4 ms·

Nordics (Sweden, Finland) are expanding nuclear as well. Their energy ministers are very pro-nuclear, for some funny reason.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
Politically Sweden the current government is wanting to expand nuclear power through the largest subsidy program in Swedish history. The company supposed to build them held a tender for first SMR, then pivoted to large scale reactors and shortlisted three options. Then that tender disappeared and now they have shortlisted 2 SMR options. What is happening is a no one wanting to admit the absolutely ludicrous costs and hope the question will fizzle out. Which as we all know are paper products which rely on ”scale” to achieve anything. No one seems to talk about who will buy the couple hundred SMR prototypes to achieve said scale.
- Moldoteck 1y ago
  I'm not sure about largest subsidy program. Large reactors make more sense but since Korea was banned by US, realistically it's better to pick Hitachi to get something on the grid
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Nothing even comes close. We’re talking tens of billions of euros. ”Get something on the grid” when the mangled number put out in PR communication is 2035. So realistically early to mid 2040s. Why not just build renewables and storage and have ”something on the grid” counted in months and years instead of decades?
    - Moldoteck 1y ago
      Sweden did spent similar amounts for ren subsidies over years, that's why I'm not sure it's the biggest. If the goal is 1.5gw nuclear, that would be about 20bn for bwrx if fully funded by govt, looking at Canada. 20bn is a lot, but on the other hand Sweden for sure did spent similar amounts for ren over years. renewables cover different aspect of demand. What you do if you don't have enough firming power? Hope neighbors will have spare power? That's why you start planning nuclear now, or you'll start planning gas later, just like Germany
      - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        Please stop guessing and making stuff up? Anti subsidy reports in 2019 [1] landed on a what was seen as a worryingly large €10B for the entire Swedish market based subsidy system over the period from 2003 to 2045. 2018 the actual costs landed on €300m. In 2021 the price of the system went to zero and was subsequently phased out for new producers. You know; market based subsidies. In other words, much less than €10B will ever be spent on it. Please stop making stuff up because you can’t bring yourself to accept how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is. Are suggesting that we should build peaking nuclear power plants to solve firming? Because that is Sweden’s problem. Managing a January cold spell coupled with low wind is what is used to calculate the resiliency. What capsize factor should we calculate? 20%? That is way higher than a January cold spell but let’s go for it. Running Vogtle at a 20% capacity factor leads to 80 cents per kWh electricity. What you are suggesting is completely batshit insane when actually putting a number on it. Who cares if the final bit of firming is fossil based with possibility to be decarbonized through synfuels, biofuels or hydrogen when we still have large portions of the economy to deal with? Don’t let imaginary perfect be the enemy of good enough. [1]: https://timbro.se/miljo/ny-rapport-subventioner-till-fornybart-kostar-konsumenterna-100-miljarder/ https://timbro.se/miljo/ny-rapport-subventioner-till-fornyba...
        Moldoteck 1y ago
        I'm suggesting phasing out fossils including gas firming. Hydrogen firming is extremely expensive per Lazard, it's strange you are bringing it up while complaining about nuclear. Needless to say their numbers are for US. For europe it'll be more similar to Germany https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/shipping-green-hydrogen-germany-unviable-strategy-basic-industry-decarbonisation-report https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/shipping-green-hydrogen... https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-report-says-making-green-hydrogen-germany-uneconomical-questioning-government-plans https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-report-says-making-g... Nuclear can achieve this and you can reform capacity market to guarantee 60%cf if you need, because you know, you still need firming power and maybe you want to avoid too high transmission expansion and grid forming inverters. If ren strategy alone can't achieve this due to gas firming, then you deploy less ren. Sweden can expand ren as long as hydro can firm it. Past that, you don't have other realistic option than nuclear if you want to phase out fossils entirely
Moldoteck 1y ago
The reason is peak demand. If your demand is say 5GW and hydro can provide max 3GW, unless you overbuild ren, it's 'easier' to have some more firm power while ren will act as water savers for hydro (especially considering droughts). For now they have sufficient power, but considering nuclear timelines, you better start now Enhanced geothermal could play a role here, but for now it's debatable.
- zekrioca 1y ago
  They have lots potential for wind (~20%) and hydro. Peak demand is increasing, but lasts for very specific amounts of time during a day, it doesn’t justify the increases in base load. These peaks could be certainly fulfilled by smarter grid management, demand-response, and electrification before new building new power plants. Yet, many of these will be needed despite nuclear, but since nuclear is the elephant in the room, they are going with it first, while stalling everything else. They are even trying to convince Germany to do the same.
  - Moldoteck 1y ago
    "smarter grid management, demand-response, and electrification" - electrification increases the demand, maybe you meant efficiency? Demand response is basically - please don't use power because we don't have enough or because it's expensive. That's not an appealing option. Smart grid management is good but it'll take years to reach good condition - you need to expand/upgrade transmission and distribution systems with proper equipment. Germany has it's own path that's more or less stable for a long time- coal+gas firming, tons of ren and major transmission expenses, to the point govt will start subsidizing them
    - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
      No-one ever characterises cheap rate electricity at night that is common with nuclear as "please don't use power during the day because we don't have enough". It's a strange double standard. As is the building of expensive pumped hydro storage for use with nuclear.
    - 1y ago

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

Politically Sweden the current government is wanting to expand nuclear power through the largest subsidy program in Swedish history. The company supposed to build them held a tender for first SMR, then pivoted to large scale reactors and shortlisted three options. Then that tender disappeared and now they have shortlisted 2 SMR options. What is happening is a no one wanting to admit the absolutely ludicrous costs and hope the question will fizzle out. Which as we all know are paper products which rely on ”scale” to achieve anything. No one seems to talk about who will buy the couple hundred SMR prototypes to achieve said scale.

