Live data from Hacker News

Google to back three new nuclear projects

esgtoday.com

151–160 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't work how? If it's monetary gain then thats a political not one in residence. If not producing enough power then that's a people's problem. Being greedy taking more than what they need and for not enough resources on building efficiency. Overall solar works. It's just gate-kept tightly by evil organisations who are scared to lose their dirty cash for such technology to evolve.

Because apartments don’t have roof tops. And why would a landlord sink $10,000+ in to a property for no return. Roof top solar only works for the user who has the roof top solar. For everyone else it makes electricity more expensive. Happy to be proven wrong. Show me a majority of places with high roof top solar penetration where per kWh electricity rates have fallen . And who cares about carbon emissions, China and…

That's an interesting point, but a much less costly option is to change policies to incentivize landlords, not build multi-billion dollar nuclear plants.

> And who cares about carbon emissions, China and India have that covered - I don’t need to worry about producing more or less CO2 emissions because it won’t make any difference whether or not I believe in catastrophic climate change.

That doesn't change the US's contribution, the ability of the US to form successful international agreements, and the influence of the US pulling its weight as a much wealthier country than China or India.

Blaming your neighbor for your bad behavior - I sell drugs off my porch because my neighbor does - doesn't make you less criminal. Also unacceptable, from moral and practical perspectives, is saying 'there's nothing I can do'. It's time we stop letting that pass.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lets face it deploying nuclear around the world will add other mayor headaches like nuclear profileration.

What nuclear proliferation? How many nuclear electricity states are there? 30 How many nuclear weapons states are there? 9 What headaches are those nine nuclear capable states providing, exactly? How has the world been made worse by having nine nuclear capable states? Practically, not just hypothetical anxieties about an unrealised future.

> hypothetical anxieties about an unrealised future.

Preventing nuclear war is just 'hypothetical anxieties'? We should wait for a war to happen and then do something? That's not persuasive.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still built at absolutely massive scale around the world without subsidies. With many countries phasing out their renewable subsidies because they aren’t needed anymore. Unsubsidized solar and storage is today in much of the world cheaper than coal and fossil gas. The renewable subsidies stil existing simply add fuel to the already raging fire that is renewable buildout.

What storage? Where? At what price? Where are all these 14 day full load capable storage plants being built? I’m not saying they aren’t, I am saying I don’t see the data.

We are at the point in the S-curve where storage goes from nowhere to everywhere in the blink of an eye.

Here BESS for $63/kWh installed and serviced for 20 years.

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/15/chinas-cgn-new-energy-an...

https://www.ess-news.com/2024/12/09/powerchina-receives-bids...

China installed 74 GW comprising 168 GWh in 2024. In increase of 250% compared to 2023.

https://www.ess-news.com/2025/01/23/chinas-new-energy-storag...

After hitting a plateau storage is now unlocking massive reductions in fossil gas usage in California:

- Gas is down 45% v '23 and 25% v '24

- Batteries up 198% v '23 and 73.4% v '24

https://bsky.app/profile/mzjacobson.bsky.social/post/3lnw3hs...

In the US in 2025 storage was expected to make up 30% of all grid additions. Before Trump came with his sledgehammer of insanity.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=64586

No one generally expects more than a couple of hours of storage to be needed. But for the fun exercise let’s calculate what spending Vogtles $36.8B on equivalent renewables, as in TWh delivered, and the storage gives.

That makes the renewables come out to about $9B.

With storage costing $0.063B GWh and having $28B to spend we can build 444 GWh storage.

That is the equivalent to running Vogtles two new reactors for 10 days straight.

In this calculation we don’t even bother with Vogtles O&M costs compared to near zero for renewables and storage.

Do you now understand how incredibly expensive new built western nuclear power is?

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#154
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nuclear boosters are particularly odd. I can engage in solar boosterism with my own money: I have 3.7kW on my house. I'm not going to have a backyard reactor, this isn't the Jetsons.

Roof top solar doesn’t work in apartments, and it also doesn’t work for renters. Roof top solar is great for people with spare cash to optimise heir future cash flow. I advocate for nuclear because it guarantees the poor won’t freeze in the dark.

> Roof top solar doesn’t work in apartments, and it also doesn’t work for renters.

So it doesn't go on the roof.

