13 ms·

They're ~the cheapest power options available and provide decades and decades of zero-marginal-cost energy. Building a wind turbine today has about the same al

They're ~the cheapest power options available and provide decades and decades of zero-marginal-cost energy. Building a wind turbine today has about the same all-in "LCOE" as running existing nuclear plants. Building new nukes results in electricity that's about 4x as expensive as building turbines instead. Not to say we shouldn't build more nuke plants, but they're extraordinarily expensive to build and have construction timelines measured in decades so it's nearly impossible to make them pencil out on a per-kwh basis when compared to wind or solar + batteries that can be deployed and commissioned in 6 months.

wakawaka28 1y ago
>They're ~the cheapest power options available and provide decades and decades of zero-marginal-cost energy. It's not zero-marginal-cost energy because they do need maintenance. But I'm more interested in knowing where your lifespan idea comes from. I have seen multiple sources agree that wind turbines are expected to last 20ish years, after which they must at least be taken down and refurbished, if not cut into pieces and buried (as they are not recyclable). >Building new nukes results in electricity that's about 4x as expensive as building turbines instead. This sounds impossible, especially if you count land value, maintenance, grid stability measures that are required to deal with flaky power sources, etc.
- mikeyouse 1y ago
  There’s standard maintenance as with anything mechanical but most importantly for energy - they don’t burn a fuel that is subject to supply/demand, international relations, or shortages. “Decades and decades” would satisfy your 20-yr scenario but more realistically, modern turbines from Vestas have 30-yr lifespans (which are often exceeded) and the newest gen GE turbines come with 40-yr lifespans. There are inherent issues with LCOE but it’s the ‘least bad’ metric we have to compare energy sources. As of 2022, it looked like this: https://www.powerengineeringint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/BNEF.jpg https://www.powerengineeringint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/... With onshore wind about $0.04/kwh and nuclear more like $0.22/kwh. Which sounds outlandish until you realize that PPAs for wind auctions are regularly under $0.03 now and Hinkley C is going to cost something like $50 billion for the two reactors and the rate guaranteed to the owners is north of $0.18 now which will return them something terrible like 7% IRR.
  - wakawaka28 1y ago
    >“Decades and decades” would satisfy your 20-yr scenario Actually it's more like "decade and decade" lol I have been surprised at the figures I found for nuclear power versus wind. The reason our nuclear reactors cost so much, so far as I've heard, is that each one is designed anew and there are tremendous regulatory compliance costs. I think designs could be standardized and regulatory stuff streamlined, so as to drastically reduce costs for nuclear. Say what you will about Chinese safety or quality, but they seem to be cranking out a ton of new nuclear reactors as most of the West is foolishly retiring theirs with no good replacement.
    - mikeyouse 1y ago
      Sure, but "just build nuke plants cheaper" isn't really a viable plan when you need electrons tomorrow. There's a well-known issue in the West that we've lost the ability to build large projects on budget or schedule and there a million reasons for it, but none of it really matters to people buying power. As of today, if you had $20 billion and had to choose between maybe generating your first watt from nuclear somewhere around 2040 if things go well or just building 15,000 3MW wind turbines that could start generating power next year and will have over a decade of revenue coming in before you see the first dollar from the nuke - investors make the obvious choice.
      - wakawaka28 1y ago
        One does not "merely" manufacture and install 15000 3 MW wind turbines lol...
        mikeyouse 1y ago
        I’m sure I dropped a 0 somewhere and the math works out to be 1,500 turbines - but China installed over 5,000 turbines last month.. so even the larger number isn’t too outlandish
    - Cthulhu_ 1y ago
      Yes; there are a few companies (iirc / top of my head) developing or deploying small-scale, standardized / modular nuclear power plants; NuScale [0] has developed a few models that have gotten Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals in 2022 and this year [1] they approved a 77 MW generator, which is enough to power a data center. This one weighs about 700 tons, about 23 meters tall, is built in a factory and can be transported / installed anywhere. [0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/ https://www.nuscalepower.com/ [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-nuscale-powers-uprated-small-modular-reactor-design https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-nuscale-powe...

wakawaka28 1y ago

>They're ~the cheapest power options available and provide decades and decades of zero-marginal-cost energy. It's not zero-marginal-cost energy because they do need maintenance. But I'm more interested in knowing where your lifespan idea comes from. I have seen multiple sources agree that wind turbines are expected to last 20ish years, after which they must at least be taken down and refurbished, if not cut into pieces and buried (as they are not recyclable). >Building new nukes results in electricity that's about 4x as expensive as building turbines instead. This sounds impossible, especially if you count land value, maintenance, grid stability measures that are required to deal with flaky power sources, etc.

mikeyouse 1y ago
There’s standard maintenance as with anything mechanical but most importantly for energy - they don’t burn a fuel that is subject to supply/demand, international relations, or shortages. “Decades and decades” would satisfy your 20-yr scenario but more realistically, modern turbines from Vestas have 30-yr lifespans (which are often exceeded) and the newest gen GE turbines come with 40-yr lifespans. There are inherent issues with LCOE but it’s the ‘least bad’ metric we have to compare energy sources. As of 2022, it looked like this: https://www.powerengineeringint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/BNEF.jpg https://www.powerengineeringint.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/... With onshore wind about $0.04/kwh and nuclear more like $0.22/kwh. Which sounds outlandish until you realize that PPAs for wind auctions are regularly under $0.03 now and Hinkley C is going to cost something like $50 billion for the two reactors and the rate guaranteed to the owners is north of $0.18 now which will return them something terrible like 7% IRR.
- wakawaka28 1y ago
  >“Decades and decades” would satisfy your 20-yr scenario Actually it's more like "decade and decade" lol I have been surprised at the figures I found for nuclear power versus wind. The reason our nuclear reactors cost so much, so far as I've heard, is that each one is designed anew and there are tremendous regulatory compliance costs. I think designs could be standardized and regulatory stuff streamlined, so as to drastically reduce costs for nuclear. Say what you will about Chinese safety or quality, but they seem to be cranking out a ton of new nuclear reactors as most of the West is foolishly retiring theirs with no good replacement.
  - mikeyouse 1y ago
    Sure, but "just build nuke plants cheaper" isn't really a viable plan when you need electrons tomorrow. There's a well-known issue in the West that we've lost the ability to build large projects on budget or schedule and there a million reasons for it, but none of it really matters to people buying power. As of today, if you had $20 billion and had to choose between maybe generating your first watt from nuclear somewhere around 2040 if things go well or just building 15,000 3MW wind turbines that could start generating power next year and will have over a decade of revenue coming in before you see the first dollar from the nuke - investors make the obvious choice.
    - wakawaka28 1y ago
      One does not "merely" manufacture and install 15000 3 MW wind turbines lol...
      - mikeyouse 1y ago
        I’m sure I dropped a 0 somewhere and the math works out to be 1,500 turbines - but China installed over 5,000 turbines last month.. so even the larger number isn’t too outlandish
  - Cthulhu_ 1y ago
    Yes; there are a few companies (iirc / top of my head) developing or deploying small-scale, standardized / modular nuclear power plants; NuScale [0] has developed a few models that have gotten Nuclear Regulatory Commission approvals in 2022 and this year [1] they approved a 77 MW generator, which is enough to power a data center. This one weighs about 700 tons, about 23 meters tall, is built in a factory and can be transported / installed anywhere. [0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/ https://www.nuscalepower.com/ [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-nuscale-powers-uprated-small-modular-reactor-design https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-approves-nuscale-powe...