12 ms·

Yeah I’m not going to lie, that’s quite disappointing. Google funding several AP1000’s would be huge.

iknowstuff 2y ago
seeing how 2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, why would Google waste $120B when they can get the same output for at most half the price (and realistically more like 1/10th) using renewables and batteries? and they’d have results in 2 years instead of 2 decades. edit: to be clear, 1GW of wind or solar is $1B. Build 3GW for overcapacity and you’re still at just 17% of the cost of 1GW of nuclear, and you technically have 3x more capacity. Now figure out how many megapacks you can buy for the $14B/GW you saved https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design (answer: 16GW/68GWh)
- preisschild 2y ago
  Because they need power 24/7 and not only when the weather cooperates. And new AP1000s in the US would cost significantly less, because there are already experienced workers & supply chains from Vogtle and getting a license requires less work too, because you can copy much of Vogtle. The median build time for nuclear reactors is 7 years. This is archivable if you continue building and not just build 1 or 2 every few decades.
  - p1necone 2y ago
    > Because they need power 24/7 and not only when the weather cooperates. Hence the batteries.
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      The scale just isn't there. A single nuclear power plant near me, McGuire Nuclear Power Plant, produced 17,514 GW·h in 2005. The entire potential output of the Tesla (cough Panasonic) Gigafactories in California and China have a combined output of ~50 GWh per year. [0] Nuclear power is amazing at producing a reliable base load of power that massively outstrips our ability to produce and store solar power. Say our load is well aligned with the cycle of solar power and we're ignoring weather so we can derate the amount we want to store to 30% that's 105 years of production out of what I think is the two largest batter plants in existence to store the power produced continuously by a single large nuclear power plant. [0] https://www.fuld.com/tesla-energy-massive-growth-in-megapack-manufacturing/#:~:text=If%20we%20combine%20this%20with%20the%20potential%20output%20with%20Tesla%E2%80%99s%20new%20China%20plant%2C%20by%202025%20the%20combined%20output%20could%20be%20as%20high%20as%2050%20GW%20per%20year https://www.fuld.com/tesla-energy-massive-growth-in-megapack...
      - toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Global stationary storage deployed for 2024 will be ~150GWh, and this is accelerating. Batteries are easy, nuclear appears to be impossible (economically speaking).
        rtkwe 2y ago
        So 35 years then to store the power generated 24/7 by McGuire at that rate of production which ignores that the huge spike of AI loads will want 24/7 power, if we're looking at that kind of load I'd rate it at 50% for starters (low to be honest because it doesn't account for how solar ramps up during the day) which is around 60 years. Plus that's giving full capacity to those batteries when ideally we'd only use the middle 60% to avoid deep cycling the batteries daily unless they've completely solved that problem.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        The nuclear ain't getting built, these are facts. Even if one breaks ground today, you won't push your first kwh to the grid for a decade, at which point another ~10TW of clean energy will have come online globally. If AI is using too much power in the short term, destroy demand with policy and economics. We are not beholden to the robot trainers, we just don't provide utility access to the load. Unlimited demand of industrial scales of electrical power isn't a right of some sort.
        rank0 2y ago
        What other activities are prohibited in your dream dictatorship?
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy. Strange to think that having regulations around large scale electrical loads is a dictatorship. It’s okay for us to collectively say no, depending on the circumstances.
    - preisschild 2y ago
      Having enough battery capacity to back up enough energy for a few minutes let alone days would require a lot of resources. I think scaling nuclear power would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
      - slashdave 2y ago
        Cheaper? No, not even close. Environmentally friendly? Debatable, but wait for new tech. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/iron-air-battery-renewable-grid/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/iron-air-battery-renew...
        Moldoteck 2y ago
        yes it'll be cheaper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/
        preisschild 2y ago
        note the word "could" We have heard better and better batteries being just around the corner for decades at this point. Sure, maybe a few percent better, but nothing ground breaking.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      look at germany's yesterday output and tell me how much batteries they'd need to cover such a drop in generation
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > using renewables and batteries? and they’d have results in 2 years instead of 2 decades We have nothing close to the battery fabrication pipeline to make that timeline true, certainly not at scale. If this move works, Google will have cemented its power needs and economics for decades to come.
  - iknowstuff 2y ago
    frequently asserted but not true. https://x.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1843840160842350779 https://x.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1843840160842350779
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      Nobody claims renewables + battery doesn't work long term. (And not only work, but do so at rock-bottom costs.) The problem is the timeline. Time out building that additional infrastructure, including expected demand growth, and you always need more power in the interim. Particularly if you're planning on taking coal offline. If there is an arugment that we can ramp up battery production even faster than we are, the math changes. But we're already in a Herculean effort to mass produce more batteries faster.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Battery manufacturing capacity is greatly underutilized in China. That was battery cell prices there fell by nearly 1/2 in the last year. There is tremendous room for expansion of production.
