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

21–30 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#21

Post by ivan_gammel »

preisschild wrote: post #12
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…

> given how much easier it is to incrementally add renewable capacity The problem is, the weather dependency makes it harder the more you add, because you will have too much when the weather is optimal and next to nothing when it isn't.

This reminded me of how France had to limit nuclear outputs because of the heatwave. New designs can probably mitigate the risk but it will inevitably add to the operational and construction costs.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#22

Post by bryanlarsen »

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…

> the costs of these solutions are rarely included.

Solar plus storage is included in all the major levelized cost reports, like from the NREL.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#23

Post by sebastialonso »

melling wrote: post #3

Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Never understood the "I'm solar" or "I'm nuclear" crowd. The issue is an engineering problem, not a baseball match.

As an system-oriented person, give me a healthy combination of available, battle tested, new and promising solutions, fine-tuning weaknesses with strengths.

Go to the stadium to solve your local team/visiting team issues. You are all falling to Big Fossil antics.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#25

Post by agos »

perihelions wrote: post #2

Here's a better article: https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/google_signs_another_... > "Elementl didn't respond to questions by press time. Its public materials offer little clarity on its actual operations—aside from broad claims about providing "turn-key project development, financing and ownership solutions customized to meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit." > "The nuclear d…

this sounds like one of those Google PR moments where they desperately try to paint themselves as the good guys. Remember when they announced contact lenses to help people with diabetes?

Maybe this is related to the talk about splitting Google that's going around these days?

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#26

Post by pjc50 »

adventured wrote: post #7
bryanlarsen wrote: post #4

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. Today solar & wind are the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushes nuclear as a distraction.

Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.

State capacity is a real problem. Often struggling to do even one thing. There's many places where companies are ready to go on renewables but the grid approval isn't.

People overlook how long nuclear takes to build. Hinkley Point C is approaching a decade.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#27

Post by pjc50 »

rcpt wrote: post #10
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…

Renewables are only easy if you ignore regulations. For whatever stupid reason local busybodies lose their shit about windmills regularly and they are frustratingly hard to ignore.

Nuclear has an even worse local credibility problem, but I suppose you need fewer plants.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#28

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

adventured wrote: post #7
bryanlarsen wrote: post #4

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. Today solar & wind are the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushes nuclear as a distraction.

Replacement isn't remotely close to good enough. We need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Nuclear is the only viable path for that. We can do more than one thing at a time, we have the resources.

This seems to be working backward from having decided that we must handout untold trillions to the comparatively insignificant nuclear industry.

In 2024 we, as in globally, completed about 5 GW of new built nuclear.

Let’s compare to renewables:

- 600 GW solar PV added [1]

- 117 GW wind power [2]

- ~100 GW battery storage

Even when adjusting for TWh the disparity is absolutely enormous. We’re talking a ~50x differences and it is only getting larger as renewables continue to scale.

But somehow the only technology which is ”scalable” is new built nuclear power.

[1]: https://www.solarpowereurope.org/press-releases/new-report-w...

[2]: https://www.gwec.net/gwec-news/wind-industry-installs-record...

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#29

Post by pjc50 »

HideousKojima wrote: post #14
bryanlarsen wrote: post #4

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. Today solar & wind are the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushes nuclear as a distraction.

>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.

Reminder that anti-nuclear activism started against nuclear weapons and nuclear dumping, and then after Chernobyl the realization that it was possible to mess up agriculture across a continent from the failure of a single plant. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-36112372

Greenpeace spent years campaigning against dumping waste at sea.

In a reasonably free market, which doesn't exist for electricity, solar would win handily.. but this is after decades of subsidized development and incremental improvement by Chinese wafer factories.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#30

Post by matthewdgreen »

melling wrote: post #3

Do the “no nuclear, renewables are the future” people have any comments? We burned a few decades saying solar and wind are the solution. This set us back greatly in the struggle to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. The technology is mature and marching up the exponential portion of the adoption S-curve. Nuclear isn’t. This isn’t even a value judgement: it’s just a statement on the incredible advantages of a technology that can be produced in factories, vs one that currently can’t.
Post reply on HN