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

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 332 posts

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#171

Post by tomatocracy »

Retric wrote: post #156
snapplebobapple wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a point of clarity, we need demand resources, which means variable at our command vs not variable or variable based on wind/solar input out of our control. The economically viable mass storage options (i.e pumped storage) are basically all deployed. Batteries are getting there but they still need some shenanigans in the ancillary market where they get paid for not running for complex reasons to make the economic…

Batteries are already viable paired with solar. You see solar power purchase agreements in the 1.5 to 2c / kWh range and you can directly use that energy around 1/2 the time. Recharging and discharging batteries isn’t 100% efficient but it’s close. Current numbers are lower, but in 2022 you could use LFP for ~5,000 discharge cycles and pay ~480$/kWh of capacity or ~9.6 c/kWh. Inverters etc last longer than the batter…

I assume that's for already built solar PV, though it still seems extremely low to me so I'm curious where you are seeing this.

For reference on new build, at the UK government's most recently completed CfD auction (which happened in September), the solar PV bids accepted were at £47/MWh, CPI indexed and specified in 2012 prices: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-dif...

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#172

Post by 6510 »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #137
pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

Just a point of clarity, we need demand resources, which means variable at our command vs not variable or variable based on wind/solar input out of our control. The economically viable mass storage options (i.e pumped storage) are basically all deployed. Batteries are getting there but they still need some shenanigans in the ancillary market where they get paid for not running for complex reasons to make the economic…

We've used wind for 5000 years when it was available. It just takes a bit more time to wear out the machines if they sit there waiting most of the time.

Someone in Iran told me these are about 3500 years old

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H48TV-Wb9NQ

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#173

Post by cma »

6510 wrote: post #172
snapplebobapple wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a point of clarity, we need demand resources, which means variable at our command vs not variable or variable based on wind/solar input out of our control. The economically viable mass storage options (i.e pumped storage) are basically all deployed. Batteries are getting there but they still need some shenanigans in the ancillary market where they get paid for not running for complex reasons to make the economic…

We've used wind for 5000 years when it was available. It just takes a bit more time to wear out the machines if they sit there waiting most of the time. Someone in Iran told me these are about 3500 years old https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H48TV-Wb9NQ

Wrong link?

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#174

Post by Retric »

tomatocracy wrote: post #171
Retric wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Batteries are already viable paired with solar. You see solar power purchase agreements in the 1.5 to 2c / kWh range and you can directly use that energy around 1/2 the time. Recharging and discharging batteries isn’t 100% efficient but it’s close. Current numbers are lower, but in 2022 you could use LFP for ~5,000 discharge cycles and pay ~480$/kWh of capacity or ~9.6 c/kWh. Inverters etc last longer than the batter…

I assume that's for already built solar PV, though it still seems extremely low to me so I'm curious where you are seeing this. For reference on new build, at the UK government's most recently completed CfD auction (which happened in September), the solar PV bids accepted were at £47/MWh, CPI indexed and specified in 2012 prices: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-dif...

Not bad considering the UK is a dark rainy hellhole for solar.

NYC is 40.7’ North, Toronto Canada is North 43.7’, London is 51.5’ North and that’s the southern part of the UK.

Edit: To be clear I don’t think battery backed solar is a good fit for the UK today, I’m just surprised how close it is.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#175

Post by konschubert »

Retric wrote: post #156
snapplebobapple wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a point of clarity, we need demand resources, which means variable at our command vs not variable or variable based on wind/solar input out of our control. The economically viable mass storage options (i.e pumped storage) are basically all deployed. Batteries are getting there but they still need some shenanigans in the ancillary market where they get paid for not running for complex reasons to make the economic…

Batteries are already viable paired with solar. You see solar power purchase agreements in the 1.5 to 2c / kWh range and you can directly use that energy around 1/2 the time. Recharging and discharging batteries isn’t 100% efficient but it’s close. Current numbers are lower, but in 2022 you could use LFP for ~5,000 discharge cycles and pay ~480$/kWh of capacity or ~9.6 c/kWh. Inverters etc last longer than the batter…

I think your math is realistic.

