4 ms·

Wait... But everyone says wind+solar+batteries are so much cheaper than nuclear. Why aren't big corpos pouring money in these instead to get even more output?

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
Footprint? Maybe.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  imo - need for firm power
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> everyone says wind+solar+batteries are so much cheaper than nuclear. Why aren't big corpos pouring money in these instead to get even more output? Same reason it makes sense to build as much wind and solar with batteries plus nukes as possible: scale. (And false dichotomy: they’re also investing massively in wind, solar and batteries.) We didn’t produce enough batteries (or solar panels or wind turbines, for that matter) fast enough before . For solar and wind, moreover, approval difficult scales with land area. You’d think nukes would be harder, but it’s apparently easier to get a state to let you YOLO on land rights when it’s on a small footprint. Solar and wind (with batteries) is still cheaper. Gas is politically problematic for Big Tech, so they go with nuclear. The voting public in America and Europe, on the other hand, chose gas.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  but considering acceleration of scaling solar/wind/battery production & it's fast deployment, they may as well wait 5-8 years and build the stuff then. Unless they need firm power that solar+wind+battery can't provide enough unless you have huge overcapacity of all of them
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > considering acceleration of scaling solar/wind/battery production & it's fast deployment, they may as well wait 5-8 years and build the stuff then Do you have sources for your time scale? The acceleration is massive and from a massively tiny baseline. AI is predicted to add 0.8% energy growth a year to American power use [1]; lots of that is going into gas. > unless you have huge overcapacity of all of them There is the political reality that what’s been built has voting employees and tangibility in a way what is to be built does not. That’s the danger in our deployment of gas turbines. If we hit an energy surplus, the first to get cut will be things not yet built, even if those are renewables. (Think: phase out of subsidies, maybe even grid charges.) Some enlightened jurisdictions will continue shutting down gas turbines to replace them with solar, maybe even nukes, but most won’t. [1] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power-demand https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-...
    - kibwen 2y ago
      > AI is predicted to add 0.8% energy growth a year to American power use [1]; lots of that is going into gas. And given past performance, the nuclear projects being proposed here are projected to add 0% energy capacity to the grid within the next 20 years.
      - Moldoteck 2y ago
        actually vogtle showed that unit 4 was completed faster and cheaper than unit 3. Add to that no experienced ppl for building it, foak build, unfinished design, covid. Imo new projects of ap1000 could be done significantly cheaper and faster
graeme 2y ago
Baseload. Nuclear runs forever and you can put a datacenter right beside it to avoid grid complexities.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Nuclear only runs about 95% of the time. You still need to deal with grid complexities.
  - Arnt 2y ago
    1.3 nines of reliability? Awesome. Do you have a source for that, how wide is the variation for different reactor types and operators, does it apply to individual reactors or whole sites when there are several reactors on one site?
    - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
      The PRIS database has country averaged data for energy availability factor, capacity factor etc. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva...
      - Arnt 2y ago
        I have to say: That looks as if they all value safety over uptime. Thanks.
- dsq 2y ago
  An added value is that in off-hours nuclear can be used to produce hydrogen for carbon free fuel.
  - Angostura 2y ago
    Not arguing against you, but - as can wind and solar at times of excess generation.
bryanlarsen 2y ago
There are. There's about one announcement a month for those deals. For instance Google inked deals with at least Energix, New Green Power and Black Rock in the last quarter. So the question then is: why do the nuclear deals make Hacker News and the solar deals don't?
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  yes, but why not pour even more $ in those then since if it's cheaper = you get more kw for the same $?
  - Arnt 2y ago
    Spreading your bets is considered sensible.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > why not pour even more $ in those then since if it's cheaper = you get more kw for the same $? Law of diminishing marginal returns: you don’t. You either need to pay a premium for expedited delivery or eat the time value of delays.
  - cartoonworld 2y ago
    "Everybody" doesn't say solar, wind, or batteries is cheaper than nuclear. The question of what is "cheaper" at any given time isn't really relevant at this scale -- its cheap. Price and availability of electricity and power is more or less global, however datacenter customers are in the situation where they need to power a city with electricity in a location where there is neither an existing city nor its generation capactiy.
VoodooJuJu 2y ago
For the same reason people support fluoridation of drinking water: they "trust the science" without even looking at it.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  fluoride is good stuff in limited quantity, like many other things.
  - jpadkins 2y ago
    drinking fluoride in small quantities doesn't have a ton of evidence of benefit. Brushing your teeth with fluoride does.
    - snark42 2y ago
      They at least partly figured out fluoride for brushing teeth and in drinking water was a net positive based on teeth health and natural fluoride levels in wells around the world. CDC estimates it reduces cavities by 25%.
sandworm101 2y ago
Not if you are a high-demand single point consumer like a data center. Google doesn't want to buy thousands of acres for solar panels, nor the hassles of installing massive batteries next to a new data center. A small nuclear reactor would be a much easier fit. A steady user also wants a steady power supply. Nuclear is very steady.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Interesting to call building a "small nuclear reactor" an easier fit than simply putting up a bunch of containers with batteries, hooking them up and calling it day. I know what I would bet on.
  - snark42 2y ago
    So if you build a decent sized data center to consume 160 MWh you can get 2 SMRs and call it a day. Or you can buy 480 Tesla MegaPacks (about 6 acres) and 1600 acres (it's roughly 1 MW per 5 acres) of solar panels to run the DC and charge the batteries during the day. Sure some can go on the building, but you'd still need way more acreage than that can provide. I know what I would bet on too.
HL33tibCe7 2y ago
Revealed preference

FrustratedMonky 2y ago

Footprint? Maybe.

