5 ms·

> Nuclear. Start-up of the fourth reactor (1.1 GW) at Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant I checked the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electr

by throwaway2037 3y ago

> Nuclear. Start-up of the fourth reactor (1.1 GW) at Georgia’s Vogtle nuclear power plant I checked the Wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla... > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[12] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[13] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] In 2023 costs had increased to $34 billion, with work still to be completed on Vogtle 4.[15] Those numbers are simply mind blowing. Why are these still built? How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? I feel the same about the two big nuke projects in the UK (Hinkley Point C & Sizewell C). It makes no sense compared to solar/wind/battery.

RamblingCTO 3y ago
Network stability, night and bad weather hedging is a problem though with full solar/wind, isn't it? We still need a mix until tech is better to solve these problems.
breather 3y ago
> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? I'm guessing you'd run into space constraints pretty quickly. For one large project a nuclear reactor is incredibly compact compared to most alternatives except maybe hydro.
- gamepsys 3y ago
  I don't think space is a concern in North America.
  - sowbug 3y ago
    If space isn't a concern, then transmission is.
    - dymk 3y ago
      Also not really a problem in North America, nor is running more transmission lines as capacity and demand grow
    - richardw 3y ago
      There are some very long transmission lines: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-tr...
    - einpoklum 3y ago
      You don't have to generate all of the power in one place, you know...
hinkley 3y ago
> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? According to How Big Things Get Done, at least 30B worth. Nuclear plants have some of the worst cost and time overruns for large projects, wind and solar some of the lowest (beaten only by roads). And his theory as to why this happens, is that wind, solar, and roads are self-similar. Building the first 10% directly informs you on how to build the next 10%. Everything you learn along the way can be rolled back into the project in a feedback loop. What you learn shingling a roof or building a nuclear reactor doesn't help this project all that much. It helps the next. And how many nuclear reactors does one worker build in their lifetime? 2? 4? That's not a lot of opportunity for process improvement.
- pstuart 3y ago
  This is why if nuclear is to have a future it would be via Small Modular Reactors. But even that appears to be too expensive.
  - einpoklum 3y ago
    Indeed. I mean, I'm not sure the smallness is a key factor, but the modularity for sure and maybe the size limitation comes with that. I'm not much of a fan of nuclear (pun not intended?) and would like to see solar + wind (+ other renewables) cover most of the load. But if enough resources were pooled to design an SMR, with extensive safety studies, lifetime planning, involvement of multiple parties (e.g. scientific and engineering teams from different world states) - I don't think I could really oppose, especially given the global warming situation. Of course - there's "ideal nuclear" and there's real existing nuclear, which is quite different and often very problematic.
    - hinkley 3y ago
      Matt Ferrell posted a video about vertical bifacial solar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM) last week that has me hopeful for more demand-aligned solar output. They absorb more indirect light, but the main advantage is that hot panels drop in efficiency, and standing them up improves heat dissipation substantially. One of the bits that stood out to me is that it has an output curve that partially lines up with The Duck, because you get a period of low-angle exposure near sunset. I suspect you get quite a drop at high noon, but that's fine as long as not all solar panels in the grid are vertical.
toast0 3y ago
> Those numbers are simply mind blowing. Why are these still built? I'm guessing because there was no step in the process where it seemed like a better idea to stop construction and have spent whatever costs so far to get nothing of value, rather than accept the cost increase and end up with high availability, somewhat dispatchable generation. There's not a lot of new projects in nuclear, because construction costs are high and subject to cost overruns as projects get delayed, and delays seem inevitable. That's why there's all the talk of modular nuclear and what not. If it was feasible to build these plants on time and on budget, the generation parameters are good --- doesn't use much fuel, tends to be available outside of scheduled maintenance, can modulate generation to follow demand, if the economics make sense (as-is, most of the plant expenses are fixed cost, so you may as well generate as much as you can to amortize the cost over more kWh)
fbdab103 3y ago
What specifically is so expensive about the reactors? Having played the simulator[0] and now being an expert in running a nuclear power plant, the idea is "simple". Seemingly not much more complex than any other steam/heat power plant, so how do the costs run so high? Are the tolerances on everything turned to 11 to minimize chance of errors? Triple-checking all work? As a point of comparison, the Large Hadron collider had a $9 billion budget, and that required a 27 kilometer circle to be dug. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38515435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38515435
- mynameisnoone 3y ago
  I worked for a Campbell, CA nuclear engineering partial employee-owned co-op formed by mostly ex-General Electric engineers (Stanford and Berkeley alums) ultimately acquired by Curtiss-Wright Corp. (And yes, computers were named after Simpsons' characters.) Costs are related to the assurance of safety through careful documentation and processes beginning with regulation and insurance underwriting of design engineering, construction, operations, and maintenance. This sort of thing only makes sense to do so at large scale to make it economical. Scale also has its costs. Safety isn't something that can be Boeing'ed because the NRC can and will shut the whole thing down if it were to be found unsafe.
