4 ms·

> We find that overnight construction costsbenefit directly from learning spillovers but that these spillovers are onlysignificant for nuclear models built by t

> We find that overnight construction costsbenefit directly from learning spillovers but that these spillovers are onlysignificant for nuclear models built by the same Architect-Engineer (A-E). In addition, we show that the standardization of nuclear reactorsunder construction has an indirect and positive effect on constructioncosts through a reduction in lead-time, the latter being oneof the maindrivers of construction costs. Conversely, we also explorethe possibility oflearning by searching and find that, contrary to other energytechnologies,innovation leads to construction costs increases https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956292/document https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00956292/document ...and that's why this one is also going to be much more expensive and will take longer than projected which makes it a waste of money if you care about things like global warming (which is currently the popular argument of the nuclear Astro-Turf) because all that could be much better invested into renewable energy: https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b809990c#!divAbstract https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b8099... https://www.rethinkx.com/energy-lcoe-executive-summary https://www.rethinkx.com/energy-lcoe-executive-summary https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652618326829 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09596...

ncmncm 5y ago
Yes: every dollar spent on this instead of building out solar and wind sets back progress fighting global climate disruption. No matter how clever your nuke is, solar and wind cost much less. Wyoming has some of the US's best territory for wind power extraction. Building wind turbines with that money could proceed immediately and be generating power in only months, without interfering at all with the current use of the land, and with no haggling with residents or regulators over safety now or forevermore. Solar heating of molten salt reservoirs was tried, and failed because it cost more than photovoltaics. Nukes, howsoever innovative, will certainly cost more than solar heating schemes. Also, containing circulating molten salt turned out to be harder than had been expected. I don't know of any reason why containing radioactive molten salt would be easier or cheaper. A photovoltaic and wind farm driving heat pumps to boil an underground steam reservoir would be overwhelmingly cheaper and easier to get and keep working, requiring no new tech, if the goal is to provide less interruptible power. There is really no scenario where this project makes economic sense on its own merits. It has to be driven by unexpressed intentions we can only speculate about. In the past, such intentions have typically involved securing public subsidies.
- macgyverismo 5y ago
  I think Bill Gates has a fairly balanced view of the energy needs/wants. At least that was my takeaway from reading his most recent book. I could see why we need fission energy even if we eventually find better ways of generating/capturing energy.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    BG has always been very clever, but historically that has meant clever at benefiting BG at our expense. PR finesse notwithstanding, I don't expect that has changed.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    I don't think he is and taking his book which advertises his investments as a base for argumentation is kinda...fishy. I linked several studies which clearly demonstrated that investing money in nuclear energy is not only a bad idea financially, it also hurts the fight against global warming because you can spend every $ only once.
- gregwebs 5y ago
  Solar and wind are intermittent. We also need green sources of energy that are constant or available on demand.
  - natch 5y ago
    There are many ways to store energy to suit different scenarios. Gravity with weights or pumped water, flywheels, lithium ion or other types of batteries, heated fluids, to name a few. You’re not informing anyone of something they don’t already know when you say solar and wind are intermittent. Solar and wind should be thought of as paired with storage.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    I see that you skipped over reading what you replied to. I will leave you to read that, and reply to that, instead.
Manuel_D 5y ago
The first one is going to be expensive, but subsequent plants if they're built will likely be cheaper. The whole point of your article is that standardization and repeated construction of the same design reduces cost, while first-of-a-kind projects are more expensive. Not every watt of energy is equal. Energy that is produced intermittently, is not interchangeable with dispatch-able energy. Renewable trail-blazers like California and Germany area already saturating the electricity market during peak production hours. The remaining carbon emissions are occurring when renewables aren't producing. That's a gap that only geographically dependent sources like hydro and geothermal, or nuclear are capable of filling. Or fossil fuels, which is what we're mostly using now.
- bob29 5y ago
  I think you're forgetting storage >The Australian study makes it clear that there’s far more resource capacity than is required. They modeled only 300-meter plus head heights close to grid connectivity with limited height dams and found 250 times as much capacity in the US as was needed. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/13/a-modest-pumped-storage-proposal-for-democratic-candidates/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/13/a-modest-pumped-storage...
  - Manuel_D 5y ago
    Storage at scales anywhere near what would be required to make any significant impact on fossil fuel use remains unavailable. To put this in perspective, the world uses about 60 TWh of electricity per day. And that's just grid electricity, it doesn't include heating (both for homes and for industry) and fuel.
    - bob29 5y ago
      I guess you didn't read the article, as it directly refutes your claim. >We found about 616,000 potentially feasible PHES sites with storage potential of about 23 million Gigawatt-hours (GWh) by using geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This is about one hundred times greater than required to support a 100% global renewable electricity system. Maybe someone on HN can convert 23 million gigawatt hours to terawatt hours and compare it to 60.
cinquemb 5y ago
CSP with molten salt would be cheaper than nuclear with molten salt [0] on a LCOE basis. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23589828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23589828