      - iknowstuff 2y ago
        nuclear literally takes 10x the time to build as renewables+batteries. That's like the whole reason why it doesn't get built.
        sien 2y ago
        During the Messmer plan the French installed 56 reactors in 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... So you're saying that in 1.5 years the same thing can now be done with renewables and batteries? In 2027 it will easily have been done in a bunch of places ?
- edm0nd 2y ago
  That is seemingly such an absurdly high number to get a nuclear planet up and running. Is the majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Is that majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s? One part this, two parts the economics of a novel technology platform being deployed in a large size, three parts American labor costs and inexperience with megaprojects. Similar to why we can't build ships [1]: high input costs, notably materials and labour, and a coddled industry that is internationally uncompetitive. With ships, it's the Jones Act and shipyard protectionism; with civilian nukes, it's misguided greenies. (Would note that we're perfectly capable of nuclear production if it happens under the military.) [1] https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant...
    - rtkwe 2y ago
      IMO they only continue to exist because of the Jones Act not the way I think you're implying where Jones Act protectionism prevents them from flourishing. High material and labor alone are enough to explain why people wouldn't build ships in the US. What special capabilities could Us shipbuilders bring that would make the cost of labor here competitive with China or South Korea? Gone are the days when the US dominates on skill or capacity, and that's not because the US has lost something the rest of the world just caught up with us. Whenever we're looking at the 1900s and wondering why the US used to be so dominant as an industrial power I think it's incredibly important to remember our industry got all the upside (an absolute torrent of money and demand) and none of the downside (bombing) of two world wars. IMO the US industrial base was riding high on that easily into the 80s and people mistake that dominance for skill and prowess rather than the waning boon of WW2's mobilization and destruction of every other extant industrial power.
- mindslight 2y ago
  So using your numbers, it is solidly a little less than half the cost, not one tenth (26GWh seems around the necessarily amount for riding out ~14 hours of darkness. I'm assuming your factor of 3 makes up for seasonal variation and cloudy days). The panels take up 9 acres of land area, and need to be kept clean of snow and dust. The battery lifetime is small compared to expected life of a nuclear reactor, but the battery lifecycle is more straightforward. This seems like the territory of having a reasonable tradeoff between the two, not some unequivocal win for an Internet smackdown about how we should avoid one approach.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > edit: to be clear, 1GW of wind or solar is $1B. No, it's not. Right now it's probably more than $10B a GW if you want the same level of reliability as nuclear.
  - atwrk 2y ago
    You can't just invent a number because you like it more. Solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear even if you go beyond LCOE and include system costs. Even the nuclear lobby acknowledges this nowadays and has switched to other arguments.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      No. Not even close. Wind and solar are cheap _only_ if you don't depend on them. In particular, for the wind the adequacy rating is about 10% in most places. It means that you can expect 10% of the nameplate capacity to be available at all times system-wide. So multiply the wind energy costs by 10x, and suddenly they are quite more expensive than nuclear. It's not even a question for the solar, it simply can't provide power during a day without storage. > Even the nuclear lobby acknowledges this nowadays and has switched to other arguments. Nope.
      - atwrk 2y ago
        First, capacity factor is a silly metric to use for this. The industry uses LCOE or system LCOE, because this is about dollars per actual TWh produced, not capacity. In other words: A capacity factor of 10% doesn't matter if building 10x the amount is still cheaper. With that said, the wind capacity factor in Germany is 20% for onshore and 40% for offshore, so even that was wrong by a factor of 2-4.
- throw0101d 2y ago
  > seeing how 2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia Vogtle 4 was (IIRC) 30% cheaper than Vogtle 3. The problem with nuclear in Georgia, and in the US, was that no one remembers/ed how to do it, and so all the lessons of yore had to be relearned, and the supply chain had to be stood up. If you put in an order for several reactors, the very first one (especially of a new model, like Vogtle 3 was) will be expensive AF. The second will be expensive. All models after that will be at a more 'reasonable' cost. Nuclear reactors are just like any other widget: the cost goes down with economies of scale. If you order 4 or 8 reactors at one sites they'll get progressively get cheaper (there is a floor of course). If you then put in an order at a second site, and move the workforce (or a portion) there, the lower costs will still be present. If you start and stop construction, or order a whole bunch of different models/types, then there economies of scale goes out the window.
  - dalyons 2y ago
    Sort of - nuke plants are fundamentally phenomenally complicated compared to true economies of scale technologies like solar. You won’t reap 100x cost savings in nukes, no matter how many you build
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      Every widget has a price floor since there's parts/materials and labour costs. This is even true for solar. One simply has to be careful about what something "costs" when you look at the first unit versus the nth unit.
  - iknowstuff 2y ago
    did you see France raising their cost estimate for 5 reactors to $73B? France, the shining beacon of nuclear energy. by the time they build it, the cost of renewables will halve, and their actual cost of nuclear will have doubled again.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  That wont work because the tesla webpage has a maximum order quantity of 1,000 units... /s
- dogma1138 2y ago
