25 ms·

To put in other units: a rise from previous targets of $58/MWh to $89/MWh, more than 50%, not including a $30/MWh subsidy (so the true cost is actually $119/MWh

To put in other units: a rise from previous targets of $58/MWh to $89/MWh, more than 50%, not including a $30/MWh subsidy (so the true cost is actually $119/MWh). To be fair, it says the cost increases are mainly due to the rise in construction material prices as well as financing costs; nothing inherent to nuclear power or the novel technology itself.

timerol 4y ago
Producer price index on steel pipe and structural steel are bonkers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU3312103312100 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU3312103312100 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU33231233231211 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU33231233231211
coder543 4y ago
To provide more context, wind and solar were both in the low $30's/MWh of LCOE (levelized cost of energy) 3 years ago[0], with that number predicted to continue falling rapidly. Combined cycle (natural gas) is a bit higher[1] than solar and wind, with that number expected to rise over time, and I'm fairly sure the current numbers don't really reflect the substantial cost of the carbon emissions, which we will all have to pay for sooner or later. Either way, the number utilities see is currently much lower than SMRs. I'm pretty sure every prediction I've ever seen for how quickly the cost of wind and solar will fall has underestimated the speed in retrospect. That's the kind of thing these reactors have to compete with. Grids have also repeatedly been shown to handle more renewables than every previous prediction would make, and we haven't hit the limit. At this point, fossil fuel sources more frequently a source of blackouts than than renewables from everything I've seen, despite certain people blaming renewables at every turn. What we need is more energy storage, whether that's in the form of traditional batteries or more novel forms of energy storage. I think nuclear is a fine source of energy if you have it, but evidence over the last several decades shows that it is virtually impossible to build for myriad reasons. The Vogtle nuclear reactors have been one giant boondoggle. New nuclear is not cost competitive, unfortunately. This was also an interesting article yesterday: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/19/michael-bloomberg-backs-renewable-energy-in-new-op-ed/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/19/michael-bloomberg-backs... [0]: https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-heres-where-renewable-costs-are-heading/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-heres-where-renewable-co... [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46856 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46856
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > What we need is more energy storage, whether that's in the form of traditional batteries or more novel forms of energy storage. Batteries are a nightmare at grid scale from an environmental perspective. Other forms of storage are needed (pumped hydro for example), or nuclear plus renewable on top of a smart-grid capable of adjusting demand instead. It's fundamentally far more difficult and costly to adjust supply (or to buffer with storage) than it is to reduce demand during periods of low renewable generation. As more EVs and their chargers come online, instantaneous load reductions become cheap and easy - and possible.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Plain old combined cycle can handle a lot of the demand peaks. We already have that in place. If they operate 1% or even 5% of the time, we've still cut vast amounts of carbon. There would be much lower hanging fruit than trying to replace that last fraction with nuclear. We have a solution already in place. That doesn't mean all research on modular reactors should stop. It would have a niche if it worked. It's just not the thing holding back decarbonization, and not an excuse to hold back as much renewables as possible as fast as possible.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      And if they have to operate 1% of the time, they can do that with hydrogen, and the fuel cost will be inconsequential.
  - coder543 4y ago
    > Batteries are a nightmare at grid scale from an environmental perspective. Which part[0], exactly? I think most people dramatically overestimate the level of "nightmare", and battery contents are highly recyclable. We don't have a ton of battery recycling right now because there aren't enough failing batteries yet to support the necessary facilities, but several companies are starting to ramp up. Also worth considering that even after a battery is "too old" to use in an EV, it is perfectly fine to use in stationary storage applications for quite awhile longer ("reuse") even before it is time to recycle and rebuild those components into a new battery. > It's fundamentally far more difficult and costly to adjust supply (or to buffer with storage) than it is to reduce demand during periods of low renewable generation. As more EVs and their chargers come online, instantaneous load reductions become cheap and easy - and possible. I completely agree with this, and most people either can't or won't see this point in discussions about renewables. The more predictable load that comes online, the easier it is to justify more production. Even if that production is using so-called "intermittent" renewables, when the need arises, asking people to voluntarily avoid charging for a day would be equivalent to adding a huge amount of production suddenly, just by removing load. (And EVs have enough range for a week of normal commuting for most people, easily. The few people who need to charge desperately would be able to charge without problems.) If you pay people for volunteering to participate in Demand Response, you will get plenty of volunteers. "Demand response" is a critical part of the grid of the future. [0]: https://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/97/28/WEB/09728-cover-schematic.jpg https://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/97/28/WEB/09728-cover-sc...
epistasis 4y ago
> cost increases are mainly due to the rise in construction material prices as well as financing costs; nothing inherent to nuclear power or the novel technology itself. I would argue that construction is inherent to nuclear power, and is in fact the biggest draw back about nuclear power. SMRs were the attempt to mitigate most of the disadvantages of a constructed product, versus a manufactured product. There's still significant work needed to convert nuclear into a technology that has a learning curve. I think this work has some of the best insights about which technologies do or do not experience learning curves with price drops: https://www.volts.wtf/p/learning-curves-will-lead-to-extremely https://www.volts.wtf/p/learning-curves-will-lead-to-extreme...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- theptip 4y ago
  Yeah this is a big problem with fusion too, it requires a really big concrete footprint which limits how cheap the power can be.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    And the welding, soooo much welding...
  - anonuser123456 4y ago
    Too much concrete is probably the smallest of fusions problems. The tritium fuel cycle is pretty much impossible to solve economically. We already know hydrogen infrastructure isn’t very cost effective. So imagine radioactive hydrogen.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      This is one reason (among many) to prefer Helion. It doesn't use DT, so it doesn't have the problem of closing a tritium cycle. It won't even have a lithium blanket. Tritium does get produced from DD reactions, but it can be just separated from D, stored in metal hydride beds, and allowed to decay to 3He.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Krasnol 4y ago
There is one thing nuclear never runs out of: excuses why it gets more expensive and takes longer.
cinntaile 4y ago
> To be fair, it says the cost increases are mainly due to the rise in construction material prices as well as financing costs; nothing inherent to nuclear power or the novel technology itself. The problem is mostly cost. Now that we're entering a higher interest environment, the situation is unlikely to improve.
dv_dt 4y ago
Nothing inherent except that nuclear portions of the plan needs needs a higher level of construction to build the (non-nuclear) support infrastructure to operate

