3 ms·

We need to build thousands of these immediately to provide baseload power and decommission all fossil fuels

epistasis 6y ago
Back in the mid-2000s there was a huge policy, PR, and financing push to have a nuclear renaissance. Lots of plans were made. Economics were ignored (and honestly should have been ignored because the worst case nuclear cost is still cheaper than climate change). After that huge push, we have nothing to show for it except for a tiny number of half-finished, over-budget, behind schedule construction projects, and a toooooon of abandoned projects. The UK can't even find somebody to build their projects anymore. Hope has turned towards these small reactors, after the failure to build big reactors--despite immensely favorable regulatory, finance, and PR settings. I don't know of local opposition to a single reactor! At least not enough to cause a stir. Thousands of small reactors won't be enough, and we won't be able to build thousands for another 10-20 years. So we are instead stuck with renewables and storage. And just like we were right to throw experimental money at nuclear in the mid-2000s when we didn't really believe the numbers, I think we are far better grounded to throw equal billions of dollars (at least $40B in the US) at storage projects that the industry currently disregards. We have far better pricing data for storage, it's deployable within a year, and it has massive benefits. And investing now will decrease the cost more quickly. Throw several billion each at more speculative storage techs like flow chemistries and cryogenic air storage, and then the rest at standard, shipping, off the shelf lithium ion. We will see massive industries come into formation whose economic productivity and value dwarfs the tiny $40B we spent on kickstarting it. This will work, without a doubt. Nuclear may or may not work, it remains to be seen.
- ArkVark 6y ago
  The missing component is the need to integrate Electric Vehicles into the grid on a fundamental basis including selling electricity. We need a technical, regulatory and user regime to support this. For starters, by transmitting power demand/price information to cars so they can decide when to charge, and also allowing cars to deposit electricity back into the network. If we manage this smartly, we can have battery storage and EVs in one go.
  - epistasis 6y ago
    Yes, exactly! A Tesla-size battery is three days' of electricity use for many people's homes. So we will be building massive amounts of storage as we shift our car fleet to electric (though personally I hope that we can massively cut down on car use too, due to the amount of PM2.5 pollution even EVs cause. The biggest source of microplastics in CA is tire road wear, not plastic bags or straws, yet the idea of reducing car travel is faaaaaar outside the Overton window even as we try to ban single use plastics.) I think there's lots of room for demand response, both in terms of pre-cooling houses or pre-charging batters. But I would love to be able to power my house with the 50amps that my car battery could provide. If you're only taking a couple kWh at peak times, it has nearly an effect on battery longevity and could provide great value to both the grid and user if price signals could be used in an automated fashion. For a model that won't scale to the general population, OhmConnect in CA will pay residences to reduce usage at certain hours, averaging about 6 hours per month for me. During the recent CA high load days, I made about $50 with minimal action on my part (used all the normal lighting, etc. just didn't run the dishwasher or clothes dryer during that period).
    - bananabreakfast 6y ago
      Wait what? Where exactly is that pollution from EVs coming from? Seems a pretty big leap you took there.
      - epistasis 6y ago
        EVs still have tires, and though regenerative braking is far better than using brake pads, at low speeds and frequent braking that occurs in congestion and city driving forces EVs to use brake pads. This is the source of fine particulate matter, reported as PM2.5 in air quality, that results in ~50k premature US deaths per year [1] [2]. Tire particulates are the major source of oceanic microplastics off the CA coast [3]. Tire manufacturers produce tires that produce fewer particulates and last longer and are more expensive upfront, but which have a lower total cost of ownership. [4] Sorry for the big leap, I accumulate all these news bits by trawling deeply in a few narrow topics, and forget that they are not common knowledge and often obscure. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... [2] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emi... [3] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-02/california-microplastics-ocean-study https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-02/califor... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyres-plastic-environment-insight-idUSKCN22413H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyres-plastic-environment...
- willis936 6y ago
  This nuclear renaissance sounds interesting. I can't find record of it. Could you point me to some sources? To be clear: to me it looks like a "nuclear renaissance" is a hypothetical concept. Like a goal that was never attempted due to public image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance
  - epistasis 6y ago
    I don't know of any authoritative histories yet, I'm just an outsider to the energy industry that follows closely. The US media is in shambles, and few people care about the grid, so it doesn't get much reporting here. And for the lobbying efforts that it took to convince the utilities to back nuclear were kind of shady: the utilities had to be promised that they would get paid by rate payers for the construction projects even as construction costs ballooned and even if the construction projects failed. This is not the type of screwing of customers that one wants done very publicly. But no US utility is going to take on the immense risk for tiny reward of paying for a nuclear plant without such a ridiculous guarantee. At least not until there are several successes and utilities can start to trust the industry again after all the financial disasters from construction mismanagement in the 1970s. In South Carolina the law was called the Base Load Review Act [1]. Something similar was passed in Georgia but I'm having trouble finding it now. Here's Lindsay Graham using the term "nuclear renaissance" [2]. Here's a 2017 article talking about how the VC Summer plant in Georgia was to be part of it [3]. In the UK this took the form of an explicit name of "nuclear renaissance" in government communication [4]. I see it commonly used to describe the efforts of many to rebuild nuclear starting in the 2000s, but I don't think that Wikipedia page does much good about actually describing the very real lobbying efforts that went on in the US and UK to make it happen, despite (in retrospect well-founded) qualms by many involved in the energy industry. [1] "... constitutionality of the 2007 state law that allowed SCE&G to recoup construction costs from ratepayers while construction took place." https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article174561111.html https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article174561111.h... [2] https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/sen-lindsey-graham-wants-nuclear-renaissance-thinks-republican-memo-has-no-mueller-consequence/article_d4409f85-83b3-5add-8180-de7c38e64ffb.html https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/sen-lindse... [3] https://www.axios.com/santee-cooper-sce-g-pause-work-on-14b-nuclear-power-project-2467622010.html https://www.axios.com/santee-cooper-sce-g-pause-work-on-14b-... [4] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leading-the-way-the-uks-new-nuclear-renaissance https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leading-the-way-the-u...
- kochthesecond 6y ago
  Parts of Europe have had massive public opposition to building new nuclear the past 25 years.
Krasnol 6y ago
"immediately"? In nuclear terms it's not earlier than in 10 years. Later being more likely just like more expansive. Luckily nobody besides the Michael Shellenberger Fan Club is falling for this line these days.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
At >$6 Billion per, I don't think we're going to be build thousands any time soon.

