4 ms·

based on my reading nuclear power is much cheaper overall compared to wind solar etc?

atomic128 2y ago
Yes, that's right. See the recent discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41860341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41860341 Basically, nuclear fission is clean baseload power. Wind and solar are not baseload power sources. They don't really compete. See discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41858892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41858892 Furthermore, we're seeing interest (from Google and Amazon and Dow Chemical) in expensive but completely safe TRISO (HALEU) reactors (https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu...). These companies want clean baseload power, with no risk of meltdown, and they're willing to pay for it. Here's what Amazon has chosen: https://x-energy.com/fuel/triso-x https://x-energy.com/fuel/triso-x TRISO (HALEU) reactors use more than 1.5 times the natural uranium per unit of energy produced because the higher burnup is offset by higher enrichment inputs (see page 11 at https://fuelcycleoptions.inl.gov/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/182926.pdf https://fuelcycleoptions.inl.gov/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/1...), and the fuel is even more expensive to manufacture, but they are completely safe. This is a technology from the 1960's but it's attractive now because so much money is chasing clean baseload nuclear fission for data centers. These "impossible to melt down" TRISO small modular nuclear fission reactors are what Elon Musk was talking about on the campaign trail last week, when he said: ELON MUSK: "The dangers of nuclear power are greatly overstated. You can make a nuclear reactor that is literally impossible to melt down even if you tried to melt it down. You could try to bomb the place, and it still wouldn't melt down. There should be no regulatory issues with that. There should be significant nuclear reform." https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1847452008502219111 https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1847452008502219111
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  > Basically, nuclear fission is clean baseload power. Wind and solar are not baseload power sources. They don't really compete. This means you don't understand how the grid works. California's baseload is ~15 GW while it peaks at 50 GW. New built nuclear power is wholly unsuitable for load following duty due to the economics. It is an insane prospect when running at 100% 24/7, and even worse when it has to adapt. Both nuclear power and renewables need storage, flexibility or other measures to match their inflexibility to the grid. See the recent study where it was found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables, due to both options requiring dispatchable power to meet the grid load. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... > These companies want clean baseload power, with no risk of meltdown, and they're willing to pay for it. Here's what Amazon has chosen The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding. They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines. https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-... > with no risk of meltdown Then we should be able to remove the enormous subsidy the Price Anderson act adds to the industry right? Let all new reactors buy insurance for a Fukushima level accident in the open market. Nuclear powerplants are currently insured for ~0.05% of the cost of a Fukushima style accident and pooled together the entire US industry covers less than 5%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Not at all. Old paid of nuclear plants are competitive but new builds are insanely expensive leading to $140-220/MWh prices for the ratepayers before factoring in grid stability and transmission costs.[1] The US has zero commercial reactors under construction and this is for one reason: economics. The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding. They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines. [2] [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... [2]: https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-...
- floren 2y ago
  > leading to $140-220/MWh prices for the ratepayers I'm on PG&E, I wish I could get my electricity for only $0.14/kWh
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    That cost is excluding grid stability and transmission costs. From what I’ve understood PG&E’s largest problem is the massive payouts and infrastructure upgrades needed from the wildfires, not the cost of the electricity itself.
    - RF_Savage 2y ago
      Ain't that a direct result of them not investing in their infra for decades and all that technical debt catching up to them?
- synergy20 2y ago
  Thanks! I always thought it is due to people's safety concerns here instead of economic reasons. After all, nuclear plant is quite 'popular' in Europe, and China too these days.

Yes, that's right. See the recent discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41860341 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41860341 Basically, nuclear fission is clean baseload power. Wind and solar are not baseload power sources. They don't really compete. See discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41858892 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41858892 Furthermore, we're seeing interest (from Google and Amazon and Dow Chemical) in expensive but completely safe TRISO (HALEU) reactors (https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robust-nuclear-fuel-earth https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/triso-particles-most-robu...). These companies want clean baseload power, with no risk of meltdown, and they're willing to pay for it. Here's what Amazon has chosen: https://x-energy.com/fuel/triso-x https://x-energy.com/fuel/triso-x TRISO (HALEU) reactors use more than 1.5 times the natural uranium per unit of energy produced because the higher burnup is offset by higher enrichment inputs (see page 11 at https://fuelcycleoptions.inl.gov/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/182926.pdf https://fuelcycleoptions.inl.gov/SiteAssets/SitePages/Home/1...), and the fuel is even more expensive to manufacture, but they are completely safe. This is a technology from the 1960's but it's attractive now because so much money is chasing clean baseload nuclear fission for data centers. These "impossible to melt down" TRISO small modular nuclear fission reactors are what Elon Musk was talking about on the campaign trail last week, when he said: ELON MUSK: "The dangers of nuclear power are greatly overstated. You can make a nuclear reactor that is literally impossible to melt down even if you tried to melt it down. You could try to bomb the place, and it still wouldn't melt down. There should be no regulatory issues with that. There should be significant nuclear reform." https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1847452008502219111 https://x.com/AutismCapital/status/1847452008502219111

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
> Basically, nuclear fission is clean baseload power. Wind and solar are not baseload power sources. They don't really compete. This means you don't understand how the grid works. California's baseload is ~15 GW while it peaks at 50 GW. New built nuclear power is wholly unsuitable for load following duty due to the economics. It is an insane prospect when running at 100% 24/7, and even worse when it has to adapt. Both nuclear power and renewables need storage, flexibility or other measures to match their inflexibility to the grid. See the recent study where it was found that nuclear power needs to come down 85% in cost to be competitive with renewables, due to both options requiring dispatchable power to meet the grid load. > The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261924010882 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192... > These companies want clean baseload power, with no risk of meltdown, and they're willing to pay for it. Here's what Amazon has chosen The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding. They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines. https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-... > with no risk of meltdown Then we should be able to remove the enormous subsidy the Price Anderson act adds to the industry right? Let all new reactors buy insurance for a Fukushima level accident in the open market. Nuclear powerplants are currently insured for ~0.05% of the cost of a Fukushima style accident and pooled together the entire US industry covers less than 5%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_Indemnity_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

Not at all. Old paid of nuclear plants are competitive but new builds are insanely expensive leading to $140-220/MWh prices for the ratepayers before factoring in grid stability and transmission costs.[1] The US has zero commercial reactors under construction and this is for one reason: economics. The recent announcements from the hyperscalers are PPAs. If the company building the reactor can provide power at the agreed price they will take it off their hands. Thus creating a more stable financial environment to get funding. They are not investing anything on their own. For a recent example NuScale another SMR developer essentially collapsed when their Utah deal fell through when nice renders and PowerPoints met real world costs and deadlines. [2] [1]: https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/gjyffoqd/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... [2]: https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-...

floren 2y ago
> leading to $140-220/MWh prices for the ratepayers I'm on PG&E, I wish I could get my electricity for only $0.14/kWh
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  That cost is excluding grid stability and transmission costs. From what I’ve understood PG&E’s largest problem is the massive payouts and infrastructure upgrades needed from the wildfires, not the cost of the electricity itself.
  - RF_Savage 2y ago
    Ain't that a direct result of them not investing in their infra for decades and all that technical debt catching up to them?
synergy20 2y ago
Thanks! I always thought it is due to people's safety concerns here instead of economic reasons. After all, nuclear plant is quite 'popular' in Europe, and China too these days.