We have to keep in mind that 6.9 isn’t yet the end user rate after grid fees, but still.

There is also a ton of potential in demand shaping by offering hourly prices to customers.

The place where batteries fail is long-term, seasonal storage. The price per charge is still low, but an asset that takes 5000 years to amortise (one charge cycle per year) is not a competitive investment.

So we will need other approaches here, where the substance that stores the energy is cheap and the cost is shifted onto the energy transforming device (this is e-fuels/ ammonia/ hydrogen)

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#176

Post by [deleted] »

Retric wrote: post #174
tomatocracy wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume that's for already built solar PV, though it still seems extremely low to me so I'm curious where you are seeing this. For reference on new build, at the UK government's most recently completed CfD auction (which happened in September), the solar PV bids accepted were at £47/MWh, CPI indexed and specified in 2012 prices: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/contracts-for-dif...

Not bad considering the UK is a dark rainy hellhole for solar. NYC is 40.7’ North, Toronto Canada is North 43.7’, London is 51.5’ North and that’s the southern part of the UK. Edit: To be clear I don’t think battery backed solar is a good fit for the UK today, I’m just surprised how close it is.

[deleted]

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#177

Post by lamontcg »

Laaas wrote: post #103

> The decision to cancel the project followed an update from NuScale this year regarding the cost of building the reactors, which had soared to $9.3 billion from $5.3 billion because of rising interest rates and inflation. Even $5.3B seems very expensive. For reference, (the new Finnish) Olkiluoto-3 was €11 billion, for 1600 MW. The article says 6 * 77 MW = 539 MW! How is it that we've become so bad at building?

> How is it that we've become so bad at building?

MBAs. Same ones infecting the company that you most likely work for.

Something smaller like stamping out PV panels or windmills for farms of them is much more manageable. Anything big and complex invites too much graft.

And while you can complain about expensive regulations, that's just another graft called regulatory capture. And they let you blame it on the hippies, while they rake in the dollars.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#178

Post by ComplexSystems »

bitter_old_man_ wrote: post #123

I'm so glad I left the nuclear industry thirteen years ago! I worked in nuclear power for about eight years. I felt like I was taking crazy pills. There's a strong vein of cognitive dissonance running through the industry relating to its economic viability. Nuclear power has always been the most expensive available energy production method. So every time I hear talking heads say "nuclear power is the only power produ…

"It's like listening to silicon valley people rave about AI or humanoid robots or driverless cars."

That's a very interesting statement to make, given what's happening right now with AI, humanoid robots and driverless cars.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#179

Post by throwaway4aday »

xenon7 wrote: post #153
pradn wrote: post #131

It looks like the biggest problem with nuclear is not the safety or whatnot, it's just that as a civilization, we just can't build them without cost overruns and massive delays. And this is a loss, because we need non-variable energy sources to augment wind/solar/tidal. Perhaps the other way to solve the energy transition is to lean heavily into mass storage of variable energy sources. If you have enough energy stora…

Would it be wrong to assume that we're dealing with an Apollo-style issue here (we "no longer have the technology to do it efficiently")? I'm certainly not an expert on nuclear power, but it is a little odd how the average nuclear reactor in the US is 42 years old [1]. [1]: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/us-nuclear-indus...

It's just the U.S. China, France, and Japan have all successfully built nuclear at scale. I won't be surprised if developing nations in Africa start lapping the U.S. on nuclear power in the next few decades. They certainly have enough Uranium to do so.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#180

Post by hotpotamus »

sumtechguy wrote: post #129
delfinom wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on the area, construction can pay really well and be a stable form of long term employment. Usually the trades part of construction is best rather than being a general laborer. In my area of NY suburbs, there's such a shortfall of tradesmen now due to boomer retirement en-masse, you see alot of younger guys showing up as plumbers, electricians, hvac and more that you would never ever have seen just 5 years…

I worked with one of the major HVAC companies in that area. There was not one dude under 50 in that building. 'we can not even get people to apply and we are throwing money at them'. That was 10 years ago. That may have changed by now. But probably not much.

How much money were they throwing? Enough to make you consider HVAC work?
Post reply on HN