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

Google to back three new nuclear projects

esgtoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#191

Post by aziaziazi »

pfdietz wrote: post #168
aziaziazi wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can add (no) recycling of huge composite balades.

So what? Even if every wind turbine blade were landfilled it would add only slightly to waste streams already in existence. The US produces hundreds of millions of tons of construction and demolition waste per year.

That's fair. Most demolition waste can be crushed and used as stabilisation for new constructions instead of mined rocks, and that's also often cheaper. However you are right to point out the quantity which is small, for now because we didn't really scale yet.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#192

Post by lantry »

jppittma wrote: post #82
ryan93 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow no regulations in California. First I’m hearing of this

Can we get an updated opinion in light of the facts being the exact reverse opposite of the initial hypothesis?

on the Internet? never!

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#193

Post by lern_too_spel »

chermi wrote: post #122
lern_too_spel wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California famously deregulated its electricity market at the end of the 20th century, becoming the first state to do so. https://paylesspower.com/blog/deregulated-energy-states/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California_e...

You understand there are multiple types of regulation, right? The deregulation you're referring to was with respect to generators being able to sell into the grid. The relevant regulation here is the state-backed guarantees on returns for pge under authority of CPUC. CPUC approves basically any rate increases pge approves. It doesn't need to do this. It could hold pge accountable based on what they determine qualifie…

I understand that. I'm simply stating that GGP's assertion that California "doesn't believe in markets" is at odds with the reality that Pete Wilson signed a law that made California the very first state with an electricity market.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#196

Post by linhns »

dmm wrote: post #15
bee_rider wrote: post #5

Personally I’m skeptical of nuclear power given how much easier it is to incrementally add renewable capacity (sure, intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer). But anyway, if anybody (other than the government, which gave up long ago) can pay the upfront costs of nuclear, it is the big tech companies like Google. > […] Google has set 2030 goals to reach net zero emissions across i…

> intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer Solar power is great but intermittence is the main issue with it. If you look at 30 year historical weather data, many highly populated regions have two week periods with almost complete cloud cover. Storage and intercontinental power transmission are usually listed as the solutions to this, but the costs of these solutions are rarely inc…

Yes, and people have been as clever as possible dealing with this issue. There is just no good way to solve it.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#197

Post by epistasis »

r0m4n0 wrote: post #118
mmmBacon wrote: post #96

It took about 1GW to train Chat-GPT4. If you look at the locations in the United States (>70% of all AI is in the US), there are only ~63 geographic regions you could put a 1GW data center. As AI models are growing at ~5x per year, it seems like the infrastructure is no in place to keep the AI models growing at that rate. As companies like Google, Meta, and others look to nuclear power (it has the highest up time of…

What is the alternative though? I think it’s fair to question a decision but if people put their foot down when they don’t see the answer as good or clear enough then you end up with the status quo. This is the same thing that happened with housing (and building projects in general) in many larger cities. If all the housing projects are squashed for some decent alternative reason, you end up with the alternate realit…

Clean energy is scaling far faster than gas. Coal is dead. Nuclear takes 10+ years, and the US industry is so small that it can not scale to meet future needs.

Look at what was deployed last year, in GW terms:

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

but note that gas produces at a capacity factor of ~50%, and solar at 25%, so scale solar down by half to better compare gas to solar.

Batteries are also here in great force. The average cost of battery-backed solar is cheaper is comparable to gas, and cheaper than new nuclear.

The main barrier to new solar and batteries are grid expansion to ship the electricity places. Putting a datacenter next to a proposed site for building solar + batteries that's waiting for its turn to get connected to the grid would probably be the fastest way to scale, if fiber can go there.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#198

Post by crote »

barbazoo wrote: post #126
bee_rider wrote: post #5

Personally I’m skeptical of nuclear power given how much easier it is to incrementally add renewable capacity (sure, intermittence is a problem, but I think we can deal with it by being cleverer). But anyway, if anybody (other than the government, which gave up long ago) can pay the upfront costs of nuclear, it is the big tech companies like Google. > […] Google has set 2030 goals to reach net zero emissions across i…

We’re not adding solar fast enough and are still struggling with storage. This would be a great way to bridge the gap. Not if the data centers consume all this new energy of course which seems to be what’s happening. Maybe after everyone has turned their own portrait into a studio ghibli picture we can go back and use that new, clean energy to solve the climate crisis.

The deployment of solar is growing exponentially, with its total capacity doubling roughly every three years. Wind is growing at a similar rate. Renewables currently already account for 30% of the global electricity production, and we're seeing projections of over 45% in 2030.

Assuming the projected 2025-2030 installation speed is realistic and flattens out - bit "if", but not completely unrealistic - that means we'd be looking at 75% renewables in 2040 and 90% renewables in 2045.

Nuclear reactors take 15 to 20 years to build, and it'd take an additional year or 5-10 to scale up construction capacity. If we go all-out on nuclear now, that means significant nuclear power starts coming online in 20-25 years - so 2045-2050. At that point there is no more renewables gap left to bridge. There might be a small niche left for it if there is going to be essentially zero innovation in storage and short-term peaker plants, but who's going to bet billions on that?

Nuclear would've been nice if we built massive amounts of it 30 years ago, but we didn't. But starting a large-scale nuclear rollout in 2025? It just doesn't make sense.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#199

Post by anon6362 »

While I was going to community college in the late 90's, I had an IT consulting biz where I serviced mechanical engineers and folks in the US nuclear industry who were ex-General Electric (GE NE). I learned nuclear was heavily-regulated (rightfully so) and costly but the main barriers to new sites were insurance, the huge capital investment, and the very long project cycles. As such, these are just too risky for most business people and investors. Nowadays, even with SMRs, the ROI still doesn't make sense given the massive, massive advances in renewables and regional grid storage. Very few Americans want an unproven, fly-by-night startup SMR in their neighborhood or in their county. I'd be okay with just a few mega reactors in fixed sites in very remote areas that would be heavily defended with perimeter security and anti-aircraft/-drone emplacements. I'm not okay with SMRs on flatbed trailers with minimal security in urban areas.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#200

Post by brrwind »

frollogaston wrote: post #184
muth02446 wrote: post #65

I view nuclear as a prudent diversification of energy sources: What happens if some supervolcano erupts, and because of the ashes significantly less sunlight reaches the surface of the earth. Presumably, there will also be less wind then.

It's not even a what-if, it's just cheaper than solar for what you get. Especially compared to residential solar, which is also quite dangerous.

How is residential solar dangerous?
Post reply on HN