Reason077 3y ago
> "I feel the same about the two big nuke projects in the UK (Hinkley Point C & Sizewell C). It makes no sense compared to solar/wind/battery." Renewables are far cheaper, and can be built much more quickly. But there is an argument for (some) nuclear around energy security and diversification of supply. Batteries are great but can't really provide long-term storage (ie: multiple days/weeks). Do we want to rely solely on natural gas as a backup during the cold, calm, winter weather patterns which in some years can persist for weeks? Last year's energy crisis suggests maybe not. Or can we build enough interconnections and rely on imports from our neighbours? Also worth considering that Hinkley Point C & Sizewell C are really only replacing existing nuclear plants that are shutting down. Even if both are built, the UK will still have only around half the nuclear capacity in the 2030s that we had in the 1990s.
luizfwolf 3y ago
Nuclear is the most clean energy that can be generated on-demand, solar and wind can only generate energy depending on the external conditions. Batteries until today are not a viable solution. When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want.
- JohnCClarke 3y ago
  Providing "base load" is often touted as an advantage of nuclear power plants (NPP) here on HN. The reality is actually the opposite. As the International Atomic Energy Agency says[1]: "Any unexpected sudden disconnect of the NPP from an otherwise stable electric grid could trigger a severe imbalance between power generation and consumption causing a sudden reduction in grid frequency and voltage. This could even cascade into the collapse of the grid if additional power sources are not connected to the grid in time." Basically NPPs are designed to SCRAM for all sorts of reasons, then the sudden loss of multiple GW really ruins the grid managers' day. The first paragraphs of [1] make it clear that a large, stable, grid is a pre-requisite for NPPs not a result of NPPs. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_en.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_e...
- wcoenen 3y ago
  > When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want. Not exactly. It is possible to manage the demand side to some degree. For example, Octopus Energy in the UK has a "Intelligent Octopus Go" contract which offers much cheaper night rates, in exchange for giving up control over when and at what rate your EV charges. You just tell them what battery percentage you need by what time in the morning. They plan the charging within this constraint and get paid by the grid operator to balance the grid. Another example are dynamically priced contracts where the prices vary hour by hour based on the day-ahead market prices. I have such a contract and I charge my EV only during the cheapest hours when other demand is low. Sometimes I postpone charging for a day or more because I have sufficient charge for my needs and I expect lower prices later, e.g. based on weather or upcoming weekend.
- m463 3y ago
passwordoops 3y ago
Regulation plays a significant role in cost overruns. Also we (should) expect the nuclear plants to work for at least a century while the panels and wind turbines last what, 5-15 years assuming no major storms damage them?
- pinkgolem 3y ago
  Check your data, newish solar is expected to have less then 20% degradation for 30+ years, afterwards its still usable.. but an exchange might be financially beneficial. Windturbines are rated for 20+ and can be extended.. current generation are usally changed as there are bigger models available, with higher profit margins
  - passwordoops 3y ago
    So still 1/3 and 1/5 expected lifetime for nuclear
    - pinkgolem 3y ago
      Wich nuclear reactor has a planned lifetime of 100+ years without expensive rebuild? That seems very far fetched
- cycomanic 3y ago
  Design lifetimes for nuclear reactors are typically 30 to 40 years. Solar panels are often guaranteed to produce about 80% of their capacity after 20 years (and often exceed that) IIRC
hazmazlaz 3y ago
According to the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) in 2022 it cost approximately $1.06 per watt to install utility scale solar. So for the cost of the 1.1 GW Vogtle 4 reactor, utilities could have installed approximately 32 GW of utility scale solar. Obviously this is an extremely simplified and naive calculation that doesn't account for cost or availability of land, transmission infrastructure, battery or other energy storage, etc.
- epistasis 3y ago
  That number does include the cost of land for the solar, which is fairly insignificant. For the cost of batteries, NREL published this review of reviews, and lands at ~480/kWh of capacity: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf So split the $35B (there's a recent $3B that hasn't made it wikipedia, as I understand it) half and half, and you get 17GW of solar, and 36GWh of storage. As far as translating this into per-kWh costs, most estimates I have seen put Vogtle at $0.17-$0.18/kWh. The equivalent for solar is $0.04/kWh. To charge a battery with that same solar, and then deliver it later, it's $0.13/kWh, when doing the napkin math with those NREL numbers up there.
  - cma 3y ago
    Lifetime of panels and batteries vs modern nuclear plant? I guess also do the nuclear numbers use the real liability and disposal costs, or subsidized ones?
    - epistasis 3y ago
      The cost per kWh numbers take into account lifetimes and nuclear waste disposal
      - cma 3y ago
        What about Proce Anderson liability cap? Potential trillion dollar incidents reduced to $10 billion cap.
    - 3y ago
mgoetzke 3y ago
It gets really wild when trying to calculate the break-even point :)

