Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 632 posts

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#621

Post by Manuel_D »

pfdietz wrote: post #620
Manuel_D wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have well proven storage methods that don't scale. We have unproven storage mechanisms that we hope will scale. Let's actually put this in perspective: Global electricity consumption is about 60 TWh daily, which works out to about 2.5 TWh per hour or 40 GWh per minute. Plans to run a wind and solar grid predict a 12 hour storage requirement to generate 80% of our energy from wind and solar [1], and weeks of storag…

If nuclear is to power the world it also needs technologies that have not been proven. Today's thermal reactors, if they provided the entire 18 TW of primary energy demand, would consume in excess of 1 million tonnes of natural uranium per year. This would consume known uranium resources in less than a decade. So, either seawater uranium would be needed (which would have to be scaled up by something like 11 orders of…

Nice job providing sources for these numbers!

The real figure [1] is 60,000 years worth of uranium with our current nuclear energy production, which is about 10% of our electrical demand. So 6,000 years for a 100% nuclear grid. Electricity production is about 25% of total energy demand, so call it 1,500 years for all energy converted to nuclear.

Furthermore, moving nuclear seawater extraction - even at it's present costs, without economies of scale - would not significantly impact nuclear's costs [2]:

> Fortunately, the cost of uranium is a small percentage of the cost of nuclear fuel, which is itself a small percentage of the cost of nuclear power. Over the last twenty years, uranium spot prices have varied between $10 and $120/lb of U3O8, mainly from changes in the availability of weapons-grade uranium to blend down to make reactor fuel.

> So as the cost of extracting U from seawater falls to below $100/lb, it will become a commercially viable alternative to mining new uranium ore. But even at $200/lb of U3O8, it doesn’t add more than a small fraction of a cent per kWh to the cost of nuclear power.

1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-long-will-glo...

2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2016/07/01/uranium-s...

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#622

Post by Manuel_D »

ncmncm wrote: post #617
Manuel_D wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have well proven storage methods that don't scale. We have unproven storage mechanisms that we hope will scale. Let's actually put this in perspective: Global electricity consumption is about 60 TWh daily, which works out to about 2.5 TWh per hour or 40 GWh per minute. Plans to run a wind and solar grid predict a 12 hour storage requirement to generate 80% of our energy from wind and solar [1], and weeks of storag…

Electrolysis was well understood for a century before we knew fission existed. Pumped hydro has always worked at scale. You keep repeating that storage is not built out. We know. Before it can have been built out, it will need building out. But nukes are also not built out. Which can get done faster? You just really wish storage tech was harder than it is because you need that for nukes not to look like the obviously…

Nuclear is much more built out as compared to storage. We need only one order of magnitude increase to decarbonize through nuclear. Actually, slightly under one order of magnitude, only about a factor of 8 increase depending on how much hydroelectric plants we keep.

By comparison, we need 6 to 7 orders of magnitude increase in our existing hydro and battery storage capacity to decarbonize through renewables. And an infinity order of magnitude increase in electrolysis storage, because we don't have any such storage at all. It's not that they haven't been built out. They haven't been built, full stop.

I don't need to make storage tech look any worse than it is. How much electrolysis storage capacity do we have, worldwide? Zero. I think you're the one engaging in wishful thinking, treating these totally unproven systems as certain when nobody has ever operated a grid storage electrolysis facility.

If someone told you they have plans for a supersonic passenger jet that will be even cheaper than normal airliners, would you believe them? If they actually had working planes, and they were actually able to build and operate a batch of a few dozen planes more cheaply than typical airlines then yes. But if they only had one plane, and little operational experience I wouldn't. And if all they had were plans on paper, I certainly would not - this is the stage that storage mechanisms other than hydro and batteries are in.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#623

Post by ncmncm »

Manuel_D wrote: post #622
ncmncm wrote: post #617

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electrolysis was well understood for a century before we knew fission existed. Pumped hydro has always worked at scale. You keep repeating that storage is not built out. We know. Before it can have been built out, it will need building out. But nukes are also not built out. Which can get done faster? You just really wish storage tech was harder than it is because you need that for nukes not to look like the obviously…

Nuclear is much more built out as compared to storage. We need only one order of magnitude increase to decarbonize through nuclear. Actually, slightly under one order of magnitude, only about a factor of 8 increase depending on how much hydroelectric plants we keep. By comparison, we need 6 to 7 orders of magnitude increase in our existing hydro and battery storage capacity to decarbonize through renewables. And an i…

You wish that costs for renewables were not still plummeting, and for storage were not falling more than twice as fast as for renewables, and that costs for building and operating nukes were not, instead, rising. But they are, they are, and they are.

Pretending that "breakthroughs" will be needed to field storage must be your last hope, but building out storage is just construction. You will continue to be disappointed.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#624

Post by Manuel_D »

ncmncm wrote: post #623
Manuel_D wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is much more built out as compared to storage. We need only one order of magnitude increase to decarbonize through nuclear. Actually, slightly under one order of magnitude, only about a factor of 8 increase depending on how much hydroelectric plants we keep. By comparison, we need 6 to 7 orders of magnitude increase in our existing hydro and battery storage capacity to decarbonize through renewables. And an i…

You wish that costs for renewables were not still plummeting, and for storage were not falling more than twice as fast as for renewables, and that costs for building and operating nukes were not, instead, rising. But they are, they are, and they are. Pretending that "breakthroughs" will be needed to field storage must be your last hope, but building out storage is just construction. You will continue to be disappoint…

You insist storage costs are cheaper, but the reality is that we can't know the cost until storage plants are actually built. You're comparing the actual costs of nuclear, with the promised costs of storage. We have actual costs for hydro and battery storage, but they are too high. We only have promised costs of electrolysis, ammonia, or what have you because none of the approaches have actually been built.

