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

61–70 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#61

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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…

A case study for Denmark. Not even using the latest plummet in price of BESS.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...

Generally: Renewables and storage solve somewhere high in the 90s percent.

Then throw some gas turbines on it. Low CAPEX high OPEX. Just like we’ve done for the past decades with the previous ”base load and peaking” paradigm.

Those gas turbines will be a minuscule part of the total energy supply.

When it finally becomes the most pressing issue the gas turbines can trivially be fueled by green hydrogen, green hydrogen derivatives, biofuels or biogas from collecting food waste. If they are still needed.

Lets wait and see what aviation and shipping settles on before attempting to solve a future issue today.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#62

Post by dporter »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #44
nandomrumber wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re skeptical of nuclear, a proven technology with excellent safety record, the only power generation that has a completely closed fuel life cycle, and believe in a technology we don’t have. If we (the West) had built out nuclear to satisfy our electricity needs, implementing new nuclear power tech as it improved, we could have electricity subscriptions like we have mobile / home internet planes. You’d just pay fo…

You do know that nuclear power has experienced negative learning by doing throughout its entire life? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... You don’t get ”free electricity” with absolutely massive handouts to the nuclear industry. Instead renewables and storage are delivering on the ”too cheap to meter” promise.

Renewable power is cheap because it also receives massive government handouts in the form of tax credits.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#63

Post by melling »

sebastialonso wrote: post #23
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.

Does the engineering problem have any time constraints? I suppose my sense of urgency comes from stated climate goals.

An extra 50 years to solve the problem changes everything.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#64

Post by lern_too_spel »

neural_thing wrote: post #59
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…

It's because the California government doesn't believe in markets, prices as incentives or anything like that. California govt believes in state mandates

California famously deregulated its electricity market at the end of the 20th century, becoming the first state to do so. https://paylesspower.com/blog/deregulated-energy-states/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California_e...

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#66

Post by CooCooCaCha »

titzer wrote: post #60
dmm wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#67

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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?

Because with IRA massively lowering the costs restarting a plant might actually be feasible.

The problem is that new built nuclear power costs tens of billions.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#68

Post by GolfPopper »

nandomrumber wrote: post #39
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…

You’re skeptical of nuclear, a proven technology with excellent safety record, the only power generation that has a completely closed fuel life cycle, and believe in a technology we don’t have. If we (the West) had built out nuclear to satisfy our electricity needs, implementing new nuclear power tech as it improved, we could have electricity subscriptions like we have mobile / home internet planes. You’d just pay fo…

I can't speak for the prior poster, but I am highly skeptical that the current business ecosystem in the United States is capable of effectively and safely building new nuclear power infrastructure, particularly if and when the ever-popular but, to the best of my knowledge, never-completed Small Modular Reactor pitch gets involved.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#69

Post by ryan93 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #64
neural_thing wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because the California government doesn't believe in markets, prices as incentives or anything like that. California govt believes in state mandates

California famously deregulated its electricity market at the end of the 20th century, becoming the first state to do so. https://paylesspower.com/blog/deregulated-energy-states/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California_e...

Wow no regulations in California. First I’m hearing of this

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#70

Post by ryan93 »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #64
neural_thing wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's because the California government doesn't believe in markets, prices as incentives or anything like that. California govt believes in state mandates

California famously deregulated its electricity market at the end of the 20th century, becoming the first state to do so. https://paylesspower.com/blog/deregulated-energy-states/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000%E2%80%932001_California_e...

Wow no regulations in California. First I’m hearing of this
Post reply on HN