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

How to get new nuclear built faster

samdumitriu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 52 posts

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#21

Post by sofixa »

nocoiner wrote: post #15
sofixa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, wake me up when they’re financially viable. I don’t expect that’ll be until we’re really in dire straits with the climate. That's the thing though. Even absurdly expensive as they currently are, the damage they don't cause through the emissions they will save over their lifetime is probably worth it. And considering all the lessons EDF have learned on EPRs, it's highly probable that the next generation wil…

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity. Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even mo…

> To me it seems like even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix

And don't forget that a nuclear reactor can easily push 70+ years with some maintenance and refreshes, meanwhile solar panels and batteries are drastically less effective after ~15-20 years at most.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#22

Post by ok_dad »

sofixa wrote: post #20
marssaxman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables of…

Maybe critical infrastructure shouldn't be managed by people looking into short term ROI but long term and big scale planning.

It is run by those people but cost matters in a capitalist society, so you have to consider it alongside the actual engineering numbers. If you want socialism for energy, we can have that, but I’ll tell you now that the government will spend way more to operate a nuclear plant than it’s going to be worth. Look at navy nuclear stuff, it’s so dang expensive.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#23

Post by euroderf »

sofixa wrote: post #10
euroderf wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where might I find a readable summary of "lessons learned" for Olkiluoto 3 ?

At EDF, with the EPR2 design, e.g. https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/produire-une-energie-respectue...

For whatever reason, google does not want to translate this.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#24

Post by Maxion »

iknowstuff wrote: post #19

The newest AP1000s in Georgia cost 34B (and counting) for 2.2GWe. As usual, horrible ROI and massive cost overruns: > During the construction of Vogtle's first two units, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[7] ($18.3 billion in 2022 dollars[8]) > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed i…

Depends on where you are, up here in Finland we have no solar in the winter when our power consumption peaks. Wind is unreliable and can be too low for over a week.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#26

Post by realusername »

marssaxman wrote: post #17
nocoiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity. Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even mo…

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables of…

> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go.

You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities.

So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#27

Post by realusername »

iknowstuff wrote: post #19

The newest AP1000s in Georgia cost 34B (and counting) for 2.2GWe. As usual, horrible ROI and massive cost overruns: > During the construction of Vogtle's first two units, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[7] ($18.3 billion in 2022 dollars[8]) > Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed i…

> And you don’t need to store 12h of solar.

No you don't need 12h of storage but 3 to 4 months to sustain the attrocious winter production where the highest load actually is.

And this is why the battery packs are uneconomical to smooth out renewables, it doesn't even get you 1% of the way with 5B.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#28

Post by ZeroGravitas »

realusername wrote: post #26
marssaxman wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables of…

> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities. So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.

And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too.

Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#29

Post by realusername »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #28
realusername wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. You do the same as every other market, you make those companies pay for the externalities. So they don't only pay for renewables but renewables + gas plants (and their environmental costs) + batteries + whatever else is necessary in a real grid.

And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too. Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.

That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#30

Post by ZeroGravitas »

realusername wrote: post #29
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you'd charge the nuclear extra too because, despite what the people here who seem to hate renewables more than they like nuclear believe, the energy delivered by nuclear is not magic and needs to be matched to demand too. Which is why we've built pumped hydro and implemented Time of Use pricing for many decades to help nuclear energy integrate well with the grid.

That's already what happens, that's why it's so expensive. You usually have an all included costs on one side and whatever minimum the private company could get away with legally on the other side.

You think the price of nuclear in France includes the environmental damage caused by the gas plants they use to balance the grid?

Where did you get this idea from?

Post reply on HN