  Can Google get 2GW for $34B anywhere in the world? This is the value proposition of modular small reactors. The cost of nuclear in Georgia today is essentially subsidized by decades and decades of past investments. And as much as some people might like that you can’t simply move Georgia and place it next to your data centers.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  because 1 - 1gw of solar capacity isn't the same as nuclear, even 3gw of solar isn't the same as 1gw of nuclear (to get a proper perspective, look at germany's grid yesterday& how much overcapacity of solar/wind they have and how much was actually generated/imported). 2 - vogtle unit 4 was 30% cheaper than unit 3, proving positive learning curve, meaning (in theory, according to https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ ) new builds should be significantly cheaper
treflop 2y ago
I'm fairly pro-nuclear but the EIA (Energy Information Administration) publishes a "Levelized Costs of New Generation" report every year that compiles the total cost of installing new generation, taking into account the fuel, build up, maintenance, interest, and inflationary costs, and nuclear ends up costing more $$$ than other renewable alternatives. It's no conspiracy why nuclear never gets traction these days -- maybe it was cost-effective 10-30 years ago but renewable technology has gotten relatively cheap. (Shutting down active nuclear reactors earlier than needed is a whole different issue though.) Here's the report for 2023: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/... There is no report for 2024 because they are building a new model to take into account even newer technologies: https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/press537.php https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/press537.php
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... Lazard report for lcoe is so funny because they assume 4h storage will be enough to cover the demand
jeffbee 2y ago
Google's entire thing only consumed on average 2.6x worth of AP1000 energy last year. Why does anyone think that the IT industry needs to pull all of the weight of electrifying the American economy by building 7 AP1000 power stations?
- Tostino 2y ago
  They have the capital, and are the ones who need the extra generation capacity now. They will share the cost along with the average consumer as EVs take up a larger proportion of total vehicles on the road.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    And you are applying this equally across all American industry? The production of chlorine by electrolysis consumes twice as much electricity in America than Google consumes worldwide. But I don't see you up here calling for Olin Chlor Alkali to build nuclear power stations, for some reason. Are you suggesting that the American chemical industry lacks capital?
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  You raise a very good point. I need to do some research to understand your comment. 1) Google uses about 25 terawatt-hours per year. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/788540/energy-consumption-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/788540/energy-consumptio... 2) An AP100 nuclear reactor can produce up to 10 terawatt-hours per year. Source: https://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000#:~:text=AP1000%20is%20now%20a%20proven,to%2080%20years%20and%20beyond https://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000#:~:.... That is incredible to think just how much power that a single nuclear reactor can produce!
- forgotoldacc 2y ago
  People say trillion dollar corporations need to start taking steps to limit climate change, then when they do, "Why should trillion dollar corporations need to pull their weight?" This top-down corporate order will make more change than Americans can individually.
throwaway2037 2y ago
Nuclear is a terrible investment in 2024. Price per delivered megawatt-hour is guaranteed to be much lower for a combination of solar+battery+wind. -- Edit -- To clarify, "Nuclear is a terrible investment for private industry in 2024." However, I understand why nation states (and their equivalents) would want a diversity of power sources. There many be non-economic reasons why nations want to build nuclear over solar+battery+wind.
- forgotoldacc 2y ago
  There's something to be said for space. A nuclear reactor takes up far less land than an equivalent amount of wind and solar generation. That's quickly going to become a limiting factor in wind/solar rollout and already is in some smaller countries (unless they're willing to bulldoze their entire land to cover it in solar panels)
  - notTooFarGone 2y ago
    Ok we can all agree that the US has not a land problem. This argument is relevant in Europe but the US has more than enough space power transmission is a problem but it's solvable.
    - forgotoldacc 2y ago
      Just because the US has a lot of area doesn't mean it should all be paved over and turned into solar farms. "Who needs nature and green spaces? It could be cheap electricity instead" is a mindset the next generation will hate us for, just like our generation resents previous generations for thinking "Why not burn coal? It's cheap electricity and there's lots of air left." The US has a massive green space problem. It's a country of roads, parking lots, and corn fields and it's a problem that's visible from space. Don't take this as opposing solar energy. I support it versus fossil fuels. But if nuclear is viable, I'm for it.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    > There's something to be said for space. I see this argument a lot. Yes, the density is very high for nuclear power plants, but you need to build them in the middle of nowhere, for political and safety reasons. So, are we really saving space compared to solar? Plus, there is much less political resistance to solar farms, and almost zero safety issues (for PV). This comment: > unless they're willing to bulldoze their entire land to cover it in solar panels Your sentiment is interesting. No one says that when we talk about building new farms. Really, that is what people have done for the past 2000 years to alter our landscape. Can you imagine what Brazil looked like in 1800 vs today? Dramatic landscape changes due to farming. Same for US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. California has plenty of desert or very unproductive land that can be covered with solar panels.

