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

251–257 of 257 posts

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

#251

Post by chickenbig »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #242
chickenbig wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge ... It is interesting to see how large-scale nuclear is handled. 120% and 60% increase in cost for FOAK and NOAK (Table 2-1), plus no learning rate for nuclear construction beyond that (Table C.2). Interest rates during construction unfairly penalise nuclear as "GenCost uses the simplest way which is to increase the capital cost by the assumed discount ra…

Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power. GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse. For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: > Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life? > The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoi…

> desperately trying to poke holes

Basic maths

2.2 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 3.025x LCOE for the first nuclear power station. 1.6 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 2.2x LCOE for the second plant. 1.0 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 1.375x LCOE for remaining plant.

Wind/solar is heavily dependent on the required storage (which depends on matching supply and demand), additional transmission and backup generation prices.

Finding the price tipping points is the point of the exercise. When you catch someone's fingers on the scales you realise what the game is.

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

#252

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

chickenbig wrote: post #250
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side is that what you are saying is that nuclear power will be commercially viable into the 2100s. And betting the house on that. While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. That seems absolutely insane. Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its c…

> Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? They could spend much less and restart some nuclear. https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/radiant-energy-gr... > You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturat…

This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north.

Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables.

What problem are you solving with even more overproduction in the north leading to re-dispatch?

> CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturation/cannibalisation.

> Denmark required CfDs too. https://windeurope.org/news/successful-danish-offshore-wind-...

I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything. Of course not lookign at solar, storage or on-shore wind.

Lets lookat those. In Germany, which still do CFD bids for solar, even though a ton get built on pure market value, the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity.

The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero or negative. They trade money for a tiny bit of certainty. That is how far we've come.

> Of course, other subsidies exist. Feed in tariffs. Transmission charges. Capacity and ancillary service payments to provide services that solar/wind do not.

Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline? Who pays when the majority of the eastern european nuclear fleet is offline? Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary?

People like you love to complain about these things, but you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.

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

#253

Post by chickenbig »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #252
chickenbig wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where does Germany spend the next €100 billion today to avoid the most emissions? They could spend much less and restart some nuclear. https://www.radiantenergygroup.com/reports/radiant-energy-gr... > You do realize that renewable subsidies are being phased out all over the world? CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the revenue uncertainty associated with market saturat…

This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north. Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables. What problem are you solving with even more overproduction in the north leading to re-dispatch? > CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the reve…

> Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables.

Overproducing some of the time. And pulling electricity from Sweden and Norway at other times.

> I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything.

Why is Denmark running the CfD auction if everything is so rosy for onshore wind and solar (plus batteries)?

> the CFD bids today are below the market price for the capture-rate of their electricity.

OK, they are betting on the future value of the electricity they produce being lower than today.

> The CFDs are also structured to not pay out when electricity is zero

So existing generators with older CfDs have priority over new generators with CfDs? Interesting.

> Who pays when half the French nuclear fleet is offline?

Why were they offline?

> Who pays for the N+1 requirements coming from nuclear power being enormous single points of failures leading to large reserves being necessary?

So the 1.X GW of standby is bad, but the whole-system sized standby required for intermittents is fine? Also let's not confuse the capacity factor of nuclear (including scheduled maintenance) with the odds of nuclear being offline unexpectedly.

> you can never formulate a solution where nuclear power is required to pay for the problem large single points of failures cause in the grid.

Wait, is this where I am meant to talk about SMRs? Or nuclear peaker power stations?

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

#254

Post by [deleted] »

chickenbig wrote: post #253
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This tells me you are not serious. The easiest nuclear reactors to restart, as per that same nuclear lobby group, were those in the north. Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables. What problem are you solving with even more overproduction in the north leading to re-dispatch? > CfD is going strong in the UK; it seems about the only way of deploying it, given the reve…

> Northern Germany is already overproducing electricity, leading to curtailment of renewables. Overproducing some of the time. And pulling electricity from Sweden and Norway at other times. > I love you now are trying to smear off-shore wind costs on everything. Why is Denmark running the CfD auction if everything is so rosy for onshore wind and solar (plus batteries)? > the CFD bids today are below the market price…

[deleted]

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

#255

Post by [deleted] »

chickenbig wrote: post #251
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power. GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse. For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: > Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life? > The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoi…

> desperately trying to poke holes Basic maths 2.2 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 3.025x LCOE for the first nuclear power station. 1.6 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 2.2x LCOE for the second plant. 1.0 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 1.375x LCOE for remaining plant. Wind/solar is heavily dependent on the required storage (which depends on matching supply and demand), additional transmission and backup generation prices. Finding the price tipping points is the point…

[deleted]

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

#256

Post by [deleted] »

modo_mario wrote: post #248
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The flip side is that what you are saying is that nuclear power will be commercially viable into the 2100s. And betting the house on that. While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. That seems absolutely insane. Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its c…

>While knowing that the electricity they provide is expensive enough to lead to energy poverty for generations. What are you on about? >Jevons Paradox did not happen for nuclear power. What happened was crazy cost overruns, cancellations and the industry collapsing into its current state. And the opposite happened in the past whilst europe was building bunch more of them. >Who cares if we get 95%, 97, 99% or 100% whe…

[deleted]

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

#257

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

chickenbig wrote: post #251
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you’re desperately trying to rationalize new built nuclear power. GenCost has an amazing FAQ section you evidently either ignored, or did not peruse. For example here they discuss economic life vs operational life, when you live in reality rather than grasping for straws: > Why is the economic life used in LCOE calculations instead of the fulloperational life? > The LCOE calculation converts all upfront and ongoi…

> desperately trying to poke holes Basic maths 2.2 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 3.025x LCOE for the first nuclear power station. 1.6 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 2.2x LCOE for the second plant. 1.0 * 1.25 * 1.1 = 1.375x LCOE for remaining plant. Wind/solar is heavily dependent on the required storage (which depends on matching supply and demand), additional transmission and backup generation prices. Finding the price tipping points is the point…

[dead]
Post reply on HN