7 ms·

The article looks at the cost of energy over the lifetime of the nuclear power plant. There is no argument that energy generated through fission is very cheap w

The article looks at the cost of energy over the lifetime of the nuclear power plant. There is no argument that energy generated through fission is very cheap when looked at that way. However that totally ignores the enormous startup costs. The great thing about wind and solar is that you don't have to build a whole farm. You can start small and keep adding as you come across more capital. In any case I don't see why one needs to make it a dichotomy. The entities who invest in alternative energy are probably not the same ones who could invest in a nuclear power plant because of the above mentioned startup costs. It's not clear to me whether fission will come back any time soon but wind and solar will keep gaining in market share.

iaw 11y ago
The startup capital required for nuclear fission is so immense that it doesn't make sense from an economic time-value perspective. The problem with most renewables (excl. thermal and hydro) is that they are incapable of meeting 100% of electricity demands by their nature without better storage technology. The economics are pushing towards renewables but I feel that nuclear makes more sense for our society in the near-term (we need to get away from coal and other fossil fuels).
- beefman 11y ago
  Nothing about nuclear fission requires startup capital to be large.
  - iaw 11y ago
    There is a 5-10 year lead time between digging the first hole and opening the plant. That's >$100 million in capital investment for 5-10 years without any return, so the plant has to have a present lifetime value >$140 million the day it opens. This ignores various risk cases associated with building a plant that drive the return on capital further up. Source: used to value these types of investments professionally.
    - beefman 11y ago
      You're assuming a very particular kind of nuclear fission machine.
      - iaw 11y ago
        I am unaware of any kind of practical nuclear fission machine that doesn't require a high initial capital investment. Could you link some examples of commercially operating units? It has been a few years since I was in the field but I was unaware of any proven changes to the fundamental economics of the industry.
        beefman 11y ago
        There's a good chance you can see one at your local university or shipyard. The post to which you're replying doesn't use the terms "proven" or "commercial", so let's not move the goalpost. Then we can talk about YC-funded startup UPower, Fluor-owned corporation NuPower, etc. Studying engineering is also a good way to reduce reliance on examples.
        iaw 11y ago
        I was unable to find any data on the 'NuPower' technology; could you provide links? What I found on UPower indicated that it's a nuclear thermal battery, I love that technology but they aren't legal and wont be because of widespread concerns about terrorism and radioactive contamination. Also, my educational background is in engineering and I have worked on determining whether it's financially feasible to build power plants for a living. I would really love it if you could provide some evidence for your arguments.
        beefman 11y ago
        NuScale Power, sorry (mobile typo). UPower are making a reactor but some sources have incorrectly called it a battery. There are no laws in the U.S. (or any nation I'm aware of) that make small reactors or nuclear batteries illegal. My only argument so far is "Nothing about nuclear fission requires startup capital to be large", which is trivially true.
  - NolF 11y ago
    The design and safe construction does.
    - novalis78 11y ago
      Very informative read and eye opener on this topic: http://thorconpower.com/costing/should-cost-versus-did-cost http://thorconpower.com/costing/should-cost-versus-did-cost
      - beefman 11y ago
