4 ms·

>But here we were not talking about building new nuclear. We were talking about discontinuing existing nuclear. That's a fair point. The main argument in suppo

>But here we were not talking about building new nuclear. We were talking about discontinuing existing nuclear. That's a fair point. The main argument in support of nuclear I can agree with is that once you've had nuclear operations in the country, you have to pay for it whether you continue or not, so you might as well continue. Some profit is better than no profit. But even that argument depends on whether existing nuclear plants are in fact profitable, so it is still important to find all the hidden costs. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone ever replaces nuclear with fossil fuels. That said, Indian Point is interesting: Entergy (the operator) cited sustained low market prices for electricity as the reason for the closure of the plant. But the average price of electricity in NYC has been 50% higher since about 2010 than it was for the 3 decades before 2010. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS12A72610 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APUS12A72610 Why is an old nuclear plant unprofitable after 40 years despite electricity prices being higher than ever? One explanation could be that it was in fact never profitable, but the true costs haven't been accounted for until now. "We assumed the problem would go away but it hasn't and now it's kind of expensive". This explanation also fits for France, who recently increased their state-dictated prices for nuclear from 44 euros per MWh to 70. Nuclear power estimates seems to get more expensive over time - which makes no sense unless the true costs were actually unknown/ignored when the initial estimates were made. That's the theory that makes the most sense to me at the moment anyway, even though it might be a bit speculative. If New York starts synthesizing hydrogen, they can use the new gas plants with up to 50% hydrogen in the mix with little or no alteration. At least that's something...

credit_guy 3y ago
> If New York starts synthesizing hydrogen, I perceive some double standards here. For green hydrogen to be economic, you need a 10x reduction in production cost. Would you treat the following hypotheticals as equivalent? 1. If green hydrogen were 10x cheaper to make then ... 2. If nuclear reactors were 10x cheaper to build then ...
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  I think we have passed the threshold for production cost. According to this overview [1] solar was at 1 cent per kwh a few years ago and panels are even cheaper now. Hydrogen can be created at 80% efficiency, so it seems like we should be able to generate hydrogen for somewhere around 2 cents per kWh once the investment in electrolysers are paid off. Converting the hydrogen back to electricity triples that but even 6 cents is cheaper than nuclear. Also, you wouldn't need to actually build solar specifically for this purpose. You could have the electrolysers run whenever the market conditions provide cheap electricity for any reason. Windy nights, warm winters, cold summers, economic downtimes, whatever - generate cheap gas to use later. And again, this infrastructure will never get more expensive in the future. There are no leaking storage sites that have to be sanitized (Asse II), no cracks in reactors that cost billions to fix (France) no Sellafields, Fukushimas or Chernobyls will ever happen related to hydrogen. If I interpret your question correctly you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? The answer to that is no, I wouldn't, because I think that the orders of magnitude larger risks for unknown costs with nuclear also have to be considered. Even if nuclear was half as expensive as green hydrogen to operate it would be better to go for hydrogen, and since it seems likely that nuclear is instead the MORE expensive one, the choice should be very easy. At the very least I think the moment is ripe for a budget the size of a typical nuclear power plant to be spent on making a few large scale hydrogen facilities. Try it out at scale. It will take a few years but far less time than building a new reactor. [1] https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-the-world/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-...
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is: both green hydrogen and nuclear are technologies that are currently too expensive compared to what the market can bear. But technology can evolve. If the cost of nuclear went down by a factor of 10, would you become a proponent of nuclear technology? What if it went down by a factor of 100? Is there any level where you would? If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? Why are you debating? It does not seem honest to me to engage in a debate where your position is that you would never change your mind, but expect the other guy to be willing to change theirs. Edit (to answer because we reached max depth limit): There's nothing for me to change my mind, I already think nuclear is too expensive to build. Here's my statement on HN a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 But does nuclear have the potential to become 10, 100 or 1000 times cheaper? I think so. Just 3 weeks ago Kairos received an NRC permission to build a pilot FLiBe reactor. https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-green-light-for-advanced-nuclear-non-lwr-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-gre...

credit_guy 3y ago

> If New York starts synthesizing hydrogen, I perceive some double standards here. For green hydrogen to be economic, you need a 10x reduction in production cost. Would you treat the following hypotheticals as equivalent? 1. If green hydrogen were 10x cheaper to make then ... 2. If nuclear reactors were 10x cheaper to build then ...

Kon5ole 3y ago
I think we have passed the threshold for production cost. According to this overview [1] solar was at 1 cent per kwh a few years ago and panels are even cheaper now. Hydrogen can be created at 80% efficiency, so it seems like we should be able to generate hydrogen for somewhere around 2 cents per kWh once the investment in electrolysers are paid off. Converting the hydrogen back to electricity triples that but even 6 cents is cheaper than nuclear. Also, you wouldn't need to actually build solar specifically for this purpose. You could have the electrolysers run whenever the market conditions provide cheap electricity for any reason. Windy nights, warm winters, cold summers, economic downtimes, whatever - generate cheap gas to use later. And again, this infrastructure will never get more expensive in the future. There are no leaking storage sites that have to be sanitized (Asse II), no cracks in reactors that cost billions to fix (France) no Sellafields, Fukushimas or Chernobyls will ever happen related to hydrogen. If I interpret your question correctly you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? The answer to that is no, I wouldn't, because I think that the orders of magnitude larger risks for unknown costs with nuclear also have to be considered. Even if nuclear was half as expensive as green hydrogen to operate it would be better to go for hydrogen, and since it seems likely that nuclear is instead the MORE expensive one, the choice should be very easy. At the very least I think the moment is ripe for a budget the size of a typical nuclear power plant to be spent on making a few large scale hydrogen facilities. Try it out at scale. It will take a few years but far less time than building a new reactor. [1] https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-the-world/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/lowest-solar-power-prices-in-...
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > you're basically saying "If nuclear was as cheap as green hydrogen, would I consider nuclear then"? No, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying is: both green hydrogen and nuclear are technologies that are currently too expensive compared to what the market can bear. But technology can evolve. If the cost of nuclear went down by a factor of 10, would you become a proponent of nuclear technology? What if it went down by a factor of 100? Is there any level where you would? If not, and you concede that there's no way for you to change your mind, why are you trying to change my mind? Why are you debating? It does not seem honest to me to engage in a debate where your position is that you would never change your mind, but expect the other guy to be willing to change theirs. Edit (to answer because we reached max depth limit): There's nothing for me to change my mind, I already think nuclear is too expensive to build. Here's my statement on HN a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38787356 But does nuclear have the potential to become 10, 100 or 1000 times cheaper? I think so. Just 3 weeks ago Kairos received an NRC permission to build a pilot FLiBe reactor. https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-green-light-for-advanced-nuclear-non-lwr-reactor/ https://www.powermag.com/kairos-hermes-secures-first-nrc-gre...