RamblingCTO 3y ago

Network stability, night and bad weather hedging is a problem though with full solar/wind, isn't it? We still need a mix until tech is better to solve these problems.

breather 3y ago

> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? I'm guessing you'd run into space constraints pretty quickly. For one large project a nuclear reactor is incredibly compact compared to most alternatives except maybe hydro.

gamepsys 3y ago
I don't think space is a concern in North America.
- sowbug 3y ago
  If space isn't a concern, then transmission is.
  - dymk 3y ago
    Also not really a problem in North America, nor is running more transmission lines as capacity and demand grow
  - richardw 3y ago
    There are some very long transmission lines: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-transmission-lines-worldwide/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1305820/longest-power-tr...
  - einpoklum 3y ago
    You don't have to generate all of the power in one place, you know...

hinkley 3y ago

> How much solar/wind/battery capacity can 34B USD buy!? According to How Big Things Get Done, at least 30B worth. Nuclear plants have some of the worst cost and time overruns for large projects, wind and solar some of the lowest (beaten only by roads). And his theory as to why this happens, is that wind, solar, and roads are self-similar. Building the first 10% directly informs you on how to build the next 10%. Everything you learn along the way can be rolled back into the project in a feedback loop. What you learn shingling a roof or building a nuclear reactor doesn't help this project all that much. It helps the next. And how many nuclear reactors does one worker build in their lifetime? 2? 4? That's not a lot of opportunity for process improvement.

pstuart 3y ago
This is why if nuclear is to have a future it would be via Small Modular Reactors. But even that appears to be too expensive.
- einpoklum 3y ago
  Indeed. I mean, I'm not sure the smallness is a key factor, but the modularity for sure and maybe the size limitation comes with that. I'm not much of a fan of nuclear (pun not intended?) and would like to see solar + wind (+ other renewables) cover most of the load. But if enough resources were pooled to design an SMR, with extensive safety studies, lifetime planning, involvement of multiple parties (e.g. scientific and engineering teams from different world states) - I don't think I could really oppose, especially given the global warming situation. Of course - there's "ideal nuclear" and there's real existing nuclear, which is quite different and often very problematic.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    Matt Ferrell posted a video about vertical bifacial solar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqizLQDi9BM) last week that has me hopeful for more demand-aligned solar output. They absorb more indirect light, but the main advantage is that hot panels drop in efficiency, and standing them up improves heat dissipation substantially. One of the bits that stood out to me is that it has an output curve that partially lines up with The Duck, because you get a period of low-angle exposure near sunset. I suspect you get quite a drop at high noon, but that's fine as long as not all solar panels in the grid are vertical.

toast0 3y ago

> Those numbers are simply mind blowing. Why are these still built? I'm guessing because there was no step in the process where it seemed like a better idea to stop construction and have spent whatever costs so far to get nothing of value, rather than accept the cost increase and end up with high availability, somewhat dispatchable generation. There's not a lot of new projects in nuclear, because construction costs are high and subject to cost overruns as projects get delayed, and delays seem inevitable. That's why there's all the talk of modular nuclear and what not. If it was feasible to build these plants on time and on budget, the generation parameters are good --- doesn't use much fuel, tends to be available outside of scheduled maintenance, can modulate generation to follow demand, if the economics make sense (as-is, most of the plant expenses are fixed cost, so you may as well generate as much as you can to amortize the cost over more kWh)

fbdab103 3y ago

What specifically is so expensive about the reactors? Having played the simulator[0] and now being an expert in running a nuclear power plant, the idea is "simple". Seemingly not much more complex than any other steam/heat power plant, so how do the costs run so high? Are the tolerances on everything turned to 11 to minimize chance of errors? Triple-checking all work? As a point of comparison, the Large Hadron collider had a $9 billion budget, and that required a 27 kilometer circle to be dug. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38515435 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38515435

mynameisnoone 3y ago
I worked for a Campbell, CA nuclear engineering partial employee-owned co-op formed by mostly ex-General Electric engineers (Stanford and Berkeley alums) ultimately acquired by Curtiss-Wright Corp. (And yes, computers were named after Simpsons' characters.) Costs are related to the assurance of safety through careful documentation and processes beginning with regulation and insurance underwriting of design engineering, construction, operations, and maintenance. This sort of thing only makes sense to do so at large scale to make it economical. Scale also has its costs. Safety isn't something that can be Boeing'ed because the NRC can and will shut the whole thing down if it were to be found unsafe.