seeing how 2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, why would Google waste $120B when they can get the same output for at most half the price (and realistically more like 1/10th) using renewables and batteries? and they’d have results in 2 years instead of 2 decades. edit: to be clear, 1GW of wind or solar is $1B. Build 3GW for overcapacity and you’re still at just 17% of the cost of 1GW of nuclear, and you technically have 3x more capacity. Now figure out how many megapacks you can buy for the $14B/GW you saved https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design (answer: 16GW/68GWh)

preisschild 2y ago
Because they need power 24/7 and not only when the weather cooperates. And new AP1000s in the US would cost significantly less, because there are already experienced workers & supply chains from Vogtle and getting a license requires less work too, because you can copy much of Vogtle. The median build time for nuclear reactors is 7 years. This is archivable if you continue building and not just build 1 or 2 every few decades.
- p1necone 2y ago
  > Because they need power 24/7 and not only when the weather cooperates. Hence the batteries.
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    The scale just isn't there. A single nuclear power plant near me, McGuire Nuclear Power Plant, produced 17,514 GW·h in 2005. The entire potential output of the Tesla (cough Panasonic) Gigafactories in California and China have a combined output of ~50 GWh per year. [0] Nuclear power is amazing at producing a reliable base load of power that massively outstrips our ability to produce and store solar power. Say our load is well aligned with the cycle of solar power and we're ignoring weather so we can derate the amount we want to store to 30% that's 105 years of production out of what I think is the two largest batter plants in existence to store the power produced continuously by a single large nuclear power plant. [0] https://www.fuld.com/tesla-energy-massive-growth-in-megapack-manufacturing/#:~:text=If%20we%20combine%20this%20with%20the%20potential%20output%20with%20Tesla%E2%80%99s%20new%20China%20plant%2C%20by%202025%20the%20combined%20output%20could%20be%20as%20high%20as%2050%20GW%20per%20year https://www.fuld.com/tesla-energy-massive-growth-in-megapack...
    - toomuchtodo 2y ago
      Global stationary storage deployed for 2024 will be ~150GWh, and this is accelerating. Batteries are easy, nuclear appears to be impossible (economically speaking).
      - rtkwe 2y ago
        So 35 years then to store the power generated 24/7 by McGuire at that rate of production which ignores that the huge spike of AI loads will want 24/7 power, if we're looking at that kind of load I'd rate it at 50% for starters (low to be honest because it doesn't account for how solar ramps up during the day) which is around 60 years. Plus that's giving full capacity to those batteries when ideally we'd only use the middle 60% to avoid deep cycling the batteries daily unless they've completely solved that problem.
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        The nuclear ain't getting built, these are facts. Even if one breaks ground today, you won't push your first kwh to the grid for a decade, at which point another ~10TW of clean energy will have come online globally. If AI is using too much power in the short term, destroy demand with policy and economics. We are not beholden to the robot trainers, we just don't provide utility access to the load. Unlimited demand of industrial scales of electrical power isn't a right of some sort.
        rank0 2y ago
        What other activities are prohibited in your dream dictatorship?
        toomuchtodo 2y ago
        Everyone is a libertarian until it’s their commons experiencing the tragedy. Strange to think that having regulations around large scale electrical loads is a dictatorship. It’s okay for us to collectively say no, depending on the circumstances.
  - preisschild 2y ago
    Having enough battery capacity to back up enough energy for a few minutes let alone days would require a lot of resources. I think scaling nuclear power would be cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
    - slashdave 2y ago
      Cheaper? No, not even close. Environmentally friendly? Debatable, but wait for new tech. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/iron-air-battery-renewable-grid/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/iron-air-battery-renew...
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        yes it'll be cheaper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/
