4 ms·

Whenever we talk about nuclear power on HN, people are split in two groups: those who'd love to see nuclear power succeeding, and those who are against it and w

Whenever we talk about nuclear power on HN, people are split in two groups: those who'd love to see nuclear power succeeding, and those who are against it and who support solar and wind. I am pro both nuclear and renewables. Solar and wind have been on an absolute tear lately. At least in the US (where I live) new solar and wind construction has been growing at a breathtaking pace during the last decade. Take a look at the latest data from the EIA [1]. For the last month available, July 2022, solar and wind generated together 45 Terawatts hour of electricity. Coal generated 86 TWh. But 3 months prior, solar/wind produced 60 TWh, while coal only 55. To get an appreciation for how much solar and wind have grown over the last 2 decades, here's their July production every 5 years since 2002 (in TWh): 2002: 1 2007: 2 2012: 7 2017: 22 2022: 45 Somewhere up there Moore is smiling. Guys who are pro-solar and pro-wind: rejoice, you have won. Solar and wind have achieved escape velocity. If they keep it like that, we won't have any problems fully decarbonizing by 2050. We'll actually get there sooner. Without any help from nuclear. We won't even need batteries or hydrogen. Few people know, but we could keep all the current natural gas plant and still achieve net zero (actually net negative). How is that possible, you ask? Right now the forests absorb about 13% of the total emissions in the US [2]. Electricity generation contributes by 25% to the total emissions, and natural gas generates less than half of those. So overall, land and forestry absorb more greenhouse gases than those produced by the natural gas power plants. If we increase solar and power, at some point we will need natural gas to only cover the intermittency. That means, even if we keep all the current natural gas plants, their usage will go down, and their emissions. If we cut all other sources of greenhouse gases (apart from aviation, which depends on energy dense fuels, and contributes quite little to the total emission), we will have no problems to achieve net zero by 2050, and very likely much sooner. On the nuclear side, things are looking quite good too. Just head to the DoE infographic [3] and see how many cool ideas are in the works. My favorite ones are the fast reactors. But they are just vaporware, you say. In that case, head to the NRC webpage [4], and click on some links over there, and see that all of those ventures (and some more) have already started the licensing process. Of course, none is as advanced as NuScale. But my point is that NuScale is not our only hope. Lots of other startups are hot on their tails. My prediction is that 15 years from now, more than 1 of all these startups will have delivered reactors that will be selling electricity at a profit, without subsidies. [1] https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/ [2] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... [3] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reactor-development https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reac... [4] https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing-activities/pre-application-activities.html https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/licensing...

ncmncm 4y ago
There has never been a nuke plant operated without subsidies, anywhere in the world, and probably never will be. In the US, taxpayers pick up the tab for disaster insurance because no private insurer is big enough. No reactor would be left enough to operate, paying the premiums on that policy. By 2040, all the existing nukes will have been shut down, unable to deliver enough power at the spot price to continue operating. The less each sells, the more each kWh it delivers has cost. When shut down early, the cost of every kWh it ever delivered jumps up as construction cost is amortized over less lifetime output. So, no, the only way to figure commercially competitive nuke power is by cooking the books.
- credit_guy 4y ago
  > and probably never will be I don't get it. If there will be one, are you going to be unhappy? Because you surely sound like you'd be unhappy.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    I mean the odds of somebody coming up with a nuke that can be operated purely on non-compulsory commercial power rates are slim to none. No one has ever even tried. Everyone promoting SMR relies heavily on continued massive subsidy to make it seem viable.
- ryoshu 4y ago
  What are the subsidies of nuclear compared to wind, solar, fossil fuels, etc. Do those subsidies include the cost of externalities like nuclear waste disposal/storage vs. pollution from fossil fuels or disposal of things like batteries for renewables? And costs for things like mining, building, etc. raw materials to get the various systems up and running, maintenance, etc. Honest questions. I haven't seen anyone run those numbers.
jillesvangurp 4y ago
I'm pro whatever is cheapest and fastest. Which just isn't nuclear. For every GW of nuclear coming online, there are hundreds of wind and solar GW coming online. An order of magnitude more power in an order of magnitude less time. And things are getting cheaper and faster still. Fifteen years from now that will be a lot cheaper and faster. Any plan that does not take that into account is not a great plan. And my problem with many of these nuclear startups is that they don't seem to do that. They are reluctant to talk about cost because it's a weakness and a problem for which they have no solution. We're in a weird transition phase where gas/coal generation still exists and matters but have obvious financial challenges that are getting worse very quickly. Courtesy of the Russians, everybody is well aware of that now and can look forward to some really steep energy bills in the next year. But investors have been voting with their feet long before that happened as this has been quite obvious for a while now. Coal plants have been shutting down in many countries mainly for cost reasons and with a few exceptions (China, India), very few countries are building new ones. And now that cheap Russian gas is not an option, gas plants just got a lot more expensive to operate and they were already too expensive before that. Basically, that's an industry that is experiencing a rapidly accelerating collapse. It won't take until 2050 for that to be completed. The only remaining debate is how soon we'll turn the remaining plants off. That's mostly a function of production capacity for solar and wind generation and energy storage solutions. More investment is flowing into that industry every year and we're seeing massive sustained growth there for decades in term of new capacity coming online every year. It's a super profitable industry to be in and a lot of those profits are getting reinvested in more and even better stuff. Lots of countries have been revising their already ambitious plans to become carbon neutral to be even more ambitious as they find themselves beating their own expectations of just a few years ago on this front. Ten years from now, a lot of countries will get the vast majority of their power from renewables and the remaining ones will be busy figuring out how to get in on the action. Nuclear is getting lots of attention and investment obviously. But planned new capacity does not add up to mattering much at all over the next fifteen years. A few GW here and there vs. hundreds of GW in the next few years alone. And it takes that long to plan more nuclear plants and there are very little signs of countries warming up to that notion. A lot of those nuclear startups you mentioned won't hit volume production (if they survive long enough) before most countries have shut down all their remaining coal and gas plants. Which in Germany would be around 2035 according tot he latest plans. And those plans don't seem to involve any nuclear. Of course, that timeline might be accelerated due to recent events..