Reason077 3y ago

> "I feel the same about the two big nuke projects in the UK (Hinkley Point C & Sizewell C). It makes no sense compared to solar/wind/battery." Renewables are far cheaper, and can be built much more quickly. But there is an argument for (some) nuclear around energy security and diversification of supply. Batteries are great but can't really provide long-term storage (ie: multiple days/weeks). Do we want to rely solely on natural gas as a backup during the cold, calm, winter weather patterns which in some years can persist for weeks? Last year's energy crisis suggests maybe not. Or can we build enough interconnections and rely on imports from our neighbours? Also worth considering that Hinkley Point C & Sizewell C are really only replacing existing nuclear plants that are shutting down. Even if both are built, the UK will still have only around half the nuclear capacity in the 2030s that we had in the 1990s.

luizfwolf 3y ago

Nuclear is the most clean energy that can be generated on-demand, solar and wind can only generate energy depending on the external conditions. Batteries until today are not a viable solution. When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want.

JohnCClarke 3y ago
Providing "base load" is often touted as an advantage of nuclear power plants (NPP) here on HN. The reality is actually the opposite. As the International Atomic Energy Agency says[1]: "Any unexpected sudden disconnect of the NPP from an otherwise stable electric grid could trigger a severe imbalance between power generation and consumption causing a sudden reduction in grid frequency and voltage. This could even cascade into the collapse of the grid if additional power sources are not connected to the grid in time." Basically NPPs are designed to SCRAM for all sorts of reasons, then the sudden loss of multiple GW really ruins the grid managers' day. The first paragraphs of [1] make it clear that a large, stable, grid is a pre-requisite for NPPs not a result of NPPs. [1] https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_en.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/gc/gc53inf-3-att5_e...
wcoenen 3y ago
> When talking about the electrical grid you have to be able to generate energy in any amount whenever you want. Not exactly. It is possible to manage the demand side to some degree. For example, Octopus Energy in the UK has a "Intelligent Octopus Go" contract which offers much cheaper night rates, in exchange for giving up control over when and at what rate your EV charges. You just tell them what battery percentage you need by what time in the morning. They plan the charging within this constraint and get paid by the grid operator to balance the grid. Another example are dynamically priced contracts where the prices vary hour by hour based on the day-ahead market prices. I have such a contract and I charge my EV only during the cheapest hours when other demand is low. Sometimes I postpone charging for a day or more because I have sufficient charge for my needs and I expect lower prices later, e.g. based on weather or upcoming weekend.
m463 3y ago

passwordoops 3y ago

Regulation plays a significant role in cost overruns. Also we (should) expect the nuclear plants to work for at least a century while the panels and wind turbines last what, 5-15 years assuming no major storms damage them?

pinkgolem 3y ago
Check your data, newish solar is expected to have less then 20% degradation for 30+ years, afterwards its still usable.. but an exchange might be financially beneficial. Windturbines are rated for 20+ and can be extended.. current generation are usally changed as there are bigger models available, with higher profit margins
- passwordoops 3y ago
  So still 1/3 and 1/5 expected lifetime for nuclear
  - pinkgolem 3y ago
    Wich nuclear reactor has a planned lifetime of 100+ years without expensive rebuild? That seems very far fetched
cycomanic 3y ago
Design lifetimes for nuclear reactors are typically 30 to 40 years. Solar panels are often guaranteed to produce about 80% of their capacity after 20 years (and often exceed that) IIRC

hazmazlaz 3y ago

According to the NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) in 2022 it cost approximately $1.06 per watt to install utility scale solar. So for the cost of the 1.1 GW Vogtle 4 reactor, utilities could have installed approximately 32 GW of utility scale solar. Obviously this is an extremely simplified and naive calculation that doesn't account for cost or availability of land, transmission infrastructure, battery or other energy storage, etc.

epistasis 3y ago
That number does include the cost of land for the solar, which is fairly insignificant. For the cost of batteries, NREL published this review of reviews, and lands at ~480/kWh of capacity: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85332.pdf So split the $35B (there's a recent $3B that hasn't made it wikipedia, as I understand it) half and half, and you get 17GW of solar, and 36GWh of storage. As far as translating this into per-kWh costs, most estimates I have seen put Vogtle at $0.17-$0.18/kWh. The equivalent for solar is $0.04/kWh. To charge a battery with that same solar, and then deliver it later, it's $0.13/kWh, when doing the napkin math with those NREL numbers up there.
- cma 3y ago
  Lifetime of panels and batteries vs modern nuclear plant? I guess also do the nuclear numbers use the real liability and disposal costs, or subsidized ones?
  - epistasis 3y ago
    The cost per kWh numbers take into account lifetimes and nuclear waste disposal
    - cma 3y ago
      What about Proce Anderson liability cap? Potential trillion dollar incidents reduced to $10 billion cap.
  - 3y ago

mgoetzke 3y ago

It gets really wild when trying to calculate the break-even point :)