timerol 4y ago

Producer price index on steel pipe and structural steel are bonkers: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU3312103312100 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU3312103312100 and https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU33231233231211 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCU33231233231211

coder543 4y ago

To provide more context, wind and solar were both in the low $30's/MWh of LCOE (levelized cost of energy) 3 years ago[0], with that number predicted to continue falling rapidly. Combined cycle (natural gas) is a bit higher[1] than solar and wind, with that number expected to rise over time, and I'm fairly sure the current numbers don't really reflect the substantial cost of the carbon emissions, which we will all have to pay for sooner or later. Either way, the number utilities see is currently much lower than SMRs. I'm pretty sure every prediction I've ever seen for how quickly the cost of wind and solar will fall has underestimated the speed in retrospect. That's the kind of thing these reactors have to compete with. Grids have also repeatedly been shown to handle more renewables than every previous prediction would make, and we haven't hit the limit. At this point, fossil fuel sources more frequently a source of blackouts than than renewables from everything I've seen, despite certain people blaming renewables at every turn. What we need is more energy storage, whether that's in the form of traditional batteries or more novel forms of energy storage. I think nuclear is a fine source of energy if you have it, but evidence over the last several decades shows that it is virtually impossible to build for myriad reasons. The Vogtle nuclear reactors have been one giant boondoggle. New nuclear is not cost competitive, unfortunately. This was also an interesting article yesterday: https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/19/michael-bloomberg-backs-renewable-energy-in-new-op-ed/ https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/19/michael-bloomberg-backs... [0]: https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-heres-where-renewable-costs-are-heading/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-heres-where-renewable-co... [1]: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46856 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=46856

