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

DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#61

Post by yellowapple »

DeathArrow wrote: post #56
sexeriy237 wrote: post #30

Isn't M$FT a $Trillion dollar company? They can afford it on their own bootstraps

Maybe the loan is cheaper than using their own money.

More critically: just because a company is worth $1 trillion doesn't mean it has anywhere close to $1 billion in cash at all, let alone able to be earmarked to a given project (at the presumed exclusion of other projects).

Granted, a project like this probably doesn't strictly need all $1 billion all at once, but I'd argue it's better to get whatever necessary funding upfront instead of risking having sunk a partial investment without being able to obtain the rest should the company's financial situation change.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#62

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

lmm wrote: post #34
epistasis wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power plants go down for an entire month at a time for refueling.

Sure - at scheduled, predictable times. That matters.

Except when it’s unscheduled. For months on end.

See for example Oskarshamn 3 in Sweden having a 7 month long unscheduled outage this year.

Ringhals 4 had an 8 month unscheduled outage during the energy crisis.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#63

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

mikeyouse wrote: post #42
stonogo wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where this '24/7' stuff comes from; they have maintenance outages like anything else. Refueling takes months every couple years, so you're going to have to "handle this" even with nuclear.

France’s nuclear fleet has an average capacity factor of ~75%… so less “24/7” and more like 18/7 or 24/5.25 or something..

And had half their fleet offline at the peak of the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

In Sweden this year we’ve had 2 separate instances of 50% of the fleet being offline. With one reactor having a 7 month unscheduled outage.

I just don’t get where this ”100% reliable!!!!” is coming from.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#64

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

DeathArrow wrote: post #55

>That’s cheaper than a brand-new nuclear power plant would cost, but it’s a hefty premium over wind, solar, and geothermal, according to a comparison of energy costs from Lazard. Nuclear is more expensive because there are extensive regulations. "Green" energy not only does not face so many regulations but it benefits from incentives. Also, when comparing nuclear with "green" energy, most studies don't take into acco…

What costs on the nuclear side of the equation should we add for the backup when 50% of the nuclear fleet is unplanned offline?

Like happened in Sweden twice this year and in France at the peak of the energy crisis.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#65

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #36
daemonologist wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much to go off of on this subject in the US - only two successful reactor projects have been started since the 70s: Units 3 and 4 at Vogtle in Georgia*. They cost $15 billion each and bankrupted the remnants of Westinghouse (in combination with a similar project in South Carolina which was never finished). *Many reactors started construction in the 70s and were finished in the 80s or 90s, plus Watts Bar U…

> There's not much to go off of on this subject in the US The main problem is that things cost more per unit if you do them less. The first new reactor in decades is going to be stupid expensive because you have new people doing it who are learning things for the first time, which often means doing them over again, which is expensive. And then we didn't even get to see if the second unit at Vogtle could improve on th…

Given the nuclear industry’s history of negative learning by doing, even during the boom years, I have a hard time seeing how ”scale” will solve it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#66

Post by rkomorn »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #62
lmm wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - at scheduled, predictable times. That matters.

Except when it’s unscheduled. For months on end. See for example Oskarshamn 3 in Sweden having a 7 month long unscheduled outage this year. Ringhals 4 had an 8 month unscheduled outage during the energy crisis.

Tangent, but "outage" and "7 month" makes me feel like we need a new word.

Maybe modern day and tech has given "outage" a much shorter connotation than what it meant in the past.

7 months? That's almost longer than the Christmas offseason.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#67

Post by roryirvine »

lm28469 wrote: post #60
DeathArrow wrote: post #55

>That’s cheaper than a brand-new nuclear power plant would cost, but it’s a hefty premium over wind, solar, and geothermal, according to a comparison of energy costs from Lazard. Nuclear is more expensive because there are extensive regulations. "Green" energy not only does not face so many regulations but it benefits from incentives. Also, when comparing nuclear with "green" energy, most studies don't take into acco…

Studies also don't take into account that by subsidizing solar you're subsidizing an industry that's already subsidized by the Chinese gov, it's cool in the short term but we're making the same mistake we've been making for the last 50 years Home grown nuclear programs will always be better than solar propped up by foreign entities.

That seems excessively defeatist.

Just because the USA squandered its early advantage in solar tech doesn't necessarily mean that it can never hope to regain a leading position.

Running away from the challenge now will all but guarantee defeat in the long term, so it's probably the wrong strategic decision to make.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#68

Post by lm28469 »

roryirvine wrote: post #67
lm28469 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies also don't take into account that by subsidizing solar you're subsidizing an industry that's already subsidized by the Chinese gov, it's cool in the short term but we're making the same mistake we've been making for the last 50 years Home grown nuclear programs will always be better than solar propped up by foreign entities.

That seems excessively defeatist. Just because the USA squandered its early advantage in solar tech doesn't necessarily mean that it can never hope to regain a leading position. Running away from the challenge now will all but guarantee defeat in the long term, so it's probably the wrong strategic decision to make.

75%+ of all batteries/panels/windmill blades are made in China. And if you decide to make them locally they'll be 5-10x more expensive and much less competitive because you don't have:

- super low wages and borderline slave labor

- easy and cheap access to rare earth

- the CCP boosting your industries to flood the world

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#69

Post by roryirvine »

lm28469 wrote: post #68
roryirvine wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems excessively defeatist. Just because the USA squandered its early advantage in solar tech doesn't necessarily mean that it can never hope to regain a leading position. Running away from the challenge now will all but guarantee defeat in the long term, so it's probably the wrong strategic decision to make.

75%+ of all batteries/panels/windmill blades are made in China. And if you decide to make them locally they'll be 5-10x more expensive and much less competitive because you don't have: - super low wages and borderline slave labor - easy and cheap access to rare earth - the CCP boosting your industries to flood the world

But what proportion of the cost of a solar panel is actually made up of rare earth minerals or labour? My understanding was that the cost of installation dominated the cost of manufacture for both wind and solar.

And, sure, plenty of rare earths are needed both for the drivetrains in wind turbines, and for the power electronics used by solar farms. But they'll also be needed for the steam turbines and power electronics in nuclear plants. Seems like it's pretty much a wash to me.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but it seems deeply weird for America to be refusing to even try to meet the challenge.

Re: DOE gives Microsoft partner $1B loan to restart Three Mile Island reactor

#70

Post by slaw »

lm28469 wrote: post #68
roryirvine wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems excessively defeatist. Just because the USA squandered its early advantage in solar tech doesn't necessarily mean that it can never hope to regain a leading position. Running away from the challenge now will all but guarantee defeat in the long term, so it's probably the wrong strategic decision to make.

75%+ of all batteries/panels/windmill blades are made in China. And if you decide to make them locally they'll be 5-10x more expensive and much less competitive because you don't have: - super low wages and borderline slave labor - easy and cheap access to rare earth - the CCP boosting your industries to flood the world

China has 26 nuclear reactors in construction. Worldwide there are 61. Let's not build nuclear reactors because China dominates industry.
Post reply on HN