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

Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 257 posts

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#201

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

UltraSane wrote: post #181
rcxdude wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What solar and wind have made irrelevant is the assumption that constant supply of the baseload is an addressable market for a power plant. That only works if the supply is the cheapest on the market (something nuclear has even historically struggled to achieve without big subsidies), and solar and wind will supply the baseload much cheaper than any other source when they're running, causing a lot of problems for any…

There needs to be a market mechanism to ensure there is enough dispatchable spare capacity to meet demand when solar and wind can't supply it. More reliable sources of power are inherently more valuable.

Yes. That’s called ancillary markets. One such are ”capacity markets”.

Nuclear power’s problem is that neither its spread between CAPEX and OPEX, nor its operational profile fits them.

We also have electricity futures. Again with the problem that their cost is far far below what new built nuclear power requires.

Here’s some reading on electricity futures:

https://www.next-kraftwerke.com/knowledge/futures-market

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#202

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

sfn42 wrote: post #197
Animats wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fundamental problem with nuclear plants. Their classic "baseload" niche is gone. Like the intermittent sources, wind and solar, they need storage to hold what they overproduce during peak periods. This is also true of geothermal, which, like nuclear, is almost all fixed capital cost.

It's only a problem because of capitalism. Every plant needs to independently make money, so nobody wants to be the ones spinning down because that's their profit margin dwindling. But society would be better off with excess generation. So we either need a system where some are incentivized to spin down, perhaps by being paid a consistent amount regardless or something like that, or we need publicly owned power gener…

This argument assumes we must build nuclear power.

The problem is that electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin. Now that we are moving beyond a purely centralized design.

Think about a homeowner or factory with their own renewables and storage.

They fundamentally operate on marginal price by choosing when they use their own system and when they buy from the grid.

If you add state owned reliable power to this mix they will cherry-pick. Their own cheap electricity when it delivers and the states subsidized reliable electricity when it doesn’t.

We can try add all manner of markets, fixed connection costs and what not to this but all it does is introduce strange arbitrage possibilities in the market.

Which is why we have settled on net energy markets and then the lowest possible amount of ancillary markets to shore up any gaps which would cause problems for the larger society.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#203

Post by sfn42 »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #202
sfn42 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only a problem because of capitalism. Every plant needs to independently make money, so nobody wants to be the ones spinning down because that's their profit margin dwindling. But society would be better off with excess generation. So we either need a system where some are incentivized to spin down, perhaps by being paid a consistent amount regardless or something like that, or we need publicly owned power gener…

This argument assumes we must build nuclear power. The problem is that electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin. Now that we are moving beyond a purely centralized design. Think about a homeowner or factory with their own renewables and storage. They fundamentally operate on marginal price by choosing when they use their own system and when they buy from the grid. If you add state owned reliable power to thi…

We have needed to build nuclear power since the day it was invented. The amount of fossil fueled power generation is indisputable proof of that.

The only way we don't need nuclear power is if we have some other way of producing the energy we need without dooming the planet, and obviously we do not as we're still burning billions of tons of coal every year. Not to mention gas.

We could have made power generation fully fossil free many decades ago if we actually took climate change seriously. It would have been fine. Sure fossil fuels may have been cheaper, but if you include the damage they're already causing and will cause in the future you could multiply the cost of nuclear by orders of magnitude and it would still come out on top. Plus higher investment would lead to faster improvement in the technology, mass production of components and lower cost etc.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#204

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

sfn42 wrote: post #203
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument assumes we must build nuclear power. The problem is that electricity is fundamentally priced on the margin. Now that we are moving beyond a purely centralized design. Think about a homeowner or factory with their own renewables and storage. They fundamentally operate on marginal price by choosing when they use their own system and when they buy from the grid. If you add state owned reliable power to thi…

We have needed to build nuclear power since the day it was invented. The amount of fossil fueled power generation is indisputable proof of that. The only way we don't need nuclear power is if we have some other way of producing the energy we need without dooming the planet, and obviously we do not as we're still burning billions of tons of coal every year. Not to mention gas. We could have made power generation fully…

Thats crying over spilled milk. We’ve spent the past 70 years trying to build out nuclear power. It didn’t deliver cheap energy.