Back in the mid-2000s there was a huge policy, PR, and financing push to have a nuclear renaissance. Lots of plans were made. Economics were ignored (and honestly should have been ignored because the worst case nuclear cost is still cheaper than climate change). After that huge push, we have nothing to show for it except for a tiny number of half-finished, over-budget, behind schedule construction projects, and a toooooon of abandoned projects. The UK can't even find somebody to build their projects anymore. Hope has turned towards these small reactors, after the failure to build big reactors--despite immensely favorable regulatory, finance, and PR settings. I don't know of local opposition to a single reactor! At least not enough to cause a stir. Thousands of small reactors won't be enough, and we won't be able to build thousands for another 10-20 years. So we are instead stuck with renewables and storage. And just like we were right to throw experimental money at nuclear in the mid-2000s when we didn't really believe the numbers, I think we are far better grounded to throw equal billions of dollars (at least $40B in the US) at storage projects that the industry currently disregards. We have far better pricing data for storage, it's deployable within a year, and it has massive benefits. And investing now will decrease the cost more quickly. Throw several billion each at more speculative storage techs like flow chemistries and cryogenic air storage, and then the rest at standard, shipping, off the shelf lithium ion. We will see massive industries come into formation whose economic productivity and value dwarfs the tiny $40B we spent on kickstarting it. This will work, without a doubt. Nuclear may or may not work, it remains to be seen.

