Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 332 posts

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#51

Post by kragen »

apatheticonion wrote: post #11
8bitsrule wrote: post #5

Nothing has changed since the early days. A helluva complicated and expensive way to boil water. "At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy … This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe." — C. G. Suits, Director of Research, General Electric, who was operating the Hanford reactors, 1951. ( Ref: Power from the Atom - An Appra…

Turkey is set to get 10% of its grid electricity from the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant [1] The build cost has been 22B (excluding loans) and it will have a capacity of 4456MW meaning it's $4.9/W. On average the cost per Watt for solar is 27 cents (excluding loans and costs for storage) [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices EDIT: incorrect…

these are great numbers, thanks

keep in mind that almost all the cost of pv plants is construction (capex), while most of the cost of nuclear is during operation and decommissioning (opex)

so 20 cents per watt capex is close to 60 cents per watt total, twice the price of pv

as emmaengineer pointed out, though, you did the division backwards: it's 0.20 watts per dollar, not 0.20 dollars per watt. the correct quotient is 490¢ per watt, or maybe closer to 15 dollars per watt including opex

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#52

Post by throw0101b »

Ontario announced one GE Hitachi BWRX-300 in December 2022, and three more in July 2023:

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-darlington-nu...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300

This is in addition to a new large-scale plant:

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-new-nuclear-bu...

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#53

Post by atoav »

jcranmer wrote: post #45
kragen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no because even though pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight) it still uses two orders of magnitude less land than is available please do the math instead of posting random bullshit without any regard to whether or not it is true i did https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html

If this is the math you did: > A crude calculation (earthradius_equatorial^2 * pi * (1000 W/m^2) * 1 year in units(1) --- gosh, Unix is great!) suggests that the total solar energy falling on the earth is about 40000 * 10^20 joules per year. ... that's not a good approximation. There's someone who actually has done less crude math for maximum possible solar energy, at least for the UK: https://www.withouthotair.com/c…

I mean UK isn't quite known for its sunny weather, right? I would guess in Norway during the dark part of the year it is even going to be worse.

The farther north you go the more relevant technologies like wind energy and geothermal will become.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#54

Post by BasilPH »

David Roberts from Volts talked about why he thinks SRMs are overhyped last week. Here's the transcript[^0], but his main points are _(I fed the whole transcript the new GPT-4 128k token model for this)_:

- SMRs are not yet delivering on their promised benefits and cost savings due to challenges in scaling and production.

- The SMR concept is yet to prove itself with efficient and cost-effective factory-made parts and repeatable construction practices.

- Concern exists that the enthusiasm around SMRs could lead to more unfocused subsidies for the nuclear industry without addressing the industry's deeper issues of inefficiency and historical missteps.

- SMRs are seen as one option among many for balancing renewable energy, and they should not be considered the only solution.

- Their capabilities are mostly theoretical at this stage, and there's uncertainty if they can bridge the gap between their promise and reality in terms of cost and deployment hurdles.

- SMRs might receive undue favor over other equally promising technologies for providing firm power.

In conclusion, David believes SMRs are getting more attention and investment than warranted by their current capabilities and progress, potentially detracting from other solutions that may offer better returns or efficiency for transitioning to a renewable energy grid.

[^0]: https://transcripts.volts.wtf/the-volts-catalyst-pod-crossov... (starts at around 26:13)

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#55

Post by throw0101b »

Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast had an episode on nuclear October 23:

> The US is taking a fresh look at nuclear power. After a dearth of construction, and de-commissioning of working nuclear plants, people are talking, yet again, about it as a source of steady, affordable, carbon-free electricity. But of course, nuclear has its drawbacks, particularly on the financial side, as new plants have been plagued by cost over-runs, contributing to utility bankruptcies. So what would need to happen to get the economics working again? On this episode we speak with Mark Nelson, the founder of Radiant Energy Group, to discuss the state of the industry, the state of the technology, and what it would take to bring nuclear back into the mix.

* https://omny.fm/shows/odd-lots/whats-really-standing-in-the-...

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d084PIspUwk

* https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/whats-really-standing-...

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#56

Post by atoav »

monero-xmr wrote: post #4
scythe wrote: post #2

>With the price of renewables dropping precipitously, however, the project's economics have worsened, and backers started pulling out of the project. I would expect this to continue limiting investment in nuclear, since the outlook for renewables just keeps getting better, and the stumbling blocks are increasingly jejune, like we can't build powerlines fast enough.

