5 ms·

600 billion = +/- overnight cost of 30 nuclear powerplants (AP-1000). And would struggle with providing 500Gw that the battery above could. At that scale ever

by jerven 6y ago

600 billion = +/- overnight cost of 30 nuclear powerplants (AP-1000). And would struggle with providing 500Gw that the battery above could. At that scale everything is expensive, but the market still seems to say that Nuclear is more expensive than the other options. My hand-wavy maths aside, the people who sign the checks seem to agree that today (2020, it is cheaper to get power from solar/wind + battery than nuclear). Cost of wind and solar today is what nuclear needs to beat, comparison to gas and coal are not relevant for new build systems (as in neither are getting the same kind of new build capacity as solar/wind in the coming years).

Manfredo_1 6y ago
The batteries need to be replaced every 5 to 10 years depending on how many cycles they can endure. By comparison, the AP-1000 is rated to last 60 years. Furthermore you're being very pessimistic with the $20 billion dollar cost estimate for the AP1000. Plants with equivalent output have been built for less than $10 billion. When you include the cost of storage, solar and wind is still enormously more expensive than nuclear. The reality is that we don't event know what storage at this scale would even look like. It would take 800 years of global battery production at the current production rates to reach the 3 weeks of energy storage required to decarbonize the US with renewables. And that's with the infeasible idea we're dedicating 100% of batteries to grid storage: no EVs, no smartphones, all grid storage. And again, this is just for the US's storage needs. Forget cost, energy storage at this scale isn't event possible with one current levels of technology.
- nullc 6y ago
  Batteries can be build that last more than 5 to 10 years. e.g. https://ironedison.com/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery https://ironedison.com/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    Nickel-Iron batteries have 10-20 times less energy density and are more difficult to manufacture. You might get a battery that lasts 30-50 years instead of 5-10 years but at a cost increase that's greater than the gain in number of cycles.
jakehop 6y ago
The battery isn't the source of the energy. You are missing wind and solar (which isn't free), an electrical grid overdesigned for the peak-energy requirements (since you will not get all of your energy over the course of a day). 4 APR-1400 will cost the UAE ~ $24.4 bn to complete. So $600 bn will give you 98 APR-1400 reactors, for a total of 131GW of electrical power – not to mention twice that in thermal power, which can be used for central heating, hydrogen production, etc. This thermal energy is currently ignored in almost all calculations; it makes little sense to include it in a debate that only focuses on electricity, but at the same time it makes little sense to have such a debate (unless one is a lobbyist), when the use-case is much broader. The most expensive part of nuclear energy are the capital costs – the discount rate in particular – since it is a "everything up front"-project, where political scrutiny is extremely high (much of it for good reason, but too much is mainly the 'vetocracy' and NIMBYism in action) and the low amount of new plants being built is limiting the build-up of knowledge. In my native country of Denmark, there is basically zero research in nuclear compared to other energy sources; even in the institutions that were led or founded by the Nobel-prize winning Danish physicist, Niels Bohr. That is all due to politics and it shifts the debate to be less and less about science, which is one of the saddest things to happen.
- jerven 6y ago
  So to meet the requirement of the poster I replied too, you need to spend another +/- $1800bn to get to the 500Gw peak power production. What amount of wind and solar can you purchase for that? Considering you have just bought the battery per the description? Hornsea 1 pricing would get you there, and that includes transmission etc. With Hornsea 2 being half that and other offshore even cheaper. After 60 years of being build and in action, the nuclear industry should be able to support it's own research needs. Considering the amounts still going to EurAtom (1.6 billion euro per five years) it is not yet as poor as one might expect. I think the Nuclear proponents should really look at the numbers as they are today and in the near future * Why are they are these not good enough in a modern market place. * Why are the safe modern reactors not build ? * Why are the smaller modular reactors not yet in the market ? * Where are the complications? is it the NIMBYs or has the nuclear power industry taken the wrong direction ? * On a manufacturing level, how come I can order pv or wind turbines from a vast number of players at short notice (years) ? * What is required to compete with the expected pricing cost of battery, wind and solar of 2035 ? * Why are so many projects delayed in the construction phase ? How often from lawsuits How often from defects * Could nuclear be build at a rate that makes a difference if money and site licenses were not an issue ? Nuclear should be wining, but why isn't it? My guess is that the physics is simple, but the chemistry is complicated.

