4 ms·

> Most nuclear plant construction is first-of-a-kind in the country it's being built. These have always cost more. I don't see how this is relevant. The Vogtle

> Most nuclear plant construction is first-of-a-kind in the country it's being built. These have always cost more. I don't see how this is relevant. The Vogtle reactors are here in the US. The US has plenty of experience building nuclear reactors, no? I would love it if nuclear were cost effective to build, but I would like to see any recent examples of that, anywhere in the world. Even NuScale is predicting that they won't be cost competitive with Combined Cycle gas plants.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Vogtle 3 and 4 are the first AP1000 reactors built in the US. That means most of the parts and components used in this plant are the first attempt at building and integrating such components. It's a lot cheaper to retain all this knowledge and churn out a run of, say, 2 dozen steam generators [1] instead of building them as a one-off every time. There's many such components where there's no market outside of nuclear power plants, and so there's no economy of scale to be had if we're only building 1 or 2 nuclear plants at a time. > I would love it if nuclear were cost effective to build, but I would like to see any recent examples of that, anywhere in the world South Korea has been consistently building nuclear power comparatively cheaply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20is%20a%20major,Korea's%20total%20electrical%20generation%20capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#:.... France did so as well during the Messmer plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... Of course it's probably not as cost competitive with fossil fuels. The whole point is to get off of fossil fuels. This is where wind and solar really struggle: they're great at reducing fossil fuel use by ~40% by shutting down gas plants when wind and sun are available. But it's ultimately still fossil fuels forming the backbone of the grid. Nuclear provides a path towards actually removing fossil fuel generation entirely, instead of just opportunistically supplementing it with intermittent renewables. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_generator_(nuclear_power)#:~:text=Steam%20generators%20are%20heat%20exchangers,primary%20and%20secondary%20coolant%20loops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_generator_(nuclear_power....
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Only one model of US reactor has ever gone down in price after repeated builds (and then not by much), South Korea's 'cheap' reactors are suddenly $10/W net when they built one somewhere else and couldn't get creative with the accounting. And the Messmer plan reactors turned out just great (in addition to going up in price with each reactor and having many hidden costs that make them not comparable to a privately funded project). > This is where wind and solar really struggle: they're great at reducing fossil fuel use by ~40% by shutting down gas plants when wind and sun are available I love how this number that renewables can't possibly go beyond keeps going up every month but is said with the same level of ridiculous overconfidence every time (you've got to update it to 60% now for NE Brazil, South Australia and a few other generation grids, and much of Europe has also crossed your 40% threshold too). Any realistic analysis puts the limit in the mid 70% range with no storage or overprovision and well above the threshold where biogas and existing hydro can cover the rest once you add diurnal storage and 3 day dispatchable loads like EV charging and electrolysis.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > You've got to update it to 60% now for NE Brazil, South Australia and a few other generation grids Most of that is hydroelectricity, not wind and solar. Why stop at 60%? Norway produces 100% (or very close to it) of its electricity from hydro. Of course, the answer is that geographically dependent energy sources aren't very useful outside places that have the right geography. Most places with hydroelectric potential are already making use of it. The question is, how do we decarbonize the rest of the grid?
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      You already know the answer to that, as it has been explained to you dozens of times. Once again: renewables+storage, backed by combined-cycle turbines. They will powered by NG until synthetic fuel becomes plentiful. Right now, most storage is at hydroelectric plants built in past decades, with small amounts of battery. In the future, it will still be small amounts of battery, along with plenty of other storage, much of it underground hydrogen and hilltop hydro. There is no hint of any shortage of hills, most places. Flat places will use other methods.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
China's reactors are cheap in China Bux. But we just got to see how 'cheap' South Korea's $2.50/W reactors are when they exported one and let slip the 'service' contract that put the final price at $10/W (net)
- pfdietz 4y ago
  ... in a place where solar is coming in at less than $0.014/kWh.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  The most reliable output of the nuke industry is shown, again, to be dishonesty. Never trust a figure delivered by the nuke industry, or by someone who believes the nuke industry.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Shown by what?
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        I was hoping for there to have been more than an HN comment for you to have been persuaded.
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Just pick a claim and examine it yourself. They're all lies and half truths. Claim: The price will come down with repeat builds Reality: All but one model of reactor in US went up with repeat builds, that went down very modestly. Every program except Japan had costs that increased with time, and Japan's costs only went down modestly during a period where money was extremely cheap and the prices of other projects decreased far more. Claim: It was TMI and chernobyl Reality: Prices went up 20% yoy from the time the first non turnkey reactor went online until 1979 Claim: If there had just been more funding Reality: Billions to tens of billions are spent on fission research every year. All reactors have substantial public support and most have government backed loans. Claim: It's soooo dense Reality: The majority of Uranium ore has similar energy density to fossil fuels. Uranium mines overlap in average area power density with solar farms. Claim: Reprocessing turns waste into energy Reality: It only uses the Pu239 and dregs of U235 which a boost of 15% from not reprocessing and works once. Separation dumps large quantities of fission products into the environment. It creates more Pu240and Pu241 which are the worst isotopes and just as much fission products as not using MOX. Claim: Breeeeders have a closed fuel cycle Reality: No closed fuel cycle has ever been demonstrated start to finish. On top of breeders generally having horrible reliability when run in breeding mode. Every program fails at the refuelling part because it's so dirty and expensive. Claim: Coal makes more radiation Reality: Coal is way worse in general, but this is a lie carefully crafted by comparing one specific reactor a long time away from refuelling to an ols coal plant. One reprocessing facility releases more radiation in a year than 90% of the coal ash that ever made it into the air. Dust from poorly remediated mines is also much worse. Claim: It's available 24/7/365 Reality: EAF averages under 77% and there are now wind farms that have higher capacity factor than the EAF of many UK and french reactors (except they don't pretend to be available all the time). Nameplate capacities are often lower than output or left when expensive upgrades are made to make load factor look artificially high. Claim: It's dispatchable Reality: Being able to pay a little more in maintenance to throw away energy you already paid for isn't dispatch.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Vogtle 3 and 4 are the first AP1000 reactors built in the US. That means most of the parts and components used in this plant are the first attempt at building and integrating such components. It's a lot cheaper to retain all this knowledge and churn out a run of, say, 2 dozen steam generators [1] instead of building them as a one-off every time. There's many such components where there's no market outside of nuclear power plants, and so there's no economy of scale to be had if we're only building 1 or 2 nuclear plants at a time. > I would love it if nuclear were cost effective to build, but I would like to see any recent examples of that, anywhere in the world South Korea has been consistently building nuclear power comparatively cheaply: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#:~:text=Nuclear%20power%20is%20a%20major,Korea's%20total%20electrical%20generation%20capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea#:.... France did so as well during the Messmer plan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... Of course it's probably not as cost competitive with fossil fuels. The whole point is to get off of fossil fuels. This is where wind and solar really struggle: they're great at reducing fossil fuel use by ~40% by shutting down gas plants when wind and sun are available. But it's ultimately still fossil fuels forming the backbone of the grid. Nuclear provides a path towards actually removing fossil fuel generation entirely, instead of just opportunistically supplementing it with intermittent renewables. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_generator_(nuclear_power)#:~:text=Steam%20generators%20are%20heat%20exchangers,primary%20and%20secondary%20coolant%20loops https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_generator_(nuclear_power....

