4 ms·

But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermitt

But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence)... It does not seems wise to bet that SMR will be cheaper than renewable in 10 to 20 years and wait and pray... SMR is not a viable option right now. That is an interesting possibility we should study and work on, that could be a good surprise later on, but right now 1) it is not ready 2) we don't know if it will be cost competitive... Putting aside nuclear risks and radioactive waste problem (that are minimized by SMR)

pfdietz 6y ago
SMRs are being touted not because they are particularly promising, but because they are the last option nuclear supporters have. Traditional reactors have run out of chances, so now it's either the Hail Mary Reactors or give up.
- jnxx 6y ago
  Are there any known problems or difficulties with them? I guess the materials science aspect is extremely difficult as it is already a huge problem in conventional designs...
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    The big problem is diseconomies of scale in construction and operation. They require more material per MW of power, and more staff too. The story is that economies of scale of manufacture, and changes to regulations about operation, can counter this, but that remains to be demonstrated.
pjc50 6y ago
Indeed. We need to keep rolling out renewables until nuclear is ready.
rwallace 6y ago
> But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence) The cost of solar and wind energy when the sun shines or the wind blows has certainly decreased a lot in recent years, you're right about that. But decreasing cost of managing intermittence? I haven't heard of any big recent advances in that (aside from the successful use in Australia of batteries to damp fluctuations on a timescale of minutes, which is great but doesn't address timescales of hours to months). What am I missing?
- dmurray 6y ago
  Battery storage has got way cheaper. 4x cheaper per kWh since 2013, according to [0]. They're still not cheap enough to make solar + batteries price-competitive in most markets, but their cost absolutely has been decreasing fast. [0] https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/04/powering-the-ev-revolution-battery-packs-now-at-156-kwh-13-lower-than-2018-finds-bnef/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/04/powering-the-ev-revolut...
  - evgen 6y ago
    Considering the fact that battery storage would need to undergo several orders of magnitude in price reduction to provide true grid-scale storage, does this really matter? Battery storage is, at best, going to provide municipal load for minutes or maybe hours, but it is unlikely to cover a 24-48 hour power ebb anytime in the next few decades.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      If battery storage keeps getting cheaper at the same rate, then yes - two orders of magnitude would be seen in twenty years. Absolutely an important consideration if you're considering a big upfront investment in a nuclear plant whose returns will be realized twenty to seventy years from now (or whatever reasonable build time and operating lifetime you come up with). Needing "several orders of magnitude" improvement is also pessimistic. There are installations that are borderline economically profitable right now (Tesla battery farm in South Australia): another factor of 5 or 10 makes those attractive in many more places.
radu_floricica 6y ago
Why do you frame it as a decision between the two? The market is beyond huge, there are bound to be use cases where one or the other is clearly better. Also a 10x cost improvement on nuclear would blow everything else away (in a good way). I don't think renewables have the same potential - for one thing, they're a more mature technology (weird, I know, but they've been the focus of global development for quite some time now). And also there's only so much energy you can get out of solar and wind - you just can't get more than 1.3 kw from a square meter of solar, you have to cover more square meters. On the other hand there's no theoretical reason why you wouldn't have a clean, safe reactor in each car. It's just a technological challenge.

pfdietz 6y ago

SMRs are being touted not because they are particularly promising, but because they are the last option nuclear supporters have. Traditional reactors have run out of chances, so now it's either the Hail Mary Reactors or give up.

jnxx 6y ago
Are there any known problems or difficulties with them? I guess the materials science aspect is extremely difficult as it is already a huge problem in conventional designs...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  The big problem is diseconomies of scale in construction and operation. They require more material per MW of power, and more staff too. The story is that economies of scale of manufacture, and changes to regulations about operation, can counter this, but that remains to be demonstrated.

pjc50 6y ago

Indeed. We need to keep rolling out renewables until nuclear is ready.

rwallace 6y ago

> But the fact is we have now cheap existing clean technologies, with a fast decreasing cost (decreasing cost of energy, and decreasing cost of managing intermittence) The cost of solar and wind energy when the sun shines or the wind blows has certainly decreased a lot in recent years, you're right about that. But decreasing cost of managing intermittence? I haven't heard of any big recent advances in that (aside from the successful use in Australia of batteries to damp fluctuations on a timescale of minutes, which is great but doesn't address timescales of hours to months). What am I missing?

dmurray 6y ago
Battery storage has got way cheaper. 4x cheaper per kWh since 2013, according to [0]. They're still not cheap enough to make solar + batteries price-competitive in most markets, but their cost absolutely has been decreasing fast. [0] https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/04/powering-the-ev-revolution-battery-packs-now-at-156-kwh-13-lower-than-2018-finds-bnef/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/04/powering-the-ev-revolut...
- evgen 6y ago
  Considering the fact that battery storage would need to undergo several orders of magnitude in price reduction to provide true grid-scale storage, does this really matter? Battery storage is, at best, going to provide municipal load for minutes or maybe hours, but it is unlikely to cover a 24-48 hour power ebb anytime in the next few decades.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    If battery storage keeps getting cheaper at the same rate, then yes - two orders of magnitude would be seen in twenty years. Absolutely an important consideration if you're considering a big upfront investment in a nuclear plant whose returns will be realized twenty to seventy years from now (or whatever reasonable build time and operating lifetime you come up with). Needing "several orders of magnitude" improvement is also pessimistic. There are installations that are borderline economically profitable right now (Tesla battery farm in South Australia): another factor of 5 or 10 makes those attractive in many more places.

radu_floricica 6y ago

Why do you frame it as a decision between the two? The market is beyond huge, there are bound to be use cases where one or the other is clearly better. Also a 10x cost improvement on nuclear would blow everything else away (in a good way). I don't think renewables have the same potential - for one thing, they're a more mature technology (weird, I know, but they've been the focus of global development for quite some time now). And also there's only so much energy you can get out of solar and wind - you just can't get more than 1.3 kw from a square meter of solar, you have to cover more square meters. On the other hand there's no theoretical reason why you wouldn't have a clean, safe reactor in each car. It's just a technological challenge.