      - preisschild 2y ago
        note the word "could" We have heard better and better batteries being just around the corner for decades at this point. Sure, maybe a few percent better, but nothing ground breaking.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    look at germany's yesterday output and tell me how much batteries they'd need to cover such a drop in generation
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> using renewables and batteries? and they’d have results in 2 years instead of 2 decades We have nothing close to the battery fabrication pipeline to make that timeline true, certainly not at scale. If this move works, Google will have cemented its power needs and economics for decades to come.
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  frequently asserted but not true. https://x.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1843840160842350779 https://x.com/DavidOsmond8/status/1843840160842350779
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    Nobody claims renewables + battery doesn't work long term. (And not only work, but do so at rock-bottom costs.) The problem is the timeline. Time out building that additional infrastructure, including expected demand growth, and you always need more power in the interim. Particularly if you're planning on taking coal offline. If there is an arugment that we can ramp up battery production even faster than we are, the math changes. But we're already in a Herculean effort to mass produce more batteries faster.
    - pfdietz 2y ago
      Battery manufacturing capacity is greatly underutilized in China. That was battery cell prices there fell by nearly 1/2 in the last year. There is tremendous room for expansion of production.
    - iknowstuff 2y ago
      nuclear literally takes 10x the time to build as renewables+batteries. That's like the whole reason why it doesn't get built.
      - sien 2y ago
        During the Messmer plan the French installed 56 reactors in 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messmer_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Messme... So you're saying that in 1.5 years the same thing can now be done with renewables and batteries? In 2027 it will easily have been done in a bunch of places ?
edm0nd 2y ago
That is seemingly such an absurdly high number to get a nuclear planet up and running. Is the majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s?
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Is that majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s? One part this, two parts the economics of a novel technology platform being deployed in a large size, three parts American labor costs and inexperience with megaprojects. Similar to why we can't build ships [1]: high input costs, notably materials and labour, and a coddled industry that is internationally uncompetitive. With ships, it's the Jones Act and shipyard protectionism; with civilian nukes, it's misguided greenies. (Would note that we're perfectly capable of nuclear production if it happens under the military.) [1] https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant...
  - rtkwe 2y ago
    IMO they only continue to exist because of the Jones Act not the way I think you're implying where Jones Act protectionism prevents them from flourishing. High material and labor alone are enough to explain why people wouldn't build ships in the US. What special capabilities could Us shipbuilders bring that would make the cost of labor here competitive with China or South Korea? Gone are the days when the US dominates on skill or capacity, and that's not because the US has lost something the rest of the world just caught up with us. Whenever we're looking at the 1900s and wondering why the US used to be so dominant as an industrial power I think it's incredibly important to remember our industry got all the upside (an absolute torrent of money and demand) and none of the downside (bombing) of two world wars. IMO the US industrial base was riding high on that easily into the 80s and people mistake that dominance for skill and prowess rather than the waning boon of WW2's mobilization and destruction of every other extant industrial power.
mindslight 2y ago
