6 ms·

The thing that surprises me about nuclear power is the huge amount of enthusiasm right now, without technological wins that might inspire such enthusiasm. If s

The thing that surprises me about nuclear power is the huge amount of enthusiasm right now, without technological wins that might inspire such enthusiasm. If somebody is excited about deploying solar plus storage, that makes a ton of sense because prices are tumbling, enabling all sorts of new applications. Nuclear is the opposite. It's always overpromised and under delivered. It's a mature tech, there's not big breakthroughs, we understand the design space somewhat well. Or at least well enough that nobody thinks that there's a design which will cause a 5x cost improvement, like is regularly obtained with solar and storage. The US seems committed to taking the high-cost, low-economic growth path for the next few years, at least according to federal policies, and this would fit in with that. But I don't understand the enthusiasm at all.

kulahan 1y ago
The enthusiasm is very easy to understand. Solar: needs unforeseen advances in energy storage tech, also hilariously inefficient Geothermal: regionally locked Wind: unpredictable Hydro: all the good spots are already being used Coal/oil/gas: too dirty Nuclear faces none of these problems. It’s a big project at the moment, because SMRs aren’t developed (yet?), but the actual operation and output is unbelievably steady. Newer designs are mostly about mega-safety, and more people getting over Chernobyl can help drive funding to potentially reach fusion - the obvious holy grail. I literally cannot even imagine what you think is more viable?
- mlyle 1y ago
  Yah-- nuclear isn't going to win on its own, but no one technology is going to get us out of this greenhouse gas mess. We're going to need to electrify a lot of things to lower emissions. And electrifying things requires a big source of base load. Overbuilding renewables, adding storage, enlarging transmission/grids, and load shedding all help; but likely still fall short of the mark at a reasonable cost. Nuclear is expensive, but it fills key gaps in other solutions and helps reduce overall system risk.
- epistasis 1y ago
  > Solar: needs unforeseen advances in energy storage tech, also hilariously inefficient The storage tech exists and is in practice right now, no advancements needed. Also, it's not inefficient at all, what do you mean by that? > Geothermal This is far more promising than nuclear. Enhanced geothermal is opening up massive regions, and the tech is undergoing massive advancement by adopting the huge technology leap form fracking. It is completely dispatchable, and can even have some short term daily storage just by regulating inputs and outputs. > Wind Storage solves this today In the 2000s, I felt like you did. But since about 2015, it's hard for me to understand your views. Especially after seeing what happened at Summer in South Carolina and Vogtle in Georgia, it's clear that nuclear faces larger technological hurdles than solar, geothermal, or wind. Storage changes everything, it's economical, and it's being deployed in massive amounts on grids where economics rule the day (which isn't many of them, since most of our grids are controlled by regulated monopolies).
  - hyperadvanced 1y ago
    Storage tech exists right now but it’s not super widespread or reliable (mostly in the “what do I get for my dollar” - you can store power all you want but making your investment back is a little harder). Degradation has proved to be worse than anticipated. Industrial application of Li batteries has been repeatedly hamstrung by supply chain, demand, tariff, etc. problems. New battery chemistry would really be the breakthrough here, anything cheaper and better than lithium
    - epistasis 1y ago
      It's extremely reliable, and it's also very economical. > Degradation has proved to be worse than anticipated. I follow the space closely and there have been zero complaints about this. And regardless the warranties would cover the early installs. It's going to be extremely hard for any other battery chemistry to catch up to lithium ion. Sodium has a chance, but the supply chain for lithium is massive, growing, and has lots of substitutions if bottlenecks arise. The logistics challenges of nuclear are an order of magnitude higher than for nuclear. With far more financial risk, timelines around a decade instead of a year. The technology for storage is robust, scaling massively, and pretty much unstoppable in the US unless there are explicit bans. Nuclear literally needs a technooogy advancement to catch up, and the closest is SMR production, which is coming close to a decade of being in vogue, with plans stalling out everywhere. Even the planned BWRXs in Canada at Darlington may now be at risk since the US is starting to be viewed as unreliable and too risky to depend upon.