by jerven 6y ago

Manfredo_1 6y ago

The batteries need to be replaced every 5 to 10 years depending on how many cycles they can endure. By comparison, the AP-1000 is rated to last 60 years. Furthermore you're being very pessimistic with the $20 billion dollar cost estimate for the AP1000. Plants with equivalent output have been built for less than $10 billion. When you include the cost of storage, solar and wind is still enormously more expensive than nuclear. The reality is that we don't event know what storage at this scale would even look like. It would take 800 years of global battery production at the current production rates to reach the 3 weeks of energy storage required to decarbonize the US with renewables. And that's with the infeasible idea we're dedicating 100% of batteries to grid storage: no EVs, no smartphones, all grid storage. And again, this is just for the US's storage needs. Forget cost, energy storage at this scale isn't event possible with one current levels of technology.

nullc 6y ago
Batteries can be build that last more than 5 to 10 years. e.g. https://ironedison.com/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery https://ironedison.com/nickel-iron-ni-fe-battery
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  Nickel-Iron batteries have 10-20 times less energy density and are more difficult to manufacture. You might get a battery that lasts 30-50 years instead of 5-10 years but at a cost increase that's greater than the gain in number of cycles.

jakehop 6y ago

The battery isn't the source of the energy. You are missing wind and solar (which isn't free), an electrical grid overdesigned for the peak-energy requirements (since you will not get all of your energy over the course of a day). 4 APR-1400 will cost the UAE ~ $24.4 bn to complete. So $600 bn will give you 98 APR-1400 reactors, for a total of 131GW of electrical power – not to mention twice that in thermal power, which can be used for central heating, hydrogen production, etc. This thermal energy is currently ignored in almost all calculations; it makes little sense to include it in a debate that only focuses on electricity, but at the same time it makes little sense to have such a debate (unless one is a lobbyist), when the use-case is much broader. The most expensive part of nuclear energy are the capital costs – the discount rate in particular – since it is a "everything up front"-project, where political scrutiny is extremely high (much of it for good reason, but too much is mainly the 'vetocracy' and NIMBYism in action) and the low amount of new plants being built is limiting the build-up of knowledge. In my native country of Denmark, there is basically zero research in nuclear compared to other energy sources; even in the institutions that were led or founded by the Nobel-prize winning Danish physicist, Niels Bohr. That is all due to politics and it shifts the debate to be less and less about science, which is one of the saddest things to happen.

jerven 6y ago
So to meet the requirement of the poster I replied too, you need to spend another +/- $1800bn to get to the 500Gw peak power production. What amount of wind and solar can you purchase for that? Considering you have just bought the battery per the description? Hornsea 1 pricing would get you there, and that includes transmission etc. With Hornsea 2 being half that and other offshore even cheaper. After 60 years of being build and in action, the nuclear industry should be able to support it's own research needs. Considering the amounts still going to EurAtom (1.6 billion euro per five years) it is not yet as poor as one might expect. I think the Nuclear proponents should really look at the numbers as they are today and in the near future * Why are they are these not good enough in a modern market place. * Why are the safe modern reactors not build ? * Why are the smaller modular reactors not yet in the market ? * Where are the complications? is it the NIMBYs or has the nuclear power industry taken the wrong direction ? * On a manufacturing level, how come I can order pv or wind turbines from a vast number of players at short notice (years) ? * What is required to compete with the expected pricing cost of battery, wind and solar of 2035 ? * Why are so many projects delayed in the construction phase ? How often from lawsuits How often from defects * Could nuclear be build at a rate that makes a difference if money and site licenses were not an issue ? Nuclear should be wining, but why isn't it? My guess is that the physics is simple, but the chemistry is complicated.