4 ms·

If more nuclear takes 20+ years to build while we can get wind farms online next month, is it really faster? I love nuclear but have to admit it’s dead until w

by Swizec 3y ago

If more nuclear takes 20+ years to build while we can get wind farms online next month, is it really faster? I love nuclear but have to admit it’s dead until we figure out how to build these things faster. You can get 10MW of wind built in 2 months. A nuclear plant gives you 1000MW (1GW). You need to build that in less than 50 months (4 years) to compete with wind. And wind can already deliver incremental value for most of those 50 months so lead times aren’t a problem. When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years?

robertlagrant 3y ago
Just comparing MW when wind is blowing is never going to be useful or result in a productive discussion. You need compare nuclear with other useful, base load generation methods in terms of build cost/time/CO2 per MW.
- Swizec 3y ago
  I believe the numbers I quoted are averages, not only when the wind is blowing. Source: https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ Here’s a better number: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-tu... > At a 42% capacity factor (i.e., the average among recently built wind turbines in the United States, per the 2021 edition of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Land-Based Wind Market Report), that average turbine would generate over 843,000 kWh (843MWh) per month—enough for more than 940 average U.S. homes For comparison, an actual nuclear reactor in practical use produced 4,697,675 MWh in 2017. That’s the equivalent of 5572 of those wind turbines. That’s a lot of wind turbines. But if we can build 278 wind turbines per year and it takes 20 years to build a new reactor. They’re even. USA currently builds 3000 turbines per year. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-installed-us-each-year https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-install... So I think even with 42% capacity, wind is winning. We’d need to build 10 reactors per 20 years (1 every 2 years) for nuclear to beat wind.
  - russell_h 3y ago
    It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too.
    - cesarb 3y ago
      > It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too. It depends. If you're adding wind or nuclear to an already existing grid (which is usually the case), the already existing power plants can usually take over whenever the new power plants are offline or generating less power, and you don't need to budget for any extra storage. In these cases, the average output is the most relevant metric; it shows how much fuel (for a mostly fossil fuel grid) or water (for a mostly hydroelectric grid) it will save.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Possibly, but the discussion is about price per MW of nuclear vs wind, and I'm saying that's not a great comparison between generation types if you want power delivered all the time. 50% capacity is worth much less than 50% of the cost of 100% capacity.
    - lysp 3y ago
      A study was undertaken for the Australian grid. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for... It basically found that you can get close to 100% relatively easily with minimal storage (5 hours average demand). The issue with getting over the mid-90s and to handle 100% is that you need to cater for the edge-cases (conditions that may occur 1-2 times per year max). Either way from memory, LCOE (in $/MWH) for grid-scale solar is around 50-60, adding storage brings costs up to 80-120. Nuclear is in the range of 200-300+, so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward. Especially when you can build them and scale them up quickly (compared to 10-15 years of nuclear builds).
smallmancontrov 3y ago
Yep, agreed, it's pretty much dead, unless the SMR people can figure out the low-end. There's a reason why our anti-nuclear friend directed his vitriol there, lol. That said, I hear that China is building nuclear. We might be able to import the know-how, or develop the political will to spin ours back up. A bit of national jealously goes a long way.
gottorf 3y ago
> When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years? South Korea is one of the world leaders in commercial nuclear power, and as of 20 years ago they were able to build plants in under 5 years[0]. Seems like recent construction has slowed down there as well, for reasons unknown to me. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea
pydry 3y ago
It's not dead. It shares skills and industrial capacity with the military. For countries that have nukes or want an option to build some in a hurry, they want nukes. The sheer expense just means it's vastly too expensive to do anything about climate change. The military industrial complex will still try to sell it as better or at least equivalent to solar and wind though - and people will buy it.
Isle_of_View 3y ago
[flagged]
- throw0101c 3y ago
  > Wind farms deliver nada when the wind does not blow. The unsolved problem of intermittency. The province of Ontario has a respectable wind infrastructure, but quite often in the middle of heat waves (when demand is high, because air conditioning is needed to help people keep cool/alive) the wind often does not blow. Solar would be useful for supply in summer, but it's not useful at night obviously (when it can be cooler, but still hot (>30C)).
throw0101c 3y ago
> If more nuclear takes 20+ years to build while we can get wind farms online next month, is it really faster? Building (roughly) plants 1 through 3 will be the hardest, take the longest, and cost the most, but after that—assuming you use the same design throughout—you can build quite quickly. Japan averaged ~5 years between beginning of construction and commercial operations: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... France build 58 reactors in 25 years: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nu... It helps if you don't start and stop projects/plants: many cost over-runs are because of wishy-washy decision making. > When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years? 2004 to 2009 is five, Tomari 3 in Japan: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomari_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomari_Nuclear_Power_Plant

by Swizec 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

Just comparing MW when wind is blowing is never going to be useful or result in a productive discussion. You need compare nuclear with other useful, base load generation methods in terms of build cost/time/CO2 per MW.