arcticbull 4y ago
> What we need is more energy storage, whether that's in the form of traditional batteries or more novel forms of energy storage. Batteries are a nightmare at grid scale from an environmental perspective. Other forms of storage are needed (pumped hydro for example), or nuclear plus renewable on top of a smart-grid capable of adjusting demand instead. It's fundamentally far more difficult and costly to adjust supply (or to buffer with storage) than it is to reduce demand during periods of low renewable generation. As more EVs and their chargers come online, instantaneous load reductions become cheap and easy - and possible.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Plain old combined cycle can handle a lot of the demand peaks. We already have that in place. If they operate 1% or even 5% of the time, we've still cut vast amounts of carbon. There would be much lower hanging fruit than trying to replace that last fraction with nuclear. We have a solution already in place. That doesn't mean all research on modular reactors should stop. It would have a niche if it worked. It's just not the thing holding back decarbonization, and not an excuse to hold back as much renewables as possible as fast as possible.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    And if they have to operate 1% of the time, they can do that with hydrogen, and the fuel cost will be inconsequential.
- coder543 4y ago
  > Batteries are a nightmare at grid scale from an environmental perspective. Which part[0], exactly? I think most people dramatically overestimate the level of "nightmare", and battery contents are highly recyclable. We don't have a ton of battery recycling right now because there aren't enough failing batteries yet to support the necessary facilities, but several companies are starting to ramp up. Also worth considering that even after a battery is "too old" to use in an EV, it is perfectly fine to use in stationary storage applications for quite awhile longer ("reuse") even before it is time to recycle and rebuild those components into a new battery. > It's fundamentally far more difficult and costly to adjust supply (or to buffer with storage) than it is to reduce demand during periods of low renewable generation. As more EVs and their chargers come online, instantaneous load reductions become cheap and easy - and possible. I completely agree with this, and most people either can't or won't see this point in discussions about renewables. The more predictable load that comes online, the easier it is to justify more production. Even if that production is using so-called "intermittent" renewables, when the need arises, asking people to voluntarily avoid charging for a day would be equivalent to adding a huge amount of production suddenly, just by removing load. (And EVs have enough range for a week of normal commuting for most people, easily. The few people who need to charge desperately would be able to charge without problems.) If you pay people for volunteering to participate in Demand Response, you will get plenty of volunteers. "Demand response" is a critical part of the grid of the future. [0]: https://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/97/28/WEB/09728-cover-schematic.jpg https://cen.acs.org/content/dam/cen/97/28/WEB/09728-cover-sc...

epistasis 4y ago

> cost increases are mainly due to the rise in construction material prices as well as financing costs; nothing inherent to nuclear power or the novel technology itself. I would argue that construction is inherent to nuclear power, and is in fact the biggest draw back about nuclear power. SMRs were the attempt to mitigate most of the disadvantages of a constructed product, versus a manufactured product. There's still significant work needed to convert nuclear into a technology that has a learning curve. I think this work has some of the best insights about which technologies do or do not experience learning curves with price drops: https://www.volts.wtf/p/learning-curves-will-lead-to-extremely https://www.volts.wtf/p/learning-curves-will-lead-to-extreme...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
theptip 4y ago
Yeah this is a big problem with fusion too, it requires a really big concrete footprint which limits how cheap the power can be.
- epistasis 4y ago
  And the welding, soooo much welding...
- anonuser123456 4y ago
  Too much concrete is probably the smallest of fusions problems. The tritium fuel cycle is pretty much impossible to solve economically. We already know hydrogen infrastructure isn’t very cost effective. So imagine radioactive hydrogen.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    This is one reason (among many) to prefer Helion. It doesn't use DT, so it doesn't have the problem of closing a tritium cycle. It won't even have a lithium blanket. Tritium does get produced from DD reactions, but it can be just separated from D, stored in metal hydride beds, and allowed to decay to 3He.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

Krasnol 4y ago

There is one thing nuclear never runs out of: excuses why it gets more expensive and takes longer.

cinntaile 4y ago

> To be fair, it says the cost increases are mainly due to the rise in construction material prices as well as financing costs; nothing inherent to nuclear power or the novel technology itself. The problem is mostly cost. Now that we're entering a higher interest environment, the situation is unlikely to improve.

dv_dt 4y ago

Nothing inherent except that nuclear portions of the plan needs needs a higher level of construction to build the (non-nuclear) support infrastructure to operate