Doesn't mean you can't get PV, in an apartment, as a renter:

https://www.kaufland.de/product/502008893/

These are specifically intended for apartments, and Germany has a low home ownership rate.

It may only be 800W, but it's also only €239, not $10,000 like you suggest in the other reply.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even without I think wind will become too expensive eventually to make it worth while. Especially when solar gets more efficient and cheaper. Wind has down sides like moving parts and requiring giant concrete poors. Birds strikes, noise as well as ground vibration are also issues.

>Birds strikes...are also issues. Unless you're vegetarian, or vegan, how so?

There’s plenty meat eaters that care of birds for multiple reasons and perceive their diminution as an issue. One of them might be other animal (that they care less) regulation, like mosquitos and mouses. Another one is the delight to see them flying and singing around. And another one: seeds dispersions that contribute to the flora health.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#156
post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know that nuclear power has experienced negative learning by doing throughout its entire life? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... You don’t get ”free electricity” with absolutely massive handouts to the nuclear industry. Instead renewables and storage are delivering on the ”too cheap to meter” promise.

It was promised that by now half the grid of EU should had been operated under green hydrogen. Instead we had yesterday in Sweden news the opening of a freshly new built natural gas power plant as the solution to that intermittence problem. Of course, those natural gas power plants are paid through subsidizes as grid stability is the government responsibility, and thus the bill for that natural gas is put on taxes an…

> It was promised that by now half the grid of EU should had been operated under green hydrogen

The only one promising that was the fossil industry, trying to stay relevant by pushing hydrogen as "green" and doing a switcheroo to "blue" fossil-derived hydrogen when green hydrogen inevitably turns out to be nonviable for silly things like mid-term energy storage.

> If renewables and storage can deliver on the ”too cheap to meter” promise, they should do so in an environment without natural gas being used behind the scene.

No. Remember, the goal is to minimize the total greenhouse gas emissions! We're in a transition phase, if that means operating on 97.5% renewables and 2.5% natural gas until we figure out those last 2.5%, then that is totally fine. At the moment natural gas is excellent for peaker plants - especially if you implement carbon capture. Would you rather stay on the current ~50% fossil mix, solely because the transition mix isn't "green enough"? We're trying to save the environment, not trying to be holier than the pope.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#157
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.

Green Parties are such a farce for the most part. They serve other purposes, not aligned with what you really want or defend ;)

Right-wing parties and the center-left have been highly effective allies in getting people to demonize and ridicule the progressive left.

The reason is, I think, that the progressives have rationally better policies - ones that become mainstream decades later, including much of what is mainstream now - so by demonizing the progressives the center and right prevent people from actually considering the policies.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#158

Every compute company knows that power shortage is a looming crisis. They don't have nuclear expertise in-house and are desperately looking for somewhere to put their money that seems to have experience and capability This is a good thing, but will be fruitless unless the US NRC modernizes in parallel with the industry to actually approve a new reactor in less than geologic time.

The NRC isn't the bottleneck. For the recently completed Vogtle Unit 3 reactor, construction work and permitting work ran in tandem. Early construction work started in 2009 and all NRC approvals were completed by 2012. Neither NRC regulations nor lawsuits ever halted construction. Vogtle 3 was originally supposed to be ready in 2016. It suffered enormous cost overruns and delays due to the companies actually building…

NRC is holding back new designs, not existing ones.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? That was half a century ago. The equivalent choice in 2025 is renewables with storage. Today they are wholly unable to build new nuclear power as evidenced by Flamanville 3 being 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. Their EPR2 program is also in absolute shambles continually being pushed into the future while revising up the costs. Now hopefully targeting investment decision in mid…

EPR was so unbuildable that it could have been designed by Amory Lovins to eliminate nuclear power.

It is not like it is going better for the AP1000 or NuScale. Including financing for the APR1400 bid in Czechia again leads to similar equivalent costs.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#160
post #56

I suppose like anything there are multiple reasons, but what are the top 3 why California electric rates are so high (compared to the rest of the U.S.)? https://www.chooseenergy.com/electricity-rates-by-state/ Why doesn't the state encourage more capacity to bring costs down? (to encourage electrification/EVs, etc.) Is it because they are phasing out natural gas? Is it to encourage roof top solar? Or trying to reduce…

If anything the renewable sources are keeping rates in check.

California is raising rates to build out infrastructure for electrification and mitigation of the dangers that now exist due to climate change.

Post reply on HN