        Additionally, many people are completely unaware of the vast variety of fission machines of all shapes and sizes -- rocket engines, ramjet engines, space power reactors, research reactors, isotope production reactors, submarine power reactors, Army mobile power reactors, etc. -- that were produced and operated 50 years ago. To say nothing of the variety we could build with today's metallurgy, CAD, etc.
- novalis78 11y ago
  a large amount of startup capital is of regulatory nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdwgbh6he4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdwgbh6he4
  - seanflyon 11y ago
    I don't think unregulated nuclear is a good idea. Safer reactors would require less regulation and you could argue that even for current reactors our regulation is excessive. The bottom line is that efficient regulation is a hard problem and to use nuclear power we need to either solve that problem or endure inefficient regulation.
    - novalis78 11y ago
      It's not that simple. Nuclear regulation in the US has turned (similar to the FDA) into an innovation stifling behemoth... It's a lobbying place and a capital sink and has little to do with safety. If it was about safety, they would shut down current reactor designs yesterday and had started working on Thorium alternatives 20 years ago. The youtube link I posted from TEAC7 conference does explain that quite well.
      - seanflyon 11y ago
        I'm not arguing in favor of our current regulation, I'm saying that it is hard to fix and you can't throw it out altogether.
        AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        It's not actually that hard to fix. We know how to regulate large industrial operations that use dangerous substances. The problem is that we don't use those regulations, we use a whole different set of regulations that were created by people whose specific intent was to make construction uneconomical. Example. One of the problems that have occurred is that the regulations change during construction. You spend a billion dollars on construction and then the regulations change and you have to start over. The simple change that the construction rules a plant is evaluated under are the ones in effect when construction began would solve half the problem in itself.
- Retric 11y ago
  99% of the worlds grid storage is pumped hydro because nothing else works out. Pumped storage is 70% to 85% efficient, can come online within 15 seconds, and works at scale. The reservoir can provide about 13 GW·h of stored gravitational potential energy (convertible to electricity at about 80% efficiency), or about 2% of China's daily electricity consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhuangping_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhuangping_Pumped_Storage_P... Construction cost: $900 million USD maintenance costs are also minimal. PS: ~14 GWh for 1 billion ~= 14 MWh for 1 million = ~14 kwh for 1000$. http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall = 7 kWh for 3k or 2.3kwh per 1,000$ and much shorter lifetime.
  - ricardobeat 11y ago
    Wow, I'm actually surprised that the battery comes that close. When one of the newer battery technology materializes those numbers might reverse.
    - epistasis 11y ago
      Vanadium redox flow batteries are shipping, with their manufacturers claiming that they beat Tesla's lithium ion both on cost and geographic density: http://www.uetechnologies.com http://www.uetechnologies.com http://www.imergy.com http://www.imergy.com
    - Retric 11y ago
      Don't forget Li your down capacity after just 3 years and you might get 15 years total. Pumped storage is good for 50 years before a refit and the reservoir is probably good hundreds if not thousands of years.
      - Turing_Machine 11y ago
        Of course, pumped storage (or any kind of hydro) is many orders of magnitude more dangerous and environmentally destructive than fission. The Banqiao Reservoir dam failure alone killed over 170,000 people and made over 11 million homeless. I worry far more about the hundreds of millions of people living downstream of the Three Gorges Dam than I do about people living near fission plants.