H8crilA 1y ago
I am a nuclear fanboy not because it promises technological breakthroughs (like you wrote, there probably won't be many or even any), but because there just isn't any other option that can deliver continuous power without messing up the climate. I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. I am an even bigger fan of solar power, but are we really going to have enough battery capacity to reliably run entire countries?
- epistasis 1y ago
  > I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. Vogtle is showing that to be wrong. It costs something like $180-$200/MWh, when market value is around $50/MWh on average. Solar with enough storage to operate as baseload is far cheaper than nuclear today, and will only get cheaper over the next decade. See for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches-facility-produce-1gw-uninterrupted-renewable-energy-2025-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches...
  - H8crilA 1y ago
    Okay, but now run the numbers not for a middle eastern desert but for say Germany, or similar latitudes/weather patterns in the US. ChatGPT roughly estimated the cost to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500/MWh.
    - epistasis 1y ago
      That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. ChatGPT is an innumerate as contemporary nuclear advocates. I regularly run the numbers for the US, and using old NREL numbers it's $120/MWh. The US has great solar resources. Germany has some of the worst. But in any case most of the cost is in the battery, not the panels, which are cheap. So bump that up and it doesn't change the cost much. I'm any case, unless you are Finland or similar, nuclear is not on the table.
joe_the_user 1y ago
I think the enthusiasm comes from: * A contrarianism visa vis environmental crusades against nuclear power that presented it's dangers in a distorted fashion. * How nuclear on paper presents the possibility of limitless energy with little pollution. * Nuclear is the kind of big-tech solution that appeals to a lot of nerds. The problem is that nuclear failed independently from environmental crusades even if some of these were successful. Nuclear power requires vast investment and radiation has the problem that it can weaken anything. Meltdowns aren't the apocalypse environmentalists imply but they destroy permanently a huge store of investment and their commonness has tanked nuclear power independently from popular crusades but those with a stake in nuclear like point to "them hippies" to cover their own failures.
- crote 1y ago
  > Nuclear power requires vast investment In my opinion this is the strongest argument to take. Any argument about radiation or waste is going to be waved away as "scaremongering" and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner - you won't change anyone's mind with that. On the other hand, the practical arguments are pretty cut-and-dry: the West is unable to build them fast enough to matter, and they are too expensive to compete with renewables on an open energy market. We already have the receipts for traditional reactors due to Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, and Flamanville 3. Have we solved every single potential problem which needs solving for a 100% renewable grid? No, but we've got plenty of time to work out the edge cases during the transition. Perhaps some magical mass-produced micro nuclear peaker plants will help in that, perhaps they won't. Let's keep investing in tried-and-tested technology like solar, wind, hydro, and battery storage until the nuclear folks get their act together - no need to bet our entire future on a nuclear miracle which probably isn't going to happen anyways.
  - qball 1y ago
