5 ms·

Energy is a BIG, HUGE industry (about 5-10% of world GDP). It will always be a mix of technologies. Cost wise, however, i agree nuclear is late to the party.

by yazr 8y ago

Energy is a BIG, HUGE industry (about 5-10% of world GDP). It will always be a mix of technologies. Cost wise, however, i agree nuclear is late to the party. In 2018, we had large contracts for solar(+storage!) at 3cent/kw (in the US, Mexico and Saudi Arabia). European new nuclear came in at 15c/kw.

cm2187 8y ago
I understand mostly because it has been regulated to death
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  I have doubts you’re going to be able to remove enough regulation to get nuclear near the same cost as storage backed renewables (which will continue to decline in cost each year even further). Without storage, renewables are already close to or below 2 cents/kWh (unsubsidized). Can nuclear startups make generating units as fast as automated fabs can spit out solar panels?
  - alexeldeib 8y ago
    A big argument I have heard in support of nuclear is that it is good for maintaining some amount of base load. As I understand this is particularly important in the current scenario of renewable energy without good storage, since we can't necessarily maintain our energy requirements with solely other clean (relatively speaking) forms of energy.
    - toomuchtodo 8y ago
      The race will be to see who can win the day: modular commodity nuclear, or utility scale battery storage (Flow batteries, lithium ion/polymer, etc). Presumably, both get cheaper as you make more, but anyone can make batteries and ship them around the world with little notice. Tesla’s Hornsdale Power Reserve system was built in 90 days. I don’t know of any nuclear plants that get built faster than 10 years.
      - Jedd 8y ago
        > I don’t know of any nuclear plants that get built faster than 10 years. And the Brits are demonstrating just how woefully optimistic costs, build quality, and schedules can be even with that kind of protracted delivery expectation : https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/08/22/why-the-uk-nuclear-renaissance-plan-is-doomed-to-failure-in-30-pictures-and-charts/ https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/08/22/why-the-uk-nuclear-rena...
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  I don't know man? If you're familiar with dispatch stacks, you know that 3c/kw is REALLY attractive. Regulation or no regulation, I don't think you're gonna get down to 2c or 1c with a new nuclear plant. Maybe I'm wrong, and one day someone will figure out how to build SUPER cheap nuclear plants? But I doubt it. Best I would think they could do is some sort of hybrid system that uses nuclear generation, and then storage via a conventional hydro storage system or something maybe? I'd have to do the math on that. But yeah... 2c? That's very hard to do.
  - joering2 8y ago
    Might be talking about European regulations. 15c per kw versus 3 in usa - thats 5x magnitude. Doesnt suprise - gallon of gas in most european countries (sold by liters and funny thing - you first pump then pay!) is about 40% more than same amount in USA. it has been like this forever and doesnt look like will ever change.
  - pfdietz 8y ago
    Moltex is claiming they can get below $0.04/kWh (for N-th of a kind plants; FOAK would be a bit more expensive.) They can claim this plausibly for two reasons: first, they can build a MUCH smaller containment building, due to lack of water or other volatiles in the nuclear island. Second, their design isolates the turbines from the nuclear island with a molten salt "thermal battery". This allows some dispatchability in their output, but more importantly it means turbine trips have no effect on reactor stability, which means non-nuclear-grade turbines can be used. This is apparently a very large cost savings.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  I like regulating things that are radioactive or can potentially go boom. Especially both. [And yes, I know some designs are theoretically not able to melt/blow up]
trothamel 8y ago
That's a lot closer than you'd think then. While it varies from location to location, the capacity factor of solar seems to be about 20%. That means - sustained - a solar system generates 20% of it's maximum power rating, because the amount of power it produces is lessened during the winter, cloudy days, and of course at night. The nuclear capacity factor, on the other hand, is rather high. Upwards of 90%, and sometimes even upwards of 100% (due to the powerplants being able to produce more energy than they were designed for). If you factor that in, a nuclear plant has about a 4.5x capacity compared to a solar plant, meaning you'd have to spend 13.5c/kw for solar with the same capacity. Of course, this varies greatly based on where you are. In sunny climates, solar's capacity is more like 30%, while in northern climates, it can be 15%. And I'd imagine the cost of new nuclear very much depends on regulations - in the US, it might as well be infinite.
- lukeschlather 8y ago
  I think you're applying an imaginary capacity factor to a number that already accounts for solar's intermittent yield. Solar is simply way cheaper than nuclear.
  - realusername 8y ago
    Does that account as well for the longevity of it? The current nuclear reactors lasted around 40 years already without much issues, I wouldn't bet the solar installations to last that long.
    - robbiep 8y ago
      Solar installations are generally rated for a 30 year life, so ¾ of nuclear isn’t bad, especially when you add in decommissioning costs which are going to be a lot lower for solar
      - natmaka 8y ago
        UK discounted provision for decommission costs: £100+ billion in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-nuclear-atomic-clean-up-decommissioning https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-... £161 billion in 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.u... £234 billion in 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision... ... and counting.
yazr 8y ago
EDIT UNIT CORRECTION: this is 3cent/khw and 15 c/kwh This means it is cost per final energy produced i.e. after taking into account capacity factors, day/night, etc