Moldoteck 1y ago
I'm not sure about largest subsidy program. Large reactors make more sense but since Korea was banned by US, realistically it's better to pick Hitachi to get something on the grid
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Nothing even comes close. We’re talking tens of billions of euros. ”Get something on the grid” when the mangled number put out in PR communication is 2035. So realistically early to mid 2040s. Why not just build renewables and storage and have ”something on the grid” counted in months and years instead of decades?
  - Moldoteck 1y ago
    Sweden did spent similar amounts for ren subsidies over years, that's why I'm not sure it's the biggest. If the goal is 1.5gw nuclear, that would be about 20bn for bwrx if fully funded by govt, looking at Canada. 20bn is a lot, but on the other hand Sweden for sure did spent similar amounts for ren over years. renewables cover different aspect of demand. What you do if you don't have enough firming power? Hope neighbors will have spare power? That's why you start planning nuclear now, or you'll start planning gas later, just like Germany
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      Please stop guessing and making stuff up? Anti subsidy reports in 2019 [1] landed on a what was seen as a worryingly large €10B for the entire Swedish market based subsidy system over the period from 2003 to 2045. 2018 the actual costs landed on €300m. In 2021 the price of the system went to zero and was subsequently phased out for new producers. You know; market based subsidies. In other words, much less than €10B will ever be spent on it. Please stop making stuff up because you can’t bring yourself to accept how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is. Are suggesting that we should build peaking nuclear power plants to solve firming? Because that is Sweden’s problem. Managing a January cold spell coupled with low wind is what is used to calculate the resiliency. What capsize factor should we calculate? 20%? That is way higher than a January cold spell but let’s go for it. Running Vogtle at a 20% capacity factor leads to 80 cents per kWh electricity. What you are suggesting is completely batshit insane when actually putting a number on it. Who cares if the final bit of firming is fossil based with possibility to be decarbonized through synfuels, biofuels or hydrogen when we still have large portions of the economy to deal with? Don’t let imaginary perfect be the enemy of good enough. [1]: https://timbro.se/miljo/ny-rapport-subventioner-till-fornybart-kostar-konsumenterna-100-miljarder/ https://timbro.se/miljo/ny-rapport-subventioner-till-fornyba...
      - Moldoteck 1y ago
        I'm suggesting phasing out fossils including gas firming. Hydrogen firming is extremely expensive per Lazard, it's strange you are bringing it up while complaining about nuclear. Needless to say their numbers are for US. For europe it'll be more similar to Germany https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/shipping-green-hydrogen-germany-unviable-strategy-basic-industry-decarbonisation-report https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/shipping-green-hydrogen... https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-report-says-making-green-hydrogen-germany-uneconomical-questioning-government-plans https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/eu-report-says-making-g... Nuclear can achieve this and you can reform capacity market to guarantee 60%cf if you need, because you know, you still need firming power and maybe you want to avoid too high transmission expansion and grid forming inverters. If ren strategy alone can't achieve this due to gas firming, then you deploy less ren. Sweden can expand ren as long as hydro can firm it. Past that, you don't have other realistic option than nuclear if you want to phase out fossils entirely

Moldoteck 1y ago

The reason is peak demand. If your demand is say 5GW and hydro can provide max 3GW, unless you overbuild ren, it's 'easier' to have some more firm power while ren will act as water savers for hydro (especially considering droughts). For now they have sufficient power, but considering nuclear timelines, you better start now Enhanced geothermal could play a role here, but for now it's debatable.

zekrioca 1y ago
They have lots potential for wind (~20%) and hydro. Peak demand is increasing, but lasts for very specific amounts of time during a day, it doesn’t justify the increases in base load. These peaks could be certainly fulfilled by smarter grid management, demand-response, and electrification before new building new power plants. Yet, many of these will be needed despite nuclear, but since nuclear is the elephant in the room, they are going with it first, while stalling everything else. They are even trying to convince Germany to do the same.
- Moldoteck 1y ago
  "smarter grid management, demand-response, and electrification" - electrification increases the demand, maybe you meant efficiency? Demand response is basically - please don't use power because we don't have enough or because it's expensive. That's not an appealing option. Smart grid management is good but it'll take years to reach good condition - you need to expand/upgrade transmission and distribution systems with proper equipment. Germany has it's own path that's more or less stable for a long time- coal+gas firming, tons of ren and major transmission expenses, to the point govt will start subsidizing them
  - ZeroGravitas 1y ago
    No-one ever characterises cheap rate electricity at night that is common with nuclear as "please don't use power during the day because we don't have enough". It's a strange double standard. As is the building of expensive pumped hydro storage for use with nuclear.
  - 1y ago