5 ms·

Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already at highest possible capacity factors (running 90% of the time). If they get undercut by renewables most of

Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already at highest possible capacity factors (running 90% of the time). If they get undercut by renewables most of the time, there is simply no way they can stay competitive. Nuclear peaker plants are not ever gonna be a thing, because that makes no sense economically: High capex is the last thing you want for that usecase, and it implies that the economics for your plant have to stay decent for the next 30 years. Meanwhile batteries, solar and wind are still getting cheaper every year right now. This is the worst bet you could ever make as an investor. > nuclear may be a very sensible choice since a single nuclear plant can replace a whole lot of natural gas peakers. This argument does not help nuclear power if the equivalent number of gas plants is still cheaper than a single nuclear reactor (and built much faster).

weregiraffe 1y ago
>Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already Because they are over-regulated. Why? Because of nucleophobia, which is fueled by fossil fuel producers.
- SoftTalker 1y ago
  They are also built and run by public or quasi-public utilities. I don't think we have a lot of examples of the private sector building nuclear generating plants. Maybe they can do it better, when it's their own money on the line, and they don't have a legally granted monopoly protecting them.
  - two_handfuls 1y ago
    Privatizing electricity in California resulted in massive underinvestment and forest fires as a result of poor maintenance. Privatization only saves money if you ignore the price paid by surrounding communities. I would not like to see a fully private nuclear plant.
    - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
      Privatization of electricity hands a company a monopoly
    - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
      Depends on how you do it. The electrical supply and demand markets can be privatized and that works quite well with few ancillary services needed. Privatizing the grid is a shit show since it is a natural monopoly.
- epistasis 1y ago
  That's simply untrue and focusing on it will continue to result in nuclear failure after nuclear failure. Nobody has some sort of proposal of a different regulatory scheme that is somehow cheaper. Even France, which built a ton decades ago, has completely failed for more than a decade at building. South Korea has been somewhat successful at building, but also sends execs to jail for faking parts approvals. But perhaps that would be cheap to fix. What has changed since the mid 20th century is that construction labor is far more expensive in comparison to other things that can be done with that labor. Construction productivity has remained roughly constant over time, as manufacturing and other productivity has gone through the roof. Nuclear is fundamentally a big construction project. SMRs weresypposed to be an attempt to make nuclear power a manufacturing project, not a construction project. But it turns out that construction projects like the BWRX300 are the only real SMRs that can be produced, after a decade of hype. Manufacturing SMRs like 747s is not any more real today than it was when the nuclear PR machine turned to it in the wake of the financial and construction disaster of the AP1000s at Summer and Vogtle. The real story of nuclear is the need for super cheap labor, and excellent high-tech construction capacity. These two requirements are at odds with each other, because in societies with high tech construction skills, labor quickly becomes expensive. Even places like China with lots of successful nuclear projects is only building a tiny tiny amount of nuclear when compared to their wind, solar, and batteries. China does everything, and they won't abandon nuclear completely because a nuclear workforce is essential for a country with superpower ambitions, but the nuclear power is there for the superpower ambitions, not the electricity generation.
  - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
    I just don't think smrs work without figuring out Lftrs. Because lifters can use almost all the fuel, are inherently meltdown proof, you basically take away the two worst dangers of nuclear. The issue with degradation of the piping and everything from the molten salts can probably be solved by a replacement cycle. But to be fair, I have no idea how China's MSR is going
  - pas 1y ago
    If the EU and US would each commit to build, fund 100+ NPPs over the next years then it would make sense to gear up for a scheme. Unfortunately each plant is a fucking special snowflake. Due to new sites somehow requiring changes which is absurd, since the containment and everything under it should be 1:1 copy, right? Yes, because the NRC doesn't work like that. Designs are tweaked. Anyway as you said it's a very expensive bespoke weld and pour festival.
throw0101a 1y ago
> Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already at highest possible capacity factors (running 90% of the time). In Ontario, Canada they are the third-cheapest (after hydro, and nat/methane gas); see Table 2: * https://oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018.pdf https://oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018... In previous years they have often been second-cheapest (after hydro): their 'ranking' depends on methane gas commodity prices.
- natmaka 1y ago
  Nuclear can be apparently cheap (its TCO is difficult to establish because gov funding, hot waste potentially breaking havoc in a distant future...) but never is when load-following, because load-following reduces the load factor, and a low load factor bumps up production costs. Moreover nuclear's aptitude to load-following is vastly over-stated because it has too much inertia (even hot). Even France (shock-full of reactors) always needs to produce approximately 10% ( https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+total+generation&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Energy+or+Electricity=Electricity+only&Select+a+source=Fossil+fuels&tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+... ) of its juice thanks to fossil fuel, for a non-negligible part ensuring load-following.
  - throw0101a 1y ago
    > Moreover nuclear's aptitude to load-following is vastly over-stated because it has too much inertia (even hot). There is load-following thermally and load-following electrically. Newer nuclear designs allow for the steam to be diverted and quenched so they don't reach the generators. Of course this is inefficient, but as you can see in the following link: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply the Ontario nuclear plants basically run at full-tilt 24/7 to provide base load. Hydro-electric is also supplying a bunch of base load, so if more nuclear can be built so that it takes up more of that hydro is doing, hydro can then be used in a more variable fashion (so perhaps (nat/methane) gas can be reduced and we have fewer GHGs released).
    - 1y ago

weregiraffe 1y ago

>Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already Because they are over-regulated. Why? Because of nucleophobia, which is fueled by fossil fuel producers.