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Only one model of US reactor has ever gone down in price after repeated builds (and then not by much), South Korea's 'cheap' reactors are suddenly $10/W net when they built one somewhere else and couldn't get creative with the accounting. And the Messmer plan reactors turned out just great (in addition to going up in price with each reactor and having many hidden costs that make them not comparable to a privately funded project). > This is where wind and solar really struggle: they're great at reducing fossil fuel use by ~40% by shutting down gas plants when wind and sun are available I love how this number that renewables can't possibly go beyond keeps going up every month but is said with the same level of ridiculous overconfidence every time (you've got to update it to 60% now for NE Brazil, South Australia and a few other generation grids, and much of Europe has also crossed your 40% threshold too). Any realistic analysis puts the limit in the mid 70% range with no storage or overprovision and well above the threshold where biogas and existing hydro can cover the rest once you add diurnal storage and 3 day dispatchable loads like EV charging and electrolysis.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > You've got to update it to 60% now for NE Brazil, South Australia and a few other generation grids Most of that is hydroelectricity, not wind and solar. Why stop at 60%? Norway produces 100% (or very close to it) of its electricity from hydro. Of course, the answer is that geographically dependent energy sources aren't very useful outside places that have the right geography. Most places with hydroelectric potential are already making use of it. The question is, how do we decarbonize the rest of the grid?
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    You already know the answer to that, as it has been explained to you dozens of times. Once again: renewables+storage, backed by combined-cycle turbines. They will powered by NG until synthetic fuel becomes plentiful. Right now, most storage is at hydroelectric plants built in past decades, with small amounts of battery. In the future, it will still be small amounts of battery, along with plenty of other storage, much of it underground hydrogen and hilltop hydro. There is no hint of any shortage of hills, most places. Flat places will use other methods.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