ArkVark 6y ago
The missing component is the need to integrate Electric Vehicles into the grid on a fundamental basis including selling electricity. We need a technical, regulatory and user regime to support this. For starters, by transmitting power demand/price information to cars so they can decide when to charge, and also allowing cars to deposit electricity back into the network. If we manage this smartly, we can have battery storage and EVs in one go.
- epistasis 6y ago
  Yes, exactly! A Tesla-size battery is three days' of electricity use for many people's homes. So we will be building massive amounts of storage as we shift our car fleet to electric (though personally I hope that we can massively cut down on car use too, due to the amount of PM2.5 pollution even EVs cause. The biggest source of microplastics in CA is tire road wear, not plastic bags or straws, yet the idea of reducing car travel is faaaaaar outside the Overton window even as we try to ban single use plastics.) I think there's lots of room for demand response, both in terms of pre-cooling houses or pre-charging batters. But I would love to be able to power my house with the 50amps that my car battery could provide. If you're only taking a couple kWh at peak times, it has nearly an effect on battery longevity and could provide great value to both the grid and user if price signals could be used in an automated fashion. For a model that won't scale to the general population, OhmConnect in CA will pay residences to reduce usage at certain hours, averaging about 6 hours per month for me. During the recent CA high load days, I made about $50 with minimal action on my part (used all the normal lighting, etc. just didn't run the dishwasher or clothes dryer during that period).
  - bananabreakfast 6y ago
    Wait what? Where exactly is that pollution from EVs coming from? Seems a pretty big leap you took there.
    - epistasis 6y ago
      EVs still have tires, and though regenerative braking is far better than using brake pads, at low speeds and frequent braking that occurs in congestion and city driving forces EVs to use brake pads. This is the source of fine particulate matter, reported as PM2.5 in air quality, that results in ~50k premature US deaths per year [1] [2]. Tire particulates are the major source of oceanic microplastics off the CA coast [3]. Tire manufacturers produce tires that produce fewer particulates and last longer and are more expensive upfront, but which have a lower total cost of ownership. [4] Sorry for the big leap, I accumulate all these news bits by trawling deeply in a few narrow topics, and forget that they are not common knowledge and often obscure. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1352231013004548 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13522... [2] https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emissions-cause-58000-premature-deaths-yearly-in-u-s/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/10/22/mit-study-vehicle-emi... [3] https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-02/california-microplastics-ocean-study https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-02/califor... [4] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyres-plastic-environment-insight-idUSKCN22413H https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tyres-plastic-environment...
willis936 6y ago
This nuclear renaissance sounds interesting. I can't find record of it. Could you point me to some sources? To be clear: to me it looks like a "nuclear renaissance" is a hypothetical concept. Like a goal that was never attempted due to public image. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance
- epistasis 6y ago
  I don't know of any authoritative histories yet, I'm just an outsider to the energy industry that follows closely. The US media is in shambles, and few people care about the grid, so it doesn't get much reporting here. And for the lobbying efforts that it took to convince the utilities to back nuclear were kind of shady: the utilities had to be promised that they would get paid by rate payers for the construction projects even as construction costs ballooned and even if the construction projects failed. This is not the type of screwing of customers that one wants done very publicly. But no US utility is going to take on the immense risk for tiny reward of paying for a nuclear plant without such a ridiculous guarantee. At least not until there are several successes and utilities can start to trust the industry again after all the financial disasters from construction mismanagement in the 1970s. In South Carolina the law was called the Base Load Review Act [1]. Something similar was passed in Georgia but I'm having trouble finding it now. Here's Lindsay Graham using the term "nuclear renaissance" [2]. Here's a 2017 article talking about how the VC Summer plant in Georgia was to be part of it [3]. In the UK this took the form of an explicit name of "nuclear renaissance" in government communication [4]. I see it commonly used to describe the efforts of many to rebuild nuclear starting in the 2000s, but I don't think that Wikipedia page does much good about actually describing the very real lobbying efforts that went on in the US and UK to make it happen, despite (in retrospect well-founded) qualms by many involved in the energy industry. [1] "... constitutionality of the 2007 state law that allowed SCE&G to recoup construction costs from ratepayers while construction took place." https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article174561111.html https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article174561111.h... [2] https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/sen-lindsey-graham-wants-nuclear-renaissance-thinks-republican-memo-has-no-mueller-consequence/article_d4409f85-83b3-5add-8180-de7c38e64ffb.html https://www.postandcourier.com/aikenstandard/news/sen-lindse... [3] https://www.axios.com/santee-cooper-sce-g-pause-work-on-14b-nuclear-power-project-2467622010.html https://www.axios.com/santee-cooper-sce-g-pause-work-on-14b-... [4] https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leading-the-way-the-uks-new-nuclear-renaissance https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/leading-the-way-the-u...
kochthesecond 6y ago
Parts of Europe have had massive public opposition to building new nuclear the past 25 years.

Krasnol 6y ago

"immediately"? In nuclear terms it's not earlier than in 10 years. Later being more likely just like more expansive. Luckily nobody besides the Michael Shellenberger Fan Club is falling for this line these days.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

At >$6 Billion per, I don't think we're going to be build thousands any time soon.