Come back to me when electrolysis storage systems are actually built, and we can examine the actual costs of storage the same way we examine the costs of nuclear: by looking at the bill after the plant has been built. If you really are so confident in their efficacy, then this should be no problem.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#625

Post by nl »

liketochill wrote: post #600
ncmncm wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evidently you failed to read "redundancy and geographic distribution". That there is North Sea wind power, howsoever intermittent, is a pure good. Tying it into a larger network makes it better. The solution to local deficits is more localities.

There is not infinite transmission capacity in all directions. It is difficult to get permission to build new transmission lines, which are also expensive.

Build. More. Transmission. Lines.

Transmission lines are not expensive at all compared to nuclear power. This nuclear plant cost $12B and it is a cheap one!

Compare that to the SunCable is budgetted at $14B, (AU $20B in the article = US$20B) which is an undersea(!) HVAC cable all the way from Australia to Singapore (3,800km!) AND a 3GW(!) solar farm[1].

By comparison, the distance from Spain to Scotland is 2400km. And when the wind stopped in the North Sea, Spain was setting records in terms of the amount of power generated from wind farms[2]

[1] https://www.intelligentliving.co/australian-undersea-sun-cab...

[2] https://www.evwind.es/2021/12/03/27-8-of-electricity-came-fr...

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#626

Post by runeks »

bigbugbag wrote: post #463
rdsubhas wrote: post #27

What I find incredible is: Once this fully ramps up, this one power plant is expected to satisfy 14% of the entire country's electricity needs. 7 of these could power an entire country, 24/7.

What I find incredible is that this reactor is going online at all. Okiluoto started in 2003 and was supposed to cost 3 Bns and be ready in 2009. it took 18 years instead of 6 and total cost is difficult to know exactly but is over 12 Bns instead of 3. Building this plant (and the Flamanville one) put into light so many issues at so many levels that I am surprised it was completed and actually works. Though the previ…

> it took 18 years instead of 6 and total cost is difficult to know exactly but is over 12 Bns instead of 3.

The cynic in me would like to point out that it's not really running yet:

> Olkiluoto 3 started test production at just over 0.1 gigawatt, a small fraction of its capacity, with a ramp-up to full, regular electricity output planned by the end of July.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#627

Post by spurgu »

ncmncm wrote: post #549
dotancohen wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually scratching the skin of an apple does negatively affect the apple - the part of the "mantle" under the scratch begins to rot right away. Look at a graph of the temperature of the Earth as a function of depth. The temperature jumps tremendously below the crust, and is much more stable per depth below. The crust is the insulation of the Earth - and damaging that crust might affect the mantle is ways we cannot y…

Hint: the mantle is not made out of apple flesh, it starts much, much deeper than 10 miles most places, and nothing exists that can eat it.

Just because we haven't discovered giant planet-eating space aliens yet doesn't mean they don't exist.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#628

Post by eclat »

rdsubhas wrote: post #27

What I find incredible is: Once this fully ramps up, this one power plant is expected to satisfy 14% of the entire country's electricity needs. 7 of these could power an entire country, 24/7.

And on top of that it’ll heavily contribute to a huge reduction in electricity prices from €70/MWh to €45/MWh.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#629

Post by rdsubhas »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #467
rdsubhas wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what identity or propaganda or bias I'm part of, so I humbly accept there may be things I don't know I don't know. But maybe if remotely applicable, an optimistic view can be: that some of those geeks, some of the times care about seeing progress happen, rather than the means.

You appeared to have given up on being able to answer the question "Is coal/peat/oil a better option than nuclear/solar/wind". Some of those questions are tricky, once you get to the level of which of these should be combined in what locations to absolutely maximize the system and what the trade-offs are, but some are easy. For example, peat is a bad fuel for all sorts of reasons. Yes assuming different interests rat…

You may have misjudged the comment thread. You should realize I'm excited about this plant serving 14% of Finland energy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30653980

I think you should read the thread and context of the reply again.

Just to make the misunderstanding clear: Any *green energy* that takes us out of coal/peat/oil is progress. You don't have to repeat as if there is a conspiracy. I was replying to a comment asking for comparison with other sources, saying that *progress to green energy is way more important* than comparisons against brown energy, no matter even if said comparisons paint coal/peat/oil in favourable or unfavorable terms. It's exactly the same you said, burning peat doesn't make sense today no matter the cost, and that's exactly the same I'm saying.

Re: Finland starts much-delayed nuclear plant, brings respite to power market

#630

Post by vmladenov »

ncmncm wrote: post #398
Manuel_D wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And which solution is that? Lithium ion batteries? To put this in perspective, global lithium ion battery output [1] annually doesn't amount to 1 hour's worth of US electricity usage (500 GWh). Hydroelectric storage? You essentially need to repurpose an alpine lake as a dam. That's geographically dependent, and it's dubious it'd scale well as viable hydro sites become more and more remote. The remaining things like e…

Obviously not lithium batteries. Even suggesting it demonstrates you are not serious. And, obviously hydrogen will not continue to be made from hydrocarbons. It will instead be feedstock for synthesizing hydrocarbons. Carbon would need to be extracted from air, or at least from exhaust, to get carbon credits.

Why isn’t pumped-water energy storage more commonplace?
Post reply on HN