I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. I am hopeful that hydrogen can be generated in the desert and moved by hydrogen-truck. Or grid-scale batteries actually exist someday. But if we write off nuclear, a lot of coal and natural gas will be burned.

The thing about cloudy no wind days is:

1. These are conditions that don't coincidence as often as one would think

2. If they do happen at the same time they are limited to certain places

Now the only thing you need to have your solar and wind installations not in one place and make sure it is unlikely enough to have all of them inoperational at once.

If you have the proper energy storage and a big enough grid that can balance itself this is totally doable.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#57

Post by D_Alex »

kragen wrote: post #33
gravitronic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A harder stumbling block compared to nuclear is land mass requirements per Mwh: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source

no because even though pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight) it still uses two orders of magnitude less land than is available please do the math instead of posting random bullshit without any regard to whether or not it is true i did https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html

>pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight)

"Per MWhr" is a better measure when comparing intermittent-power generation such as wind and solar.

>posting random bullshit

^^

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#58

Post by iamthemonster »

bradbot wrote: post #6
monero-xmr wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still very confused how power will be generated cleanly on cloudy, no-wind days with solar and wind. I am hopeful that hydrogen can be generated in the desert and moved by hydrogen-truck. Or grid-scale batteries actually exist someday. But if we write off nuclear, a lot of coal and natural gas will be burned.

Is it possible to transport wind / solar energy across the country via high powered transmission lines?

Ignore the sibling comment, it is definitely possible, typically via HVDC transmission. With 3% losses per 1000km, HVDC transmission of variable renewable energy is absolutely part of our future energy systems.

Wind is especially well suited to this - to a certain extent it's always windy SOMEWHERE whereas with solar you ain't generating any at night, no matter what.

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#59

Post by kragen »

jcranmer wrote: post #45
kragen wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no because even though pv uses orders of magnitude more land per megawatt (not per megawatt hour; please get your units straight) it still uses two orders of magnitude less land than is available please do the math instead of posting random bullshit without any regard to whether or not it is true i did https://dercuano.github.io/notes/solar-economics.html

If this is the math you did: > A crude calculation (earthradius_equatorial^2 * pi * (1000 W/m^2) * 1 year in units(1) --- gosh, Unix is great!) suggests that the total solar energy falling on the earth is about 40000 * 10^20 joules per year. ... that's not a good approximation. There's someone who actually has done less crude math for maximum possible solar energy, at least for the UK: https://www.withouthotair.com/c…

you would look much less foolish if you read more than just the introduction to my notes; i did a great deal more math than that

while i appreciate mackay's calculations a great deal, his estimates for very polar countries such as the uk are not generally applicable, and even for the uk are probably conditioned on overly pessimistic assumptions; he would undoubtedly agree if he were alive today

in particular, he assumed (reasonably) that 10%-efficient solar panels would be much cheaper than 20%-efficient ones, which would remain impractically expensive. but in fact most solar farms are being built with 21%-efficient panels because they're nearly as cheap as the 16%-efficient kind, and the 10%-efficient kind has been competed out of the market. so mackay's excellent calculations are all too low by more than a factor of 2, because one of his reasonable assumptions turned out to be wrong

but i do think it's plausible that without wind the uk would have to continue importing energy from abroad, as it has done since the 19th century, unless it goes nuclear. because mackay was aware his estimates for very polar countries such as the uk were not generally applicable, importing solar energy from abroad was in fact what he recommended in the chapter you linked but evidently didn't bother to read

Re: First planned small nuclear reactor plant in the US has been canceled

#60

Post by EmmaEngineer »

apatheticonion wrote: post #11
8bitsrule wrote: post #5

Nothing has changed since the early days. A helluva complicated and expensive way to boil water. "At present, atomic power presents an exceptionally costly and inconvenient means of obtaining energy … This is expensive power, not cheap power as the public has been led to believe." — C. G. Suits, Director of Research, General Electric, who was operating the Hanford reactors, 1951. ( Ref: Power from the Atom - An Appra…

Turkey is set to get 10% of its grid electricity from the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant [1] The build cost has been 22B (excluding loans) and it will have a capacity of 4456MW meaning it's $4.9/W. On average the cost per Watt for solar is 27 cents (excluding loans and costs for storage) [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkuyu_Nuclear_Power_Plant [2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/solar-pv-prices EDIT: incorrect…

$22B / 4.456B = $4.9/W, about 20x more expensive than your number for PV.
Post reply on HN