    >and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner Yes, this is what the solar/wind people keep claiming about energy storage. >the West is unable to build them fast enough No, the West is unwilling to build them fast enough. Then it chickens out, and the institutional knowledge to build the next plants are lost (so you lose the volume discount). Regaining and retaining the institutional knowledge to build things may be more expensive in the short term, but it should be done- the fact that a country is capable of building power infrastructure on a whim is vital for its national defense. This is the hidden cost of buying Chinese solar panels (because once you can't buy from China, or once China is unwilling to sell to you, you'll be paying for your own nuclear infrastructure regardless). And no, other countries' solar panels are not cheaper than nuclear; 'not knowing how to do it ourselves' cuts both ways.
AngryData 1y ago
While there aren't any flashy breakthrough nuclear technologies, we should remember that universities have been doing research and advancing nuclear technology over the decades even when nuclear power plants weren't being built. The US military has wanted to maintain nuclear sciences and students, nuclear medicine has done a lot, material science has come a long ways for nuclear compatible materials, physics and nearly every branch of it has dipped its toes into if not dove right into learning about nuclear forces and nuclear chemistry. Fusion power requires understanding nuclear forces. And of course there are still people looking for the flashy nuclear power breakthrough. The reactors we see still operating today are mostly designed in like the 70s and 80s, some going back to the 60s, but that is only like 40 years after the invention of nuclear reactors and nuclear power, we are now over 40 years past that again, and our understanding of nuclear sciences is leaps and bounds above what we used to build most nuke plants in existance.
- epistasis 1y ago
  As far as reactors that could be deployed in the next 10 years, very optimistically we have: - Westinghouse AP1000 - EDF EPR - GE-Hitachi BWRX The AP1000 and EPR have been shown to be very underwhelming, in the US and Europe, respectively. Those failures are prompting Canada to look at the much smaller 300MW BWRX in Ontario. However before any cost-overruns the BWRX is getting priced at $14/W recently, and the eye-popping cost of the Vogtle AP1000 at $16/W has scared all potential builders away. If we could return to the older designs, we might be able to complete them at cheaper prices, but as our knowledge has advanced, nuclear has gotten more expensive.
  - IMTDb 1y ago
    The European EPR aren’t underwhelming: the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned. The underwhelming part comes from delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision, as well as difficulties finding builder with the required know-how. Despite this both France (which has just finished building an EPR) and the UK (which is building one right now) are doubling down and launching new projects to capitalise on the knowledge gained. In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more. This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience, causing cost overruns on the new constructions. This is not inherent to the technology itself but a symptom of our decision to put it aside for a while. As an example when I was in engineering school I remember being told “don’t do a nuclear physics major there is no job for that in the future”. Not easy retaining excellence in a field when that’s what you tell your children. All the dude that went there anyway are in very very high demand today, as you might expect. The new generation of reactors is more complex, mainly because of additional security and reliability requirements, which is a good thing. Those are certified for a lifespan of 60 years and costs are computed on that base. Some old gen reactors in the us are looking to extend their lifespan to 80 years. It’s extremely likely the new - safer - reactors will be able go beyond that, reducing the MW costs compared to current estimates. We are slowly re-learning to build reactors, and mastering a new technology at the same time. The more reactors we build based on that experience the more that initial cost will be distributed. There is nothing underwhelming in what was delivered; the process to get there was, but we will get better at that.

