 2 年前
A pox on the house of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Even if you&#x27;re a climate skeptic, what they&#x27;ve done to the country is absolutely criminal.