iaw 11y ago

The startup capital required for nuclear fission is so immense that it doesn't make sense from an economic time-value perspective. The problem with most renewables (excl. thermal and hydro) is that they are incapable of meeting 100% of electricity demands by their nature without better storage technology. The economics are pushing towards renewables but I feel that nuclear makes more sense for our society in the near-term (we need to get away from coal and other fossil fuels).

beefman 11y ago
Nothing about nuclear fission requires startup capital to be large.
- iaw 11y ago
  There is a 5-10 year lead time between digging the first hole and opening the plant. That's >$100 million in capital investment for 5-10 years without any return, so the plant has to have a present lifetime value >$140 million the day it opens. This ignores various risk cases associated with building a plant that drive the return on capital further up. Source: used to value these types of investments professionally.
  - beefman 11y ago
    You're assuming a very particular kind of nuclear fission machine.
    - iaw 11y ago
      I am unaware of any kind of practical nuclear fission machine that doesn't require a high initial capital investment. Could you link some examples of commercially operating units? It has been a few years since I was in the field but I was unaware of any proven changes to the fundamental economics of the industry.
      - beefman 11y ago
        There's a good chance you can see one at your local university or shipyard. The post to which you're replying doesn't use the terms "proven" or "commercial", so let's not move the goalpost. Then we can talk about YC-funded startup UPower, Fluor-owned corporation NuPower, etc. Studying engineering is also a good way to reduce reliance on examples.
        iaw 11y ago
        I was unable to find any data on the 'NuPower' technology; could you provide links? What I found on UPower indicated that it's a nuclear thermal battery, I love that technology but they aren't legal and wont be because of widespread concerns about terrorism and radioactive contamination. Also, my educational background is in engineering and I have worked on determining whether it's financially feasible to build power plants for a living. I would really love it if you could provide some evidence for your arguments.
        beefman 11y ago
        NuScale Power, sorry (mobile typo). UPower are making a reactor but some sources have incorrectly called it a battery. There are no laws in the U.S. (or any nation I'm aware of) that make small reactors or nuclear batteries illegal. My only argument so far is "Nothing about nuclear fission requires startup capital to be large", which is trivially true.
- NolF 11y ago
  The design and safe construction does.
  - novalis78 11y ago
    Very informative read and eye opener on this topic: http://thorconpower.com/costing/should-cost-versus-did-cost http://thorconpower.com/costing/should-cost-versus-did-cost
    - beefman 11y ago
      Additionally, many people are completely unaware of the vast variety of fission machines of all shapes and sizes -- rocket engines, ramjet engines, space power reactors, research reactors, isotope production reactors, submarine power reactors, Army mobile power reactors, etc. -- that were produced and operated 50 years ago. To say nothing of the variety we could build with today's metallurgy, CAD, etc.
novalis78 11y ago
a large amount of startup capital is of regulatory nature. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdwgbh6he4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUdwgbh6he4
- seanflyon 11y ago
  I don't think unregulated nuclear is a good idea. Safer reactors would require less regulation and you could argue that even for current reactors our regulation is excessive. The bottom line is that efficient regulation is a hard problem and to use nuclear power we need to either solve that problem or endure inefficient regulation.
  - novalis78 11y ago
    It's not that simple. Nuclear regulation in the US has turned (similar to the FDA) into an innovation stifling behemoth... It's a lobbying place and a capital sink and has little to do with safety. If it was about safety, they would shut down current reactor designs yesterday and had started working on Thorium alternatives 20 years ago. The youtube link I posted from TEAC7 conference does explain that quite well.
    - seanflyon 11y ago
      I'm not arguing in favor of our current regulation, I'm saying that it is hard to fix and you can't throw it out altogether.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        It's not actually that hard to fix. We know how to regulate large industrial operations that use dangerous substances. The problem is that we don't use those regulations, we use a whole different set of regulations that were created by people whose specific intent was to make construction uneconomical. Example. One of the problems that have occurred is that the regulations change during construction. You spend a billion dollars on construction and then the regulations change and you have to start over. The simple change that the construction rules a plant is evaluated under are the ones in effect when construction began would solve half the problem in itself.
Retric 11y ago
99% of the worlds grid storage is pumped hydro because nothing else works out. Pumped storage is 70% to 85% efficient, can come online within 15 seconds, and works at scale. The reservoir can provide about 13 GW·h of stored gravitational potential energy (convertible to electricity at about 80% efficiency), or about 2% of China's daily electricity consumption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhuangping_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianhuangping_Pumped_Storage_P... Construction cost: $900 million USD maintenance costs are also minimal. PS: ~14 GWh for 1 billion ~= 14 MWh for 1 million = ~14 kwh for 1000$. http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall = 7 kWh for 3k or 2.3kwh per 1,000$ and much shorter lifetime.
- ricardobeat 11y ago
  Wow, I'm actually surprised that the battery comes that close. When one of the newer battery technology materializes those numbers might reverse.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    Vanadium redox flow batteries are shipping, with their manufacturers claiming that they beat Tesla's lithium ion both on cost and geographic density: http://www.uetechnologies.com http://www.uetechnologies.com http://www.imergy.com http://www.imergy.com
  - Retric 11y ago
    Don't forget Li your down capacity after just 3 years and you might get 15 years total. Pumped storage is good for 50 years before a refit and the reservoir is probably good hundreds if not thousands of years.
    - Turing_Machine 11y ago
      Of course, pumped storage (or any kind of hydro) is many orders of magnitude more dangerous and environmentally destructive than fission. The Banqiao Reservoir dam failure alone killed over 170,000 people and made over 11 million homeless. I worry far more about the hundreds of millions of people living downstream of the Three Gorges Dam than I do about people living near fission plants.