SoftTalker 1y ago
They are also built and run by public or quasi-public utilities. I don't think we have a lot of examples of the private sector building nuclear generating plants. Maybe they can do it better, when it's their own money on the line, and they don't have a legally granted monopoly protecting them.
- two_handfuls 1y ago
  Privatizing electricity in California resulted in massive underinvestment and forest fires as a result of poor maintenance. Privatization only saves money if you ignore the price paid by surrounding communities. I would not like to see a fully private nuclear plant.
  - AtlasBarfed 1y ago
    Privatization of electricity hands a company a monopoly
  - ViewTrick1002 1y ago
    Depends on how you do it. The electrical supply and demand markets can be privatized and that works quite well with few ancillary services needed. Privatizing the grid is a shit show since it is a natural monopoly.
epistasis 1y ago
That's simply untrue and focusing on it will continue to result in nuclear failure after nuclear failure. Nobody has some sort of proposal of a different regulatory scheme that is somehow cheaper. Even France, which built a ton decades ago, has completely failed for more than a decade at building. South Korea has been somewhat successful at building, but also sends execs to jail for faking parts approvals. But perhaps that would be cheap to fix. What has changed since the mid 20th century is that construction labor is far more expensive in comparison to other things that can be done with that labor. Construction productivity has remained roughly constant over time, as manufacturing and other productivity has gone through the roof. Nuclear is fundamentally a big construction project. SMRs weresypposed to be an attempt to make nuclear power a manufacturing project, not a construction project. But it turns out that construction projects like the BWRX300 are the only real SMRs that can be produced, after a decade of hype. Manufacturing SMRs like 747s is not any more real today than it was when the nuclear PR machine turned to it in the wake of the financial and construction disaster of the AP1000s at Summer and Vogtle. The real story of nuclear is the need for super cheap labor, and excellent high-tech construction capacity. These two requirements are at odds with each other, because in societies with high tech construction skills, labor quickly becomes expensive. Even places like China with lots of successful nuclear projects is only building a tiny tiny amount of nuclear when compared to their wind, solar, and batteries. China does everything, and they won't abandon nuclear completely because a nuclear workforce is essential for a country with superpower ambitions, but the nuclear power is there for the superpower ambitions, not the electricity generation.
- AtlasBarfed 1y ago
  I just don't think smrs work without figuring out Lftrs. Because lifters can use almost all the fuel, are inherently meltdown proof, you basically take away the two worst dangers of nuclear. The issue with degradation of the piping and everything from the molten salts can probably be solved by a replacement cycle. But to be fair, I have no idea how China's MSR is going
- pas 1y ago
  If the EU and US would each commit to build, fund 100+ NPPs over the next years then it would make sense to gear up for a scheme. Unfortunately each plant is a fucking special snowflake. Due to new sites somehow requiring changes which is absurd, since the containment and everything under it should be 1:1 copy, right? Yes, because the NRC doesn't work like that. Designs are tweaked. Anyway as you said it's a very expensive bespoke weld and pour festival.

throw0101a 1y ago

> Nuclear power plants struggle with economics already at highest possible capacity factors (running 90% of the time). In Ontario, Canada they are the third-cheapest (after hydro, and nat/methane gas); see Table 2: * https://oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018.pdf https://oeb.ca/sites/default/files/rpp-price-report-20241018... In previous years they have often been second-cheapest (after hydro): their 'ranking' depends on methane gas commodity prices.

natmaka 1y ago
Nuclear can be apparently cheap (its TCO is difficult to establish because gov funding, hot waste potentially breaking havoc in a distant future...) but never is when load-following, because load-following reduces the load factor, and a low load factor bumps up production costs. Moreover nuclear's aptitude to load-following is vastly over-stated because it has too much inertia (even hot). Even France (shock-full of reactors) always needs to produce approximately 10% ( https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+total+generation&Total+or+Breakdown=Select+a+source&Energy+or+Electricity=Electricity+only&Select+a+source=Fossil+fuels&tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/energy?Metric=Share+of+... ) of its juice thanks to fossil fuel, for a non-negligible part ensuring load-following.
- throw0101a 1y ago
  > Moreover nuclear's aptitude to load-following is vastly over-stated because it has too much inertia (even hot). There is load-following thermally and load-following electrically. Newer nuclear designs allow for the steam to be diverted and quenched so they don't reach the generators. Of course this is inefficient, but as you can see in the following link: * https://www.ieso.ca/power-data https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply the Ontario nuclear plants basically run at full-tilt 24/7 to provide base load. Hydro-electric is also supplying a bunch of base load, so if more nuclear can be built so that it takes up more of that hydro is doing, hydro can then be used in a more variable fashion (so perhaps (nat/methane) gas can be reduced and we have fewer GHGs released).
  - 1y ago