So using your numbers, it is solidly a little less than half the cost, not one tenth (26GWh seems around the necessarily amount for riding out ~14 hours of darkness. I'm assuming your factor of 3 makes up for seasonal variation and cloudy days). The panels take up 9 acres of land area, and need to be kept clean of snow and dust. The battery lifetime is small compared to expected life of a nuclear reactor, but the battery lifecycle is more straightforward. This seems like the territory of having a reasonable tradeoff between the two, not some unequivocal win for an Internet smackdown about how we should avoid one approach.
cyberax 2y ago
> edit: to be clear, 1GW of wind or solar is $1B. No, it's not. Right now it's probably more than $10B a GW if you want the same level of reliability as nuclear.
- atwrk 2y ago
  You can't just invent a number because you like it more. Solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear even if you go beyond LCOE and include system costs. Even the nuclear lobby acknowledges this nowadays and has switched to other arguments.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    No. Not even close. Wind and solar are cheap _only_ if you don't depend on them. In particular, for the wind the adequacy rating is about 10% in most places. It means that you can expect 10% of the nameplate capacity to be available at all times system-wide. So multiply the wind energy costs by 10x, and suddenly they are quite more expensive than nuclear. It's not even a question for the solar, it simply can't provide power during a day without storage. > Even the nuclear lobby acknowledges this nowadays and has switched to other arguments. Nope.
    - atwrk 2y ago
      First, capacity factor is a silly metric to use for this. The industry uses LCOE or system LCOE, because this is about dollars per actual TWh produced, not capacity. In other words: A capacity factor of 10% doesn't matter if building 10x the amount is still cheaper. With that said, the wind capacity factor in Germany is 20% for onshore and 40% for offshore, so even that was wrong by a factor of 2-4.
throw0101d 2y ago
> seeing how 2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia Vogtle 4 was (IIRC) 30% cheaper than Vogtle 3. The problem with nuclear in Georgia, and in the US, was that no one remembers/ed how to do it, and so all the lessons of yore had to be relearned, and the supply chain had to be stood up. If you put in an order for several reactors, the very first one (especially of a new model, like Vogtle 3 was) will be expensive AF. The second will be expensive. All models after that will be at a more 'reasonable' cost. Nuclear reactors are just like any other widget: the cost goes down with economies of scale. If you order 4 or 8 reactors at one sites they'll get progressively get cheaper (there is a floor of course). If you then put in an order at a second site, and move the workforce (or a portion) there, the lower costs will still be present. If you start and stop construction, or order a whole bunch of different models/types, then there economies of scale goes out the window.
- dalyons 2y ago
  Sort of - nuke plants are fundamentally phenomenally complicated compared to true economies of scale technologies like solar. You won’t reap 100x cost savings in nukes, no matter how many you build
  - throw0101d 2y ago
    Every widget has a price floor since there's parts/materials and labour costs. This is even true for solar. One simply has to be careful about what something "costs" when you look at the first unit versus the nth unit.
- iknowstuff 2y ago
  did you see France raising their cost estimate for 5 reactors to $73B? France, the shining beacon of nuclear energy. by the time they build it, the cost of renewables will halve, and their actual cost of nuclear will have doubled again.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
That wont work because the tesla webpage has a maximum order quantity of 1,000 units... /s
dogma1138 2y ago
Can Google get 2GW for $34B anywhere in the world? This is the value proposition of modular small reactors. The cost of nuclear in Georgia today is essentially subsidized by decades and decades of past investments. And as much as some people might like that you can’t simply move Georgia and place it next to your data centers.
Moldoteck 2y ago
because 1 - 1gw of solar capacity isn't the same as nuclear, even 3gw of solar isn't the same as 1gw of nuclear (to get a proper perspective, look at germany's grid yesterday& how much overcapacity of solar/wind they have and how much was actually generated/imported). 2 - vogtle unit 4 was 30% cheaper than unit 3, proving positive learning curve, meaning (in theory, according to https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ ) new builds should be significantly cheaper

