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

311–320 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#311

Post by epistasis »

klabb3 wrote: post #103
matthewdgreen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Solar and wind are being deployed in enormous quantities. Yes, but that's not what's concerning the skeptics anymore, especially for solar (thankfully - the cost reductions and efficiency gains have been great). Aside from the well known geographical variance, I think the biggest legitimate concern is intermittence. Let me try to turn that into a decent question: What variable other than energy output is most usefu…

Intermittence is a solved problem with storage, and storage is being deployed at an absolutely massive scale on grids that are market-driven for profits, namely Texas.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#312

Post by epistasis »

SoftTalker wrote: post #40
bryanlarsen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, we need a massive increase in the supply of energy. Solar is the only way we're going to get it. We're adding solar at a 1TW / year rate. We're adding nuclear at a rate of ~30 GW / year.

So why is Microsoft spending billions to restart three mile island rather than just installing some solar panels?

Isn't Microsoft also buying an awful lot of solar and wind and storage?

From a single web search just now:

- 400MW of solar in Illinois and Texas, Feb 10 2025 Reuters https://archive.is/5x9VA - 20MW of Wisconsin solar, October 2024 https://nationalgridrenewables.com/press-release/national-gr... - 400MW of Texas solar, Apr 8 2024 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2024/04/08/microsoft-signs-two-l...

and that's just the first three hits, there are so many more. TMI won't come online for years, it's planned for 2028, but we will have to see. It was shut down in 2019 because it couldn't compete with gas prices. Microsoft is buying at inflated prices to subsidize clean energy, but solar is also clean energy and when backed by batteries it is price competitive with gas.

The news was because "whoa Microsoft is paying for nuclear" not because "whoa nuclear makes a lot of sense."

There's only so many uneconomic nuclear reactors to start back up.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#313

Post by ehnto »

raron wrote: post #269
seatac76 wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Plats survive some time (days) without light. If there is not enough backup power source (peaker gas plats, not nuclear though) the grid could quickly collapse causing a continent-wide blackout from what it would be really hard and it would take a long time to bring the grid up. Cities would be uninhabitable within a few days (no water, not sewage processing, no heating).

Not to be too simple about it, but this does happen every night. We already require (and achieve) sufficient grid diversification, without batteries and all the cool stuff coming in future.

I am not against nuclear, but I do believe we would be fine without it too.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#314

Post by eqvinox »

I don't get it. Training giant LLMs can easily be task managed to line up with solar and wind availability. Shut off half the DC at night, go full power when it's sunny and windy. If they integrate the powerplant, they can easily manage this.

Is avoiding HW underutilization really worth going nuclear? The most expensive energy source of all?

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#315

Post by concordDance »

lostlogin wrote: post #238
concordDance wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fukushima - meltdown, too-small containment vessel, large disaster. Probably overselling the "large" there... at least on the scale of global power production.

You wouldn’t call Fukushima a large disaster? The financial cost is at $180 billion US. That seems large.

Sadly I don't have time to go into it now, but they're massively overpaying due to miscallibrated risk tolerance. (Paying tens of millions per QALY is not a good use of money, 1 milliSv per year is an utterly insane goal)

The actual disaster had noticably bad short term effects on only a small area and long term effects on a tiny area.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#316

Post by notTooFarGone »

nandomrumber wrote: post #91
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still built at absolutely massive scale around the world without subsidies. With many countries phasing out their renewable subsidies because they aren’t needed anymore. Unsubsidized solar and storage is today in much of the world cheaper than coal and fossil gas. The renewable subsidies stil existing simply add fuel to the already raging fire that is renewable buildout.

What storage? Where? At what price? Where are all these 14 day full load capable storage plants being built? I’m not saying they aren’t, I am saying I don’t see the data.

why not make it a lifetime of storage if we are here just spouting nonsense numbers.

storage for 12 hours and we are 80% there. If you don't like 80% solutions then please don't participate in society as it's only working on those.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#317

Post by notTooFarGone »

CooCooCaCha wrote: post #66
titzer wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar can still generate up to 25% of their peak power with full cloud cover.

The issue is renewables are not a complete solution no matter how good it feelz

people really take offense in how energy gets produced even...

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#318

Post by notTooFarGone »

barbazoo wrote: post #285
crote wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Nuclear reactors take 15 to 20 years to build, and it'd take an additional year or 5-10 to scale up construction capacity. I just don't know if that assumption is true. Looking at https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/small-modular-reactor... > The timeline is to finish construction of the first reactor by the end of 2029, and connect it to the grid in 2030. Sure, let's add 100% buffer because it's a major project…

I'm also building a nuclear power plant within the next 5 years. You can get 100% share for a mere 20.9 billion - trust me bro.

That is what I read in this announcement. History will not be kind on taxpayer money > /dev/null

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#319

Post by notTooFarGone »

7e wrote: post #234
leoapagano wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 years ago, I would have said the same thing. But right now solar is seeing technological advances at an exponential rate, such that by the time we build a nuclear power plant, get it approved, and get it running, solar will be both cheaper and safer while using less space.

Solar isn’t dispatchable and adding 24 hour storage doubles the cost. Adding seasonal storage increases the cost by 150x.

So you claim that and that one "paper" from 2019 calculating worst case and with 2019 battery prices. Bad thing is battery prices are falling through the floor and 6 years make all the difference.

Please get your prices to 2025.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#320

Post by moffkalast »

conception wrote: post #38
ertgbnm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "meet our customers' needs while mitigating risks and maximizing benefit." Holy corporate jargon batman! I love seeing example of phrases like this out in the wild. Stating this implies that minimizing risks and maximizing benefit is not a need of most customers? IMO, it's better not to say stuff like that at all. It's basically a meaningless phrase, it adds no information to the sentence. In fact, I'd go so far as…

Corporate equivalent of using a larger font and/or double spacing your term papers.

Corporate equivalent of acting like a douchebag who constantly makes up imaginary stories about how cool they are to distract from them being a complete loser.
Post reply on HN