China's reactors are cheap in China Bux. But we just got to see how 'cheap' South Korea's $2.50/W reactors are when they exported one and let slip the 'service' contract that put the final price at $10/W (net)

pfdietz 4y ago
... in a place where solar is coming in at less than $0.014/kWh.
moloch-hai 4y ago
The most reliable output of the nuke industry is shown, again, to be dishonesty. Never trust a figure delivered by the nuke industry, or by someone who believes the nuke industry.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Shown by what?
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34459724
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      I was hoping for there to have been more than an HN comment for you to have been persuaded.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Just pick a claim and examine it yourself. They're all lies and half truths. Claim: The price will come down with repeat builds Reality: All but one model of reactor in US went up with repeat builds, that went down very modestly. Every program except Japan had costs that increased with time, and Japan's costs only went down modestly during a period where money was extremely cheap and the prices of other projects decreased far more. Claim: It was TMI and chernobyl Reality: Prices went up 20% yoy from the time the first non turnkey reactor went online until 1979 Claim: If there had just been more funding Reality: Billions to tens of billions are spent on fission research every year. All reactors have substantial public support and most have government backed loans. Claim: It's soooo dense Reality: The majority of Uranium ore has similar energy density to fossil fuels. Uranium mines overlap in average area power density with solar farms. Claim: Reprocessing turns waste into energy Reality: It only uses the Pu239 and dregs of U235 which a boost of 15% from not reprocessing and works once. Separation dumps large quantities of fission products into the environment. It creates more Pu240and Pu241 which are the worst isotopes and just as much fission products as not using MOX. Claim: Breeeeders have a closed fuel cycle Reality: No closed fuel cycle has ever been demonstrated start to finish. On top of breeders generally having horrible reliability when run in breeding mode. Every program fails at the refuelling part because it's so dirty and expensive. Claim: Coal makes more radiation Reality: Coal is way worse in general, but this is a lie carefully crafted by comparing one specific reactor a long time away from refuelling to an ols coal plant. One reprocessing facility releases more radiation in a year than 90% of the coal ash that ever made it into the air. Dust from poorly remediated mines is also much worse. Claim: It's available 24/7/365 Reality: EAF averages under 77% and there are now wind farms that have higher capacity factor than the EAF of many UK and french reactors (except they don't pretend to be available all the time). Nameplate capacities are often lower than output or left when expensive upgrades are made to make load factor look artificially high. Claim: It's dispatchable Reality: Being able to pay a little more in maintenance to throw away energy you already paid for isn't dispatch.