Moldoteck 2y ago
imo - need for firm power

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> everyone says wind+solar+batteries are so much cheaper than nuclear. Why aren't big corpos pouring money in these instead to get even more output? Same reason it makes sense to build as much wind and solar with batteries plus nukes as possible: scale. (And false dichotomy: they’re also investing massively in wind, solar and batteries.) We didn’t produce enough batteries (or solar panels or wind turbines, for that matter) fast enough before . For solar and wind, moreover, approval difficult scales with land area. You’d think nukes would be harder, but it’s apparently easier to get a state to let you YOLO on land rights when it’s on a small footprint. Solar and wind (with batteries) is still cheaper. Gas is politically problematic for Big Tech, so they go with nuclear. The voting public in America and Europe, on the other hand, chose gas.

Moldoteck 2y ago
but considering acceleration of scaling solar/wind/battery production & it's fast deployment, they may as well wait 5-8 years and build the stuff then. Unless they need firm power that solar+wind+battery can't provide enough unless you have huge overcapacity of all of them
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > considering acceleration of scaling solar/wind/battery production & it's fast deployment, they may as well wait 5-8 years and build the stuff then Do you have sources for your time scale? The acceleration is massive and from a massively tiny baseline. AI is predicted to add 0.8% energy growth a year to American power use [1]; lots of that is going into gas. > unless you have huge overcapacity of all of them There is the political reality that what’s been built has voting employees and tangibility in a way what is to be built does not. That’s the danger in our deployment of gas turbines. If we hit an energy surplus, the first to get cut will be things not yet built, even if those are renewables. (Think: phase out of subsidies, maybe even grid charges.) Some enlightened jurisdictions will continue shutting down gas turbines to replace them with solar, maybe even nukes, but most won’t. [1] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power-demand https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-...
  - kibwen 2y ago
    > AI is predicted to add 0.8% energy growth a year to American power use [1]; lots of that is going into gas. And given past performance, the nuclear projects being proposed here are projected to add 0% energy capacity to the grid within the next 20 years.
    - Moldoteck 2y ago
      actually vogtle showed that unit 4 was completed faster and cheaper than unit 3. Add to that no experienced ppl for building it, foak build, unfinished design, covid. Imo new projects of ap1000 could be done significantly cheaper and faster

graeme 2y ago

Baseload. Nuclear runs forever and you can put a datacenter right beside it to avoid grid complexities.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Nuclear only runs about 95% of the time. You still need to deal with grid complexities.
- Arnt 2y ago
  1.3 nines of reliability? Awesome. Do you have a source for that, how wide is the variation for different reactor types and operators, does it apply to individual reactors or whole sites when there are several reactors on one site?
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    The PRIS database has country averaged data for energy availability factor, capacity factor etc. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva...
    - Arnt 2y ago
      I have to say: That looks as if they all value safety over uptime. Thanks.
dsq 2y ago
An added value is that in off-hours nuclear can be used to produce hydrogen for carbon free fuel.
- Angostura 2y ago
  Not arguing against you, but - as can wind and solar at times of excess generation.

bryanlarsen 2y ago

There are. There's about one announcement a month for those deals. For instance Google inked deals with at least Energix, New Green Power and Black Rock in the last quarter. So the question then is: why do the nuclear deals make Hacker News and the solar deals don't?

Moldoteck 2y ago
yes, but why not pour even more $ in those then since if it's cheaper = you get more kw for the same $?
- Arnt 2y ago
  Spreading your bets is considered sensible.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > why not pour even more $ in those then since if it's cheaper = you get more kw for the same $? Law of diminishing marginal returns: you don’t. You either need to pay a premium for expedited delivery or eat the time value of delays.
- cartoonworld 2y ago
  "Everybody" doesn't say solar, wind, or batteries is cheaper than nuclear. The question of what is "cheaper" at any given time isn't really relevant at this scale -- its cheap. Price and availability of electricity and power is more or less global, however datacenter customers are in the situation where they need to power a city with electricity in a location where there is neither an existing city nor its generation capactiy.

VoodooJuJu 2y ago

For the same reason people support fluoridation of drinking water: they "trust the science" without even looking at it.

Moldoteck 2y ago
fluoride is good stuff in limited quantity, like many other things.
- jpadkins 2y ago
  drinking fluoride in small quantities doesn't have a ton of evidence of benefit. Brushing your teeth with fluoride does.
  - snark42 2y ago
    They at least partly figured out fluoride for brushing teeth and in drinking water was a net positive based on teeth health and natural fluoride levels in wells around the world. CDC estimates it reduces cavities by 25%.

sandworm101 2y ago

Not if you are a high-demand single point consumer like a data center. Google doesn't want to buy thousands of acres for solar panels, nor the hassles of installing massive batteries next to a new data center. A small nuclear reactor would be a much easier fit. A steady user also wants a steady power supply. Nuclear is very steady.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Interesting to call building a "small nuclear reactor" an easier fit than simply putting up a bunch of containers with batteries, hooking them up and calling it day. I know what I would bet on.
- snark42 2y ago
  So if you build a decent sized data center to consume 160 MWh you can get 2 SMRs and call it a day. Or you can buy 480 Tesla MegaPacks (about 6 acres) and 1600 acres (it's roughly 1 MW per 5 acres) of solar panels to run the DC and charge the batteries during the day. Sure some can go on the building, but you'd still need way more acreage than that can provide. I know what I would bet on too.

HL33tibCe7 2y ago

Revealed preference