by yazr 8y ago

cm2187 8y ago

I understand mostly because it has been regulated to death

toomuchtodo 8y ago
I have doubts you’re going to be able to remove enough regulation to get nuclear near the same cost as storage backed renewables (which will continue to decline in cost each year even further). Without storage, renewables are already close to or below 2 cents/kWh (unsubsidized). Can nuclear startups make generating units as fast as automated fabs can spit out solar panels?
- alexeldeib 8y ago
  A big argument I have heard in support of nuclear is that it is good for maintaining some amount of base load. As I understand this is particularly important in the current scenario of renewable energy without good storage, since we can't necessarily maintain our energy requirements with solely other clean (relatively speaking) forms of energy.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    The race will be to see who can win the day: modular commodity nuclear, or utility scale battery storage (Flow batteries, lithium ion/polymer, etc). Presumably, both get cheaper as you make more, but anyone can make batteries and ship them around the world with little notice. Tesla’s Hornsdale Power Reserve system was built in 90 days. I don’t know of any nuclear plants that get built faster than 10 years.
    - Jedd 8y ago
      > I don’t know of any nuclear plants that get built faster than 10 years. And the Brits are demonstrating just how woefully optimistic costs, build quality, and schedules can be even with that kind of protracted delivery expectation : https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/08/22/why-the-uk-nuclear-renaissance-plan-is-doomed-to-failure-in-30-pictures-and-charts/ https://jeremyleggett.net/2018/08/22/why-the-uk-nuclear-rena...
bilbo0s 8y ago
I don't know man? If you're familiar with dispatch stacks, you know that 3c/kw is REALLY attractive. Regulation or no regulation, I don't think you're gonna get down to 2c or 1c with a new nuclear plant. Maybe I'm wrong, and one day someone will figure out how to build SUPER cheap nuclear plants? But I doubt it. Best I would think they could do is some sort of hybrid system that uses nuclear generation, and then storage via a conventional hydro storage system or something maybe? I'd have to do the math on that. But yeah... 2c? That's very hard to do.
- joering2 8y ago
  Might be talking about European regulations. 15c per kw versus 3 in usa - thats 5x magnitude. Doesnt suprise - gallon of gas in most european countries (sold by liters and funny thing - you first pump then pay!) is about 40% more than same amount in USA. it has been like this forever and doesnt look like will ever change.
- pfdietz 8y ago
  Moltex is claiming they can get below $0.04/kWh (for N-th of a kind plants; FOAK would be a bit more expensive.) They can claim this plausibly for two reasons: first, they can build a MUCH smaller containment building, due to lack of water or other volatiles in the nuclear island. Second, their design isolates the turbines from the nuclear island with a molten salt "thermal battery". This allows some dispatchability in their output, but more importantly it means turbine trips have no effect on reactor stability, which means non-nuclear-grade turbines can be used. This is apparently a very large cost savings.
bayesian_horse 8y ago
I like regulating things that are radioactive or can potentially go boom. Especially both. [And yes, I know some designs are theoretically not able to melt/blow up]

trothamel 8y ago

That's a lot closer than you'd think then. While it varies from location to location, the capacity factor of solar seems to be about 20%. That means - sustained - a solar system generates 20% of it's maximum power rating, because the amount of power it produces is lessened during the winter, cloudy days, and of course at night. The nuclear capacity factor, on the other hand, is rather high. Upwards of 90%, and sometimes even upwards of 100% (due to the powerplants being able to produce more energy than they were designed for). If you factor that in, a nuclear plant has about a 4.5x capacity compared to a solar plant, meaning you'd have to spend 13.5c/kw for solar with the same capacity. Of course, this varies greatly based on where you are. In sunny climates, solar's capacity is more like 30%, while in northern climates, it can be 15%. And I'd imagine the cost of new nuclear very much depends on regulations - in the US, it might as well be infinite.

lukeschlather 8y ago
I think you're applying an imaginary capacity factor to a number that already accounts for solar's intermittent yield. Solar is simply way cheaper than nuclear.
- realusername 8y ago
  Does that account as well for the longevity of it? The current nuclear reactors lasted around 40 years already without much issues, I wouldn't bet the solar installations to last that long.
  - robbiep 8y ago
    Solar installations are generally rated for a 30 year life, so ¾ of nuclear isn’t bad, especially when you add in decommissioning costs which are going to be a lot lower for solar
    - natmaka 8y ago
      UK discounted provision for decommission costs: £100+ billion in 2013 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-nuclear-atomic-clean-up-decommissioning https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jun/23/britain-... £161 billion in 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093449/https://www.gov.u... £234 billion in 2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy/nuclear-provision-explaining-the-cost-of-cleaning-up-britains-nuclear-legacy https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-provision... ... and counting.

yazr 8y ago

EDIT UNIT CORRECTION: this is 3cent/khw and 15 c/kwh This means it is cost per final energy produced i.e. after taking into account capacity factors, day/night, etc