Swizec 3y ago
I believe the numbers I quoted are averages, not only when the wind is blowing. Source: https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ https://www.ewea.org/wind-energy-basics/faq/ Here’s a better number: https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-tu... > At a 42% capacity factor (i.e., the average among recently built wind turbines in the United States, per the 2021 edition of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Land-Based Wind Market Report), that average turbine would generate over 843,000 kWh (843MWh) per month—enough for more than 940 average U.S. homes For comparison, an actual nuclear reactor in practical use produced 4,697,675 MWh in 2017. That’s the equivalent of 5572 of those wind turbines. That’s a lot of wind turbines. But if we can build 278 wind turbines per year and it takes 20 years to build a new reactor. They’re even. USA currently builds 3000 turbines per year. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-installed-us-each-year https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-wind-turbines-are-install... So I think even with 42% capacity, wind is winning. We’d need to build 10 reactors per 20 years (1 every 2 years) for nuclear to beat wind.
- russell_h 3y ago
  It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too.
  - cesarb 3y ago
    > It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too. It depends. If you're adding wind or nuclear to an already existing grid (which is usually the case), the already existing power plants can usually take over whenever the new power plants are offline or generating less power, and you don't need to budget for any extra storage. In these cases, the average output is the most relevant metric; it shows how much fuel (for a mostly fossil fuel grid) or water (for a mostly hydroelectric grid) it will save.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Possibly, but the discussion is about price per MW of nuclear vs wind, and I'm saying that's not a great comparison between generation types if you want power delivered all the time. 50% capacity is worth much less than 50% of the cost of 100% capacity.
  - lysp 3y ago
    A study was undertaken for the Australian grid. https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for-australia-is-feasible-and-affordable-with-just-a-few-hours-of-storage/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100pct-renewable-grid-for... It basically found that you can get close to 100% relatively easily with minimal storage (5 hours average demand). The issue with getting over the mid-90s and to handle 100% is that you need to cater for the edge-cases (conditions that may occur 1-2 times per year max). Either way from memory, LCOE (in $/MWH) for grid-scale solar is around 50-60, adding storage brings costs up to 80-120. Nuclear is in the range of 200-300+, so even with storage the economics of renewables are better with costs trending downward. Especially when you can build them and scale them up quickly (compared to 10-15 years of nuclear builds).

smallmancontrov 3y ago

Yep, agreed, it's pretty much dead, unless the SMR people can figure out the low-end. There's a reason why our anti-nuclear friend directed his vitriol there, lol. That said, I hear that China is building nuclear. We might be able to import the know-how, or develop the political will to spin ours back up. A bit of national jealously goes a long way.

gottorf 3y ago

> When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years? South Korea is one of the world leaders in commercial nuclear power, and as of 20 years ago they were able to build plants in under 5 years[0]. Seems like recent construction has slowed down there as well, for reasons unknown to me. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_Korea

pydry 3y ago

It's not dead. It shares skills and industrial capacity with the military. For countries that have nukes or want an option to build some in a hurry, they want nukes. The sheer expense just means it's vastly too expensive to do anything about climate change. The military industrial complex will still try to sell it as better or at least equivalent to solar and wind though - and people will buy it.

Isle_of_View 3y ago

[flagged]

throw0101c 3y ago
> Wind farms deliver nada when the wind does not blow. The unsolved problem of intermittency. The province of Ontario has a respectable wind infrastructure, but quite often in the middle of heat waves (when demand is high, because air conditioning is needed to help people keep cool/alive) the wind often does not blow. Solar would be useful for supply in summer, but it's not useful at night obviously (when it can be cooler, but still hot (>30C)).

throw0101c 3y ago

> If more nuclear takes 20+ years to build while we can get wind farms online next month, is it really faster? Building (roughly) plants 1 through 3 will be the hardest, take the longest, and cost the most, but after that—assuming you use the same design throughout—you can build quite quickly. Japan averaged ~5 years between beginning of construction and commercial operations: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_reactors#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... France build 58 reactors in 25 years: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nuclear_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France%27s_civil_nu... It helps if you don't start and stop projects/plants: many cost over-runs are because of wishy-washy decision making. > When’s the last time anyone built a nuclear plant in 4 years? 2004 to 2009 is five, Tomari 3 in Japan: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomari_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomari_Nuclear_Power_Plant