Today, renewables and storage are the cheapest energy sources in human history. They are filling the gap nuclear power never managed to fill.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#205

Post by Ekaros »

will5421 wrote: post #110
stymaar wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there is new geothermal power companies getting funding and are transitioning from pilot projects to production. If geothermal works economically (outside of volcanic zones where it already does) then it's game over for any other power source except existing dams though because it solves all problems at once. That'd be a great thing for humanity but I don't think it's worth stopping pursuing alternatives already, b…

Won’t geothermal cool the Earth’s core?

Nope. It is very far away from core. Core is very big. And energy is already flowing outwards. So just using it really have not any significant impact.

Real issue is that it is not actually usable everywhere. Again Earth is big and going deep in some places is very hard.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#206

Post by thelastgallon »

Nuclear, while exorbitant, is necessary for security. See North Korea vs Iran/Venezuela. Nuclear scientists, supply chains, and a trained workforce takes decades to develop. Excess power production can be used to smelt aluminum. You can always have strategic excess supply of materials that can use flexible supply.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#207

Post by psd1 »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #204
sfn42 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have needed to build nuclear power since the day it was invented. The amount of fossil fueled power generation is indisputable proof of that. The only way we don't need nuclear power is if we have some other way of producing the energy we need without dooming the planet, and obviously we do not as we're still burning billions of tons of coal every year. Not to mention gas. We could have made power generation fully…

Thats crying over spilled milk. We’ve spent the past 70 years trying to build out nuclear power. It didn’t deliver cheap energy. Today, renewables and storage are the cheapest energy sources in human history. They are filling the gap nuclear power never managed to fill.

I agree that renewable with storage is cheaper of you price in destruction of habitable zones of the planet. Most people don't, and the dollar cost of the storage is a problem over fossil.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#208

Post by UltraSane »

dalyons wrote: post #189
UltraSane wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Trump admin is actually very pro-nuclear power. They are ending the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard in favor of fixed limits which is actually a good idea, possibly the only one the Trump admin has ever had.

i know they are (or claim to be). Im extremely unconvinced that meaningfully changes the flawed economics of nuclear power. I would love to be proven wrong and a wave of innovative economically competitive nuclear technology emerges... possible, but seems vanishingly unlikely. I think we'll see a few companies and projects connected to the administration get grants and tax breaks and favors, pull a few headlines, see…

The flawed economics of nuclear are largely due to the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for reasonable cost per watt.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#209

Post by UltraSane »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #201
UltraSane wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There needs to be a market mechanism to ensure there is enough dispatchable spare capacity to meet demand when solar and wind can't supply it. More reliable sources of power are inherently more valuable.

Yes. That’s called ancillary markets. One such are ”capacity markets”. Nuclear power’s problem is that neither its spread between CAPEX and OPEX, nor its operational profile fits them. We also have electricity futures. Again with the problem that their cost is far far below what new built nuclear power requires. Here’s some reading on electricity futures: https://www.next-kraftwerke.com/knowledge/futures-market

The flawed economics of nuclear are largely do the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for reasonable cost per watt.

Re: Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

#210

Post by asmodeuslucifer »

sensanaty wrote: post #171
asmodeuslucifer wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power has never been cheap and never will be. Every country that has tried has failed, and that included the Russians, the Chinese, South Koreans, French and the Japanese. And you can't blame it on the environmentalists in Russia and China.

How has France failed with their nuclear fleet, exactly? Considering they produce so much power they're selling it to their neighbours at a profit.

They use it for national security, not price. They did not want to be held hostage to oil.
Post reply on HN