Google to back three new nuclear projects • Hacker News Board

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#221

Post by belorn » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:30 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #156

belorn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 che…

If you want to present the plan as renewables and subsidized natural gas as being better than nuclear than be open about it and present it as that. It is not the same as a subsidize free renewables and storage solution.

Those 97.5% sounds very nice. Denmark has well over 100% renewables production from wind and solar, but in terms of consumption only get around 50%. The rest they need to import. 97.5 vs 50 means there is some work to be done.

I recently posted this link (https://svensksolenergi.se/statistik/elproduktion-fran-solen...) that illustrate how much energy that solar farms produce in Sweden. Getting 97.5% from that would be a nice challenge, especially around the winter months. December and January had around 3% production compared to the best previous month (which we could use as a stand-in for 100% capacity but that would be incorrect).

Natural gas is not fine. The geopolitical consequences are terrible, the environmental impact are not sustainable, and the cost are carried almost exclusively through subsidizes. Trying to sell natural gas as "saving the environment" is a political message that I do not agree with.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#222

Post by skybrian » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:34 PM UTC

ruined wrote: post #80

floxy wrote: 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…

california electric rates are so high because the state board keeps raising them https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/statement/2025/02/pge-reco... PR staff will talk about the insurance liability and mandated action to improve infrastructure (wildfires keep starting on power lines and then burning down cities) but it's hard to look away from the record profits

The dividends were probably ok until they went bankrupt, which resulted in not so great a deal for shareholders after all.

Where did the money go? Paying for wildfire damage.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#223

Post by Animats » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:38 PM UTC

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…

Oh, it's the NuScale guy again.

NuScale got far enough to get approval to build a test reactor at the Idaho Reactor Testing Station, which is in Outer Nowhere for good reasons. But they never got enough funding to build it.

The trouble with most of these small modular reactor schemes is that their big pitch is mostly "we don't need a big, strong, containment vessel because ... reasons."

There's no inherent problem in building a small nuclear reactor. Here's one from 1957, near Oakland, CA.[1] It's safety if something goes badly wrong that's a problem.

History:

- Chernobyl - meltdown and fire, no containment vessel, major disaster.

- Fukushima - meltdown, too-small containment vessel, large disaster.

- Three Mile Island - meltdown, big strong containment vessel, plant lost but no disaster.

Alternative reactor history:

- Fort St. Vrain - high temperature gas-cooled, subject to helium plumbing leaks in radioactive zone, shut down and plant converted to natural gas.

- AVR reactor, Germany - pebble bed reactor, had pebble jam, had to be shut down, extremely difficult to decommission.

- Sodium reactors - prone to fires.[3]

- Molten salt reactors [4] - require an attached chemical plant that reprocesses radioactive molten salt.

Most of the problems of nuclear reactors in practice involve plumbing. Everything in the radioactive zone has to last half a century or so without maintenance. That's possible with distilled water as the working fluid, but everything else tried has not worked well.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1O8xAB_FDI

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_reactor

[3] https://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/research/techn...

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_reactor

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#224

Post by ZeroGravitas » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #52

bryanlarsen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the costs of these solutions are rarely included. Solar plus storage is included in all the major levelized cost reports, like from the NREL.

Not in any realistic sense. This report https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/powerplants/capitalcost... just mashes together a PV array with about an hour of storage and quotes a price for that which is low and is certainly not going to get you through the night. So many things drive me nuts about that report and the discourse around it that, I think, contribute to people talking past each other. For instance, quotin…

That report you say has 1 hour of storage has four hours of battery in all the systems it compares.

It's a bit of a weird measure anyway, since it's just the ratio of storage to inverter, so it's the time it could run for when working flat out.

For your wider point, if anyone, anywhere was really contemplating a near full nuclear grid they'd have the exact same issues. Do you overbuild and curtail? Export? Store in batteries? The problems and solutions are incredibly similar now batteries have basically solved the daily variation for solar.

The fact that no one is even bothering to think that far ahead for nuclear is a recognition of how totally out of the race it is.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#225

Post by concordDance » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:42 PM UTC

Animats wrote: post #223

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…

Oh, it's the NuScale guy again. NuScale got far enough to get approval to build a test reactor at the Idaho Reactor Testing Station, which is in Outer Nowhere for good reasons. But they never got enough funding to build it. The trouble with most of these small modular reactor schemes is that their big pitch is mostly "we don't need a big, strong, containment vessel because ... reasons." There's no inherent problem in…

> Fukushima - meltdown, too-small containment vessel, large disaster.

