4 ms·

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 a

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.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Yes it's been explained repeatedly - but almost always in vague terms referring to "storage" but carefully avoiding any nuanced discussion of what form of storage. When they do mention storage, they mention infeasible forms of storage. I'm happy to explain the shortcomings of the ones you listed: "Small amounts of battery" are still amounts that would take centuries to provision. Again, I don't think people realize that 1 day's worth of storage is well over a hundred times annual battery production. Hydroelectric storage requires more than just a hill. It requires a reservoir on top of the hill, another reservoir on the base of the hill, and access to a lake or river to fill these reservoirs. This is a much more specific set of geographic features than just "a hill". And lastly, nobody has successfully operated a hydrogen electrolysis storage facility. This is totally unproven technology.
      - 4y ago

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.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Yes it's been explained repeatedly - but almost always in vague terms referring to "storage" but carefully avoiding any nuanced discussion of what form of storage. When they do mention storage, they mention infeasible forms of storage. I'm happy to explain the shortcomings of the ones you listed: "Small amounts of battery" are still amounts that would take centuries to provision. Again, I don't think people realize that 1 day's worth of storage is well over a hundred times annual battery production. Hydroelectric storage requires more than just a hill. It requires a reservoir on top of the hill, another reservoir on the base of the hill, and access to a lake or river to fill these reservoirs. This is a much more specific set of geographic features than just "a hill". And lastly, nobody has successfully operated a hydrogen electrolysis storage facility. This is totally unproven technology.
    - 4y ago