kulahan 1y ago

The enthusiasm is very easy to understand. Solar: needs unforeseen advances in energy storage tech, also hilariously inefficient Geothermal: regionally locked Wind: unpredictable Hydro: all the good spots are already being used Coal/oil/gas: too dirty Nuclear faces none of these problems. It’s a big project at the moment, because SMRs aren’t developed (yet?), but the actual operation and output is unbelievably steady. Newer designs are mostly about mega-safety, and more people getting over Chernobyl can help drive funding to potentially reach fusion - the obvious holy grail. I literally cannot even imagine what you think is more viable?

mlyle 1y ago
Yah-- nuclear isn't going to win on its own, but no one technology is going to get us out of this greenhouse gas mess. We're going to need to electrify a lot of things to lower emissions. And electrifying things requires a big source of base load. Overbuilding renewables, adding storage, enlarging transmission/grids, and load shedding all help; but likely still fall short of the mark at a reasonable cost. Nuclear is expensive, but it fills key gaps in other solutions and helps reduce overall system risk.
epistasis 1y ago
> Solar: needs unforeseen advances in energy storage tech, also hilariously inefficient The storage tech exists and is in practice right now, no advancements needed. Also, it's not inefficient at all, what do you mean by that? > Geothermal This is far more promising than nuclear. Enhanced geothermal is opening up massive regions, and the tech is undergoing massive advancement by adopting the huge technology leap form fracking. It is completely dispatchable, and can even have some short term daily storage just by regulating inputs and outputs. > Wind Storage solves this today In the 2000s, I felt like you did. But since about 2015, it's hard for me to understand your views. Especially after seeing what happened at Summer in South Carolina and Vogtle in Georgia, it's clear that nuclear faces larger technological hurdles than solar, geothermal, or wind. Storage changes everything, it's economical, and it's being deployed in massive amounts on grids where economics rule the day (which isn't many of them, since most of our grids are controlled by regulated monopolies).
- hyperadvanced 1y ago
  Storage tech exists right now but it’s not super widespread or reliable (mostly in the “what do I get for my dollar” - you can store power all you want but making your investment back is a little harder). Degradation has proved to be worse than anticipated. Industrial application of Li batteries has been repeatedly hamstrung by supply chain, demand, tariff, etc. problems. New battery chemistry would really be the breakthrough here, anything cheaper and better than lithium
  - epistasis 1y ago
    It's extremely reliable, and it's also very economical. > Degradation has proved to be worse than anticipated. I follow the space closely and there have been zero complaints about this. And regardless the warranties would cover the early installs. It's going to be extremely hard for any other battery chemistry to catch up to lithium ion. Sodium has a chance, but the supply chain for lithium is massive, growing, and has lots of substitutions if bottlenecks arise. The logistics challenges of nuclear are an order of magnitude higher than for nuclear. With far more financial risk, timelines around a decade instead of a year. The technology for storage is robust, scaling massively, and pretty much unstoppable in the US unless there are explicit bans. Nuclear literally needs a technooogy advancement to catch up, and the closest is SMR production, which is coming close to a decade of being in vogue, with plans stalling out everywhere. Even the planned BWRXs in Canada at Darlington may now be at risk since the US is starting to be viewed as unreliable and too risky to depend upon.

H8crilA 1y ago

I am a nuclear fanboy not because it promises technological breakthroughs (like you wrote, there probably won't be many or even any), but because there just isn't any other option that can deliver continuous power without messing up the climate. I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. I am an even bigger fan of solar power, but are we really going to have enough battery capacity to reliably run entire countries?

epistasis 1y ago
> I want it to happen even if it slightly increases my power bill or my taxes. And as far as I understand the increase would be slight, if any at all. Vogtle is showing that to be wrong. It costs something like $180-$200/MWh, when market value is around $50/MWh on average. Solar with enough storage to operate as baseload is far cheaper than nuclear today, and will only get cheaper over the next decade. See for example: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches-facility-produce-1gw-uninterrupted-renewable-energy-2025-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uaes-masdar-launches...
- H8crilA 1y ago
  Okay, but now run the numbers not for a middle eastern desert but for say Germany, or similar latitudes/weather patterns in the US. ChatGPT roughly estimated the cost to be somewhere in the neighborhood of $500/MWh.
  - epistasis 1y ago
    That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. ChatGPT is an innumerate as contemporary nuclear advocates. I regularly run the numbers for the US, and using old NREL numbers it's $120/MWh. The US has great solar resources. Germany has some of the worst. But in any case most of the cost is in the battery, not the panels, which are cheap. So bump that up and it doesn't change the cost much. I'm any case, unless you are Finland or similar, nuclear is not on the table.

joe_the_user 1y ago

I think the enthusiasm comes from: * A contrarianism visa vis environmental crusades against nuclear power that presented it's dangers in a distorted fashion. * How nuclear on paper presents the possibility of limitless energy with little pollution. * Nuclear is the kind of big-tech solution that appeals to a lot of nerds. The problem is that nuclear failed independently from environmental crusades even if some of these were successful. Nuclear power requires vast investment and radiation has the problem that it can weaken anything. Meltdowns aren't the apocalypse environmentalists imply but they destroy permanently a huge store of investment and their commonness has tanked nuclear power independently from popular crusades but those with a stake in nuclear like point to "them hippies" to cover their own failures.