Probably overselling the "large" there... at least on the scale of global power production.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#226

Post by Workaccount2 » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #98

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…

I'm not sure if nuclear has always been a field where charlatans proliferate, but it's certainly true of the past few decades. The Summer plant in South Carolina was completely fraudulent, sending the power executives to jail for their fraud. Billions spent and nothing to show except a hole in the ground. Vogtle was slightly better in that they powered through to construction completion so that nobody cared about the…

It's likely because the NRC is the most insanely regulatory body of the US government. Ostensibly, this is a good thing, nuclear power, meltdowns, radioactive waste, etc.

But really I cannot emphasize enough how strict and overbearing they are.

"Oh that 12V backup battery pack needs to be replaced? Better get the same one from the same manufacturer"

"They aren't in business anymore but we have this 12V battery the fits perfectly, same specs"

"Nope, not certified with that system. You can start recertification that will cost ~$40M if you like"

"...."

There is so much ass covering and not wanting to take responsibility that the market is basically in paralysis.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#227

Post by doublerabbit » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

crote wrote: post #209

robotnikman wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Chernobyl was an older and unsafe reactor design in comparison to the newer ones we have today. Anecdotally, I live near the Palo Verde nuclear powerplant in Arizona, we receive all of our electricity through a combination of solar (clouds are very rare here) and nuclear. These 2 factors mean energy is abundant in the state, and necessary in the summer for survival; air conditioning is a necessity due to…

On the other hand, assuming the industry doesn't completely stagnate, "X was an older and unsafe reactor design in comparison to the newer ones we have today" will always be true. I'm not worried about another Chernobyl. We've had one already, all reactor designs have been tested over and over again to avoid a repeat. The real risk is in all the small and seemingly insignificant things working together in unexpected…

Good hypothesis, I would like to believe the general census would be no. Just because the impact of thought of it occurring is more devastating than the pro of flying to destination in one. I wouldn't want to fly even if there was a .1% of failure whereby it could catastrophically destroy many lives.

I don't refute that we couldn't move on. as we can take the result, analyse and not repeat. Learn from it and move on. Next plane crash causes less crater.

However a nuclear implosion you can't move on and nor is it over once it's occurred. How do you move on from a nuclear imposition? Japan and Hiroshima? They're still fighting the aftermath today and that was a nuclear bomb the same significant difference.

But if the reactor is a protected to 99.9% efficiency and that 1% could cause a aftermath that lasts forever, sure you can take the data like the plane crash and ensure it doesn't make the same sized crater but the results of the first are still devastating. Unlike the plane which is now old news.

If nuclear was a requirement and that other sources of energy were a scarcity then it would be different. But where by we have acres of desert we are not researching enough in to how to harness the energy, have oceans where winds blow, water is nearly endless, do we research that on a large scale for data centres?

It doesn't make sense for nuclear. Technically yes, you are making clean energy but at what expense and on a very dirty political basis.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#228

Post by belorn » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:48 PM UTC

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #92

belorn wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Love how the goalposts magically shifted to ”green hydrogen deployed today!!” even though many grids still don’t even reach saturation from renewables. Storage or green hydrogen is an enormous waste of money in Poland given their grid composition. That renewable buildout leads to larger fossil emissions being wrong is trivial to verify. The UK as one example of many: - Coal has gone from 150 TWh to zero . - Fossil ga…

Lets then have a ban on all new natural gas power plants until its down to a single percent. That should not be a problem if that is all that is needed.

Using UK as an example, the majority of energy is not renewables. Why should they build new natural gas power plants? Natural gas produce more energy than any other source in the UK. They are not going from 98% renewables, 2% natural gas. (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-electricity-was-cle...)

UK should increase the production of renewables energy, but they should also decommission their fossil fuel plants. If they want to use non-fossil fuel solutions, then they should do so and compete fairly and without subsidizes. Same goes for nuclear.

The cost of intermittence should not be paid by the environment or subsidizes, otherwise they are just hiding the true cost that society have to pay.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#229

Post by p1mrx » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:50 PM UTC

lesuorac wrote: post #218

frollogaston wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the reason. Overall, family homes don't make for very safe or efficient power plants.

Very efficient for distribution though which is expensive (check your utility bill). Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof.

> Don't need to run power lines for hundreds of miles if you have a generator on your roof.

To remove the need for power lines, you also need batteries, and enough solar to make it through winter.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#230

Post by throwaway2037 » Thu, May 08, 2025, 6:51 PM UTC

chickenbig wrote: post #186

bryanlarsen wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$20B for 300MW, and that's before the inevitable massive cost overruns. Continuing the Ontario provincial government's history of lighting taxpayer money on fire for electricity.

> $20B for 300MW Estimated 20B CAD for 4 x 300MW power stations.

Is that competitive compared to solar/wind + battery? I doubt it.