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

251–260 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#251

Post by Aloisius »

cryptonector wrote: post #174
Aloisius wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending more money on infrastructure means profits will increase. There's not really any way around that. Capital expenditures are profit.

Well, no, capital expenditures can create future profit. Emphasis on _can_ and _future_.

No. Capital expenditures are profit (or really, count towards earnings).

They're long-term investments in fixed assets, not expenses that get subtracted out when calculating net income. You're just swapping cash with assets of equivalent value, so profits don't change.

I'm not sure how PG&E would possibly not increase their profits if they got a rate increase meant to cover infrastructure investments. If they spend 100% of that increased revenue on infrastructure, then 100% of that counts towards profit - not in the future - immediately.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#252

Post by seatac76 »

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.

If that is your concern, then the thing to worry about is dramatic loss in food production before energy becomes an issue.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#253

Post by croes »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #231
croes wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we playing What-if? What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? What if the operating companies values profit over security? What if an earthquake or Tsunami hits nuclear power plant?

Am I stupid or naive to ask: > What if hackers/terrorist attack the power plants? Are most power plants in 2025 air-gapped? I assume yes.

And hackers can’t beat air gaps

https://www.missionsecure.com/blog/cyber-attack-india-larges...

The Iranian nuclear program was also air gapped.

Didn’t stop Stuxnet.

It’s interesting what you can do with USB drives.

And more power plants means more possibilities for human errors.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#254

Post by themaninthedark »

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…

Where did you see that the containment at Fukushima was too small? I thought that most of the release was done because there was not enough storage of contaminated water.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#255

Post by pfdietz »

PaulHoule wrote: post #171
ttfkam wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Functionally an atomic bomb"? Why do you speak on topics you obviously know so little about? Where did you get this nonsense? Fast neutron designs aren't without their challenges, but causing an atomic explosion is not on that list. Hydrogen explosions? Possible. Steam explosions? Possible. Atomic explosions? Not even theoretically can you get enough U-235 to clump together to do that without cancelling known basic…

The more detailed simulations have gotten the less bad a meltdown looks in a fast reactors. Usually some of the molten core flows away and no more critical mass. If it goes over critical there can be some energy release but over time it looks less and less and not a problem to contain. Sodium has its problems (burns in carbon dioxide!) but the chemistry is favorable for a meltdown because the most dangerous fission p…

The problem is you need to ensure it's not bad in any possible configuration from an accident. This is hard to do. Will the energy release at criticality drive the material into an even more critical configuration? Such "autocatalytic" systems were considered for bomb design, but weren't chosen because of the large amounts of plutonium needed. But a fast reactor might have the plutonium of hundreds of atomic bombs.

Edward Teller famously warned about this is a nuclear industry trade publication in 1967.

The only fast reactors I'd trust would be ones with fuel dissolved in molten salt; it's hard to see how that could become concentrated in an accident that doesn't boil the salt. But such reactors have their own problems, in particular exposure of reactor structures to intense fast neutron fluxes (not as bad as in fusion reactors, but worse than LWRs.)

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#256

Post by christina97 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #232
throwaway2037 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The press release claims it is. But other jurisdictions can build 1GW of solar + battery for $2B.

Keep in mind that 1 GW solar does not equate to 1 GW firm production.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#257

Post by _aavaa_ »

barbazoo wrote: post #86

Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43927371 > Ontario set to begin construction of Canada's first mini nuclear power plant

4x300 MWe for 20.9B CAD for this vs Vogtle 3 and 4 are 2x 1117 MWe for 36.8B USD.

So the starting stated price is only 20% cheaper than that train wreck. Will love to see how high this number gets given it's a first of its kind.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#259

Post by derriz »

belorn wrote: post #221
crote wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ther…

You're including a bunch of different generation technologies which have vastly different operating characteristics which means they are not substitutes for each other.

For example, nuclear takes days to start from cold and is really only economic if operating at a constant output. Thus you need complimentary sources to help meet changes in demand. These days, typically this means gas turbines.

Whether your grid has nuclear or renewables, it will also have natural gas capacity.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#260

Post by _aavaa_ »

christina97 wrote: post #256
bryanlarsen wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The press release claims it is. But other jurisdictions can build 1GW of solar + battery for $2B.

Keep in mind that 1 GW solar does not equate to 1 GW firm production.

Then build 10x for the same sticker price as these 4 SMRs. You'll have it done in less time, and likely even cheaper than the final cost of these 4.
Post reply on HN