ncmncm 5y ago

Yes: every dollar spent on this instead of building out solar and wind sets back progress fighting global climate disruption. No matter how clever your nuke is, solar and wind cost much less. Wyoming has some of the US's best territory for wind power extraction. Building wind turbines with that money could proceed immediately and be generating power in only months, without interfering at all with the current use of the land, and with no haggling with residents or regulators over safety now or forevermore. Solar heating of molten salt reservoirs was tried, and failed because it cost more than photovoltaics. Nukes, howsoever innovative, will certainly cost more than solar heating schemes. Also, containing circulating molten salt turned out to be harder than had been expected. I don't know of any reason why containing radioactive molten salt would be easier or cheaper. A photovoltaic and wind farm driving heat pumps to boil an underground steam reservoir would be overwhelmingly cheaper and easier to get and keep working, requiring no new tech, if the goal is to provide less interruptible power. There is really no scenario where this project makes economic sense on its own merits. It has to be driven by unexpressed intentions we can only speculate about. In the past, such intentions have typically involved securing public subsidies.

macgyverismo 5y ago
I think Bill Gates has a fairly balanced view of the energy needs/wants. At least that was my takeaway from reading his most recent book. I could see why we need fission energy even if we eventually find better ways of generating/capturing energy.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  BG has always been very clever, but historically that has meant clever at benefiting BG at our expense. PR finesse notwithstanding, I don't expect that has changed.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  I don't think he is and taking his book which advertises his investments as a base for argumentation is kinda...fishy. I linked several studies which clearly demonstrated that investing money in nuclear energy is not only a bad idea financially, it also hurts the fight against global warming because you can spend every $ only once.
gregwebs 5y ago
Solar and wind are intermittent. We also need green sources of energy that are constant or available on demand.
- natch 5y ago
  There are many ways to store energy to suit different scenarios. Gravity with weights or pumped water, flywheels, lithium ion or other types of batteries, heated fluids, to name a few. You’re not informing anyone of something they don’t already know when you say solar and wind are intermittent. Solar and wind should be thought of as paired with storage.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  I see that you skipped over reading what you replied to. I will leave you to read that, and reply to that, instead.

Manuel_D 5y ago

The first one is going to be expensive, but subsequent plants if they're built will likely be cheaper. The whole point of your article is that standardization and repeated construction of the same design reduces cost, while first-of-a-kind projects are more expensive. Not every watt of energy is equal. Energy that is produced intermittently, is not interchangeable with dispatch-able energy. Renewable trail-blazers like California and Germany area already saturating the electricity market during peak production hours. The remaining carbon emissions are occurring when renewables aren't producing. That's a gap that only geographically dependent sources like hydro and geothermal, or nuclear are capable of filling. Or fossil fuels, which is what we're mostly using now.

bob29 5y ago
I think you're forgetting storage >The Australian study makes it clear that there’s far more resource capacity than is required. They modeled only 300-meter plus head heights close to grid connectivity with limited height dams and found 250 times as much capacity in the US as was needed. https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/13/a-modest-pumped-storage-proposal-for-democratic-candidates/ https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/13/a-modest-pumped-storage...
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  Storage at scales anywhere near what would be required to make any significant impact on fossil fuel use remains unavailable. To put this in perspective, the world uses about 60 TWh of electricity per day. And that's just grid electricity, it doesn't include heating (both for homes and for industry) and fuel.
  - bob29 5y ago
    I guess you didn't read the article, as it directly refutes your claim. >We found about 616,000 potentially feasible PHES sites with storage potential of about 23 million Gigawatt-hours (GWh) by using geographic information system (GIS) analysis. This is about one hundred times greater than required to support a 100% global renewable electricity system. Maybe someone on HN can convert 23 million gigawatt hours to terawatt hours and compare it to 60.

cinquemb 5y ago

CSP with molten salt would be cheaper than nuclear with molten salt [0] on a LCOE basis. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23589828 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23589828