treflop 2y ago

I'm fairly pro-nuclear but the EIA (Energy Information Administration) publishes a "Levelized Costs of New Generation" report every year that compiles the total cost of installing new generation, taking into account the fuel, build up, maintenance, interest, and inflationary costs, and nuclear ends up costing more $$$ than other renewable alternatives. It's no conspiracy why nuclear never gets traction these days -- maybe it was cost-effective 10-30 years ago but renewable technology has gotten relatively cheap. (Shutting down active nuclear reactors earlier than needed is a whole different issue though.) Here's the report for 2023: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/AEO2023_LCOE_report.pdf https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/electricity_generation/pdf/... There is no report for 2024 because they are building a new model to take into account even newer technologies: https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/press537.php https://www.eia.gov/pressroom/releases/press537.php

Moldoteck 2y ago
https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544222018035 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03605... Lazard report for lcoe is so funny because they assume 4h storage will be enough to cover the demand

jeffbee 2y ago

Google's entire thing only consumed on average 2.6x worth of AP1000 energy last year. Why does anyone think that the IT industry needs to pull all of the weight of electrifying the American economy by building 7 AP1000 power stations?

Tostino 2y ago
They have the capital, and are the ones who need the extra generation capacity now. They will share the cost along with the average consumer as EVs take up a larger proportion of total vehicles on the road.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  And you are applying this equally across all American industry? The production of chlorine by electrolysis consumes twice as much electricity in America than Google consumes worldwide. But I don't see you up here calling for Olin Chlor Alkali to build nuclear power stations, for some reason. Are you suggesting that the American chemical industry lacks capital?
throwaway2037 2y ago
You raise a very good point. I need to do some research to understand your comment. 1) Google uses about 25 terawatt-hours per year. Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/788540/energy-consumption-of-google/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/788540/energy-consumptio... 2) An AP100 nuclear reactor can produce up to 10 terawatt-hours per year. Source: https://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000#:~:text=AP1000%20is%20now%20a%20proven,to%2080%20years%20and%20beyond https://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000#:~:.... That is incredible to think just how much power that a single nuclear reactor can produce!
forgotoldacc 2y ago
People say trillion dollar corporations need to start taking steps to limit climate change, then when they do, "Why should trillion dollar corporations need to pull their weight?" This top-down corporate order will make more change than Americans can individually.

throwaway2037 2y ago

Nuclear is a terrible investment in 2024. Price per delivered megawatt-hour is guaranteed to be much lower for a combination of solar+battery+wind. -- Edit -- To clarify, "Nuclear is a terrible investment for private industry in 2024." However, I understand why nation states (and their equivalents) would want a diversity of power sources. There many be non-economic reasons why nations want to build nuclear over solar+battery+wind.

forgotoldacc 2y ago
There's something to be said for space. A nuclear reactor takes up far less land than an equivalent amount of wind and solar generation. That's quickly going to become a limiting factor in wind/solar rollout and already is in some smaller countries (unless they're willing to bulldoze their entire land to cover it in solar panels)
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  Ok we can all agree that the US has not a land problem. This argument is relevant in Europe but the US has more than enough space power transmission is a problem but it's solvable.
  - forgotoldacc 2y ago
    Just because the US has a lot of area doesn't mean it should all be paved over and turned into solar farms. "Who needs nature and green spaces? It could be cheap electricity instead" is a mindset the next generation will hate us for, just like our generation resents previous generations for thinking "Why not burn coal? It's cheap electricity and there's lots of air left." The US has a massive green space problem. It's a country of roads, parking lots, and corn fields and it's a problem that's visible from space. Don't take this as opposing solar energy. I support it versus fossil fuels. But if nuclear is viable, I'm for it.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > There's something to be said for space. I see this argument a lot. Yes, the density is very high for nuclear power plants, but you need to build them in the middle of nowhere, for political and safety reasons. So, are we really saving space compared to solar? Plus, there is much less political resistance to solar farms, and almost zero safety issues (for PV). This comment: > unless they're willing to bulldoze their entire land to cover it in solar panels Your sentiment is interesting. No one says that when we talk about building new farms. Really, that is what people have done for the past 2000 years to alter our landscape. Can you imagine what Brazil looked like in 1800 vs today? Dramatic landscape changes due to farming. Same for US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. California has plenty of desert or very unproductive land that can be covered with solar panels.