crote 1y ago
> Nuclear power requires vast investment In my opinion this is the strongest argument to take. Any argument about radiation or waste is going to be waved away as "scaremongering" and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner - you won't change anyone's mind with that. On the other hand, the practical arguments are pretty cut-and-dry: the West is unable to build them fast enough to matter, and they are too expensive to compete with renewables on an open energy market. We already have the receipts for traditional reactors due to Olkiluoto 3, Hinkley Point C, and Flamanville 3. Have we solved every single potential problem which needs solving for a 100% renewable grid? No, but we've got plenty of time to work out the edge cases during the transition. Perhaps some magical mass-produced micro nuclear peaker plants will help in that, perhaps they won't. Let's keep investing in tried-and-tested technology like solar, wind, hydro, and battery storage until the nuclear folks get their act together - no need to bet our entire future on a nuclear miracle which probably isn't going to happen anyways.
- qball 1y ago
  >and will be solved by innovations riiight aroung the corner Yes, this is what the solar/wind people keep claiming about energy storage. >the West is unable to build them fast enough No, the West is unwilling to build them fast enough. Then it chickens out, and the institutional knowledge to build the next plants are lost (so you lose the volume discount). Regaining and retaining the institutional knowledge to build things may be more expensive in the short term, but it should be done- the fact that a country is capable of building power infrastructure on a whim is vital for its national defense. This is the hidden cost of buying Chinese solar panels (because once you can't buy from China, or once China is unwilling to sell to you, you'll be paying for your own nuclear infrastructure regardless). And no, other countries' solar panels are not cheaper than nuclear; 'not knowing how to do it ourselves' cuts both ways.

AngryData 1y ago

While there aren't any flashy breakthrough nuclear technologies, we should remember that universities have been doing research and advancing nuclear technology over the decades even when nuclear power plants weren't being built. The US military has wanted to maintain nuclear sciences and students, nuclear medicine has done a lot, material science has come a long ways for nuclear compatible materials, physics and nearly every branch of it has dipped its toes into if not dove right into learning about nuclear forces and nuclear chemistry. Fusion power requires understanding nuclear forces. And of course there are still people looking for the flashy nuclear power breakthrough. The reactors we see still operating today are mostly designed in like the 70s and 80s, some going back to the 60s, but that is only like 40 years after the invention of nuclear reactors and nuclear power, we are now over 40 years past that again, and our understanding of nuclear sciences is leaps and bounds above what we used to build most nuke plants in existance.

epistasis 1y ago
As far as reactors that could be deployed in the next 10 years, very optimistically we have: - Westinghouse AP1000 - EDF EPR - GE-Hitachi BWRX The AP1000 and EPR have been shown to be very underwhelming, in the US and Europe, respectively. Those failures are prompting Canada to look at the much smaller 300MW BWRX in Ontario. However before any cost-overruns the BWRX is getting priced at $14/W recently, and the eye-popping cost of the Vogtle AP1000 at $16/W has scared all potential builders away. If we could return to the older designs, we might be able to complete them at cheaper prices, but as our knowledge has advanced, nuclear has gotten more expensive.
- IMTDb 1y ago
  The European EPR aren’t underwhelming: the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned. The underwhelming part comes from delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision, as well as difficulties finding builder with the required know-how. Despite this both France (which has just finished building an EPR) and the UK (which is building one right now) are doubling down and launching new projects to capitalise on the knowledge gained. In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more. This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience, causing cost overruns on the new constructions. This is not inherent to the technology itself but a symptom of our decision to put it aside for a while. As an example when I was in engineering school I remember being told “don’t do a nuclear physics major there is no job for that in the future”. Not easy retaining excellence in a field when that’s what you tell your children. All the dude that went there anyway are in very very high demand today, as you might expect. The new generation of reactors is more complex, mainly because of additional security and reliability requirements, which is a good thing. Those are certified for a lifespan of 60 years and costs are computed on that base. Some old gen reactors in the us are looking to extend their lifespan to 80 years. It’s extremely likely the new - safer - reactors will be able go beyond that, reducing the MW costs compared to current estimates. We are slowly re-learning to build reactors, and mastering a new technology at the same time. The more reactors we build based on that experience the more that initial cost will be distributed. There is nothing underwhelming in what was delivered; the process to get there was, but we will get better at that.