ncmncm 4y ago

There has never been a nuke plant operated without subsidies, anywhere in the world, and probably never will be. In the US, taxpayers pick up the tab for disaster insurance because no private insurer is big enough. No reactor would be left enough to operate, paying the premiums on that policy. By 2040, all the existing nukes will have been shut down, unable to deliver enough power at the spot price to continue operating. The less each sells, the more each kWh it delivers has cost. When shut down early, the cost of every kWh it ever delivered jumps up as construction cost is amortized over less lifetime output. So, no, the only way to figure commercially competitive nuke power is by cooking the books.

credit_guy 4y ago
> and probably never will be I don't get it. If there will be one, are you going to be unhappy? Because you surely sound like you'd be unhappy.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  I mean the odds of somebody coming up with a nuke that can be operated purely on non-compulsory commercial power rates are slim to none. No one has ever even tried. Everyone promoting SMR relies heavily on continued massive subsidy to make it seem viable.
ryoshu 4y ago
What are the subsidies of nuclear compared to wind, solar, fossil fuels, etc. Do those subsidies include the cost of externalities like nuclear waste disposal/storage vs. pollution from fossil fuels or disposal of things like batteries for renewables? And costs for things like mining, building, etc. raw materials to get the various systems up and running, maintenance, etc. Honest questions. I haven't seen anyone run those numbers.

jillesvangurp 4y ago

I'm pro whatever is cheapest and fastest. Which just isn't nuclear. For every GW of nuclear coming online, there are hundreds of wind and solar GW coming online. An order of magnitude more power in an order of magnitude less time. And things are getting cheaper and faster still. Fifteen years from now that will be a lot cheaper and faster. Any plan that does not take that into account is not a great plan. And my problem with many of these nuclear startups is that they don't seem to do that. They are reluctant to talk about cost because it's a weakness and a problem for which they have no solution. We're in a weird transition phase where gas/coal generation still exists and matters but have obvious financial challenges that are getting worse very quickly. Courtesy of the Russians, everybody is well aware of that now and can look forward to some really steep energy bills in the next year. But investors have been voting with their feet long before that happened as this has been quite obvious for a while now. Coal plants have been shutting down in many countries mainly for cost reasons and with a few exceptions (China, India), very few countries are building new ones. And now that cheap Russian gas is not an option, gas plants just got a lot more expensive to operate and they were already too expensive before that. Basically, that's an industry that is experiencing a rapidly accelerating collapse. It won't take until 2050 for that to be completed. The only remaining debate is how soon we'll turn the remaining plants off. That's mostly a function of production capacity for solar and wind generation and energy storage solutions. More investment is flowing into that industry every year and we're seeing massive sustained growth there for decades in term of new capacity coming online every year. It's a super profitable industry to be in and a lot of those profits are getting reinvested in more and even better stuff. Lots of countries have been revising their already ambitious plans to become carbon neutral to be even more ambitious as they find themselves beating their own expectations of just a few years ago on this front. Ten years from now, a lot of countries will get the vast majority of their power from renewables and the remaining ones will be busy figuring out how to get in on the action. Nuclear is getting lots of attention and investment obviously. But planned new capacity does not add up to mattering much at all over the next fifteen years. A few GW here and there vs. hundreds of GW in the next few years alone. And it takes that long to plan more nuclear plants and there are very little signs of countries warming up to that notion. A lot of those nuclear startups you mentioned won't hit volume production (if they survive long enough) before most countries have shut down all their remaining coal and gas plants. Which in Germany would be around 2035 according tot he latest plans. And those plans don't seem to involve any nuclear. Of course, that timeline might be accelerated due to recent events..