Live data from Hacker News

Smaller reactors bring nuclear power closer to fulfilling its promise

nature.com

191–200 of 257 posts

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

#191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> supply ~100% of the power 2% of the time Or you design the majority of loads so they can be turned off for 2% of the time. Load shedding is a better solution than running peakers for [heated] towel rails.

It would also be better if you ate only vegetables and drove an ultralight (ebike) good luck. I personally like being able to turn on my lights 100% of the time

The heck kind of lights are you running that won't go all night on a battery that fits in your palm?

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

#192
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even if its cheaper to build small reactor vessels, MANY of the other costs become more expensive in larger numbers. There is no way SMR could beat solar+battery power cost even now. With sodium and other batteries projected to reduce storage cost, it is even more unlikely that SMR could be price competitive in future grids. SMR is the only way that dying western nuclear industry could attempt to deal with ballooni…

If solar+battery were cheaper wouldn't the new AI data centers be opting to pay to build that rather than nuclear or LPG options?

To be specific, solar with 4hr storage is price competitive with grid right now. Storage becomes expensive after that at 8hrs even with projected sodium or lithium prices. For a datacenter usage they probably need couple of days storage at 50hrs like the planned google datacenter. Only alternate chemistry batteries that could be scaled up easily like flow, iron air, zinc etc. could be competitive for multi day storage, though most of these are still at experimental or pilot stages.

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

#193
post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that you can’t assume ”always on” anymore. Why should consumers choose expensive nuclear powered electricity when cheap renewables, or stored renewables are available? They don’t and now capacity factors crater. Leading to what was once seen as ”baseload” plants being forced to become peakers. And running a nuclear plant with those fixed costs as a peaker/firming becomes stupidly expensive per MWh prod…

> Why should consumers choose expensive nuclear powered electricity when cheap renewables, or stored renewables are available? That's why truly free markets are a bad idea? We've been through this. Repeat after me: the value of the electric grid is in its stability. It must not go down regardless of pesky events like the winter or cloud cover. You don't get to sell below cost to push out your competitors, thanks to r…

Not sure why you are being condescending.

Perfect reliability is not worth the squeeze. In Sweden, which is a very electrified country with harsh winters, the figure is that it is acceptable to have 1.52 hours per year of not matching demand with production. Paying for more reliability is simply not worth it.

The research has lately focused on system costs. Finding renewable systems vastly cheaper than if involving new built nuclear power.

Here are two modern papers on the subject:

https://www.csiro.au/-/media/Energy/GenCost-2025-26-Final/Ge...

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

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

#194
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But coal is still 49%. The whole point of nuclear in a carbon-free, mostly-renewable grid is to avoid needing enormous amounts of storage and overproduction. That's a need that doesn't come up when you're still half fossil. If you want to decarbonize as fast as possible, it makes sense to focus on rolling out wind/solar/battery as fast as possible for now, but keep developing nuclear technology to cover the last bit…

The coal argument about China doesn't hold water when you look at what they're actually building. Around 80% of their new power sources are renewable, and 10 to 15% is coal. They're aggressively focusing primarily on building renewable -- so to say that their coal is 49% is either misleading or entirely missing the point.

This assumes that the renewables built are actually contributing to the economy, which we don‘t actually know for sure. In fact there was an article stating that they discard a lot of the energy produced because the grid cannot deliver. [1]

> China, the world's top producer of solar power, rejected 360 terawatt-hours (TWh) of clean power from January to June, up 49% from the same period a year earlier, according to a report this month by Global Energy Monitor (GEM) and the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA).

1 - https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/china-leads-wave-cle...

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

#195

There are no working SMR's ready to be deployed in the West. The company (NuScale) that was furthest along had its flagship project die after cost estimates ballooned. Its other project was a crypto scam. Whether any of these companies work out and make it to serial production is very speculative.

The SMR in Darlington, Canada is already in construction.

https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/darlington-smr-n...

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

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would also be better if you ate only vegetables and drove an ultralight (ebike) good luck. I personally like being able to turn on my lights 100% of the time

The heck kind of lights are you running that won't go all night on a battery that fits in your palm?

The one in my oven.

It's not about lights, it's about electricity always being available. And well, always having power available (for domestic, but also for expensive production facilities that looses money while idle) using renewables is a lot more expensive than generating most of your power with renewables

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

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the economics of a ”firming”/”peaking” nuclear reactor is absolutely stupid due to essentially being only fixed costs. It is already stupidly expensive when running at 100% 24/7. Now try running it only when renewables and storage doesn’t deliver.

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 generation that doesn't care about profit.

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

#198

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.

All the cost were hidden off the balance sheet 40 years ago. They can't build them cost effectively (or on schedule) now that there's more scrutiny on where the money comes from.

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

#199
post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the sibling comment, I'll say that environmentalists have opposed nuclear energy for half a century, despite it being far better than coal or ng in terms of emissions. I'd say that the venn diagram intersection of burners and opposition to nuclear is significant.

Environmentalism comes in at least two forms. IMO they are entirely different things. One form is science-based and concerned with finding out how to engineer our civilization to be more sustainable and compatible with the Earth's ecosystem. That faction has been mostly either pro-nuclear or at least open to it when renewables aren't enough or aren't ready. The other form is a romantic back-to-the-land anti-industry…

I'm pretty sure the actual second group is vanishingly small, it just seems larger because people in general don't know anything about anything so they will be vehemently against nuclear simply because they don't actually know that it's clean energy.

Similar to the "data centers use all the water" people. I saw a Facebook post with thousands of people raging against Nevada/Las Vegas data centers because they were being blamed for the region's dwindling water supplies - googled it and less than 1% of the water used in the area goes to the several dozen data centers. Seems to me like there's probably a lot of bigger fish to fry but I didn't look into it any further.

People are sheep. They jump on whatever bandwagon that happens to cross their path at the right moment. Almost everything people complain about they're just wrong about. It's actually insane scrolling on Facebook these days, it's just an endless stream of bullshit with hordes of NPCs raging about shit they know nothing about and every now and then there's a person with a functioning brain trying to spread some knowledge but it's obviously futile.

Most people can't tell you how taxes work even though they have been paying them their whole lives and complain about them constantly. They will happily tell you a bullshit story about "their friend" who passed on a pay bump because it would increase their taxes and reduce their after-tax income.

It's honestly so fucking frustrating. I mean nobody knows everything but as someone who has a decent overview of how the world works, who understands most important things at at least a basic level, it's just blisteringly obvious that the average person does not understand almost anything. They just got hooked into something at some point, somehow, and now that's their identity. Pretty much exactly like religion. Whatever cult they happened to be born into is obviously the only correct one, they'll ignore any and all evidence and arguments because it has nothing to do with reason. It's their identity and that's that.

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

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All the cost were hidden off the balance sheet 40 years ago. They can't build them cost effectively (or on schedule) now that there's more scrutiny on where the money comes from.

And the cost of fossil fuels is future (not to mention current and recent past, I believe Germany has had over 15k heatwave related deaths this summer) human lives, you wanna calculate those into your little napkin math there?
Post reply on HN