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

71–80 of 365 posts

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#71

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

dporter wrote: post #62
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#72

Post by titzer »

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

I was just injecting facts into the discussion without taking a side. I know that's confusing behavior.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#73

Post by sschueller »

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.

Even without I think wind will become too expensive eventually to make it worth while. Especially when solar gets more efficient and cheaper.

Wind has down sides like moving parts and requiring giant concrete poors. Birds strikes, noise as well as ground vibration are also issues.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#74

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

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…

The average wholesale prices in California is nothing special.

The costs come from the wildfires and a derelict grid requiring large infrastructure upgrades.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#75

Post by libraryatnight »

ertgbnm wrote: post #20
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…

> "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…

"We will appear to meet standards while extracting maximum profit"

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#76

Post by HideousKojima »

jayd16 wrote: post #51
HideousKojima wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>20 years ago nuclear was the fastest, cheapest and best method for carbon free electricity, so the fossil industry pushed solar & wind as a distraction. The histories of pretty much every green party in the western world and their anti-nuclear activism suggests otherwise.

You ever notice how "green parties" are somehow so incredibly effective against nuclear and not effective against fossil fuels? Why do you think that is? Somehow I'm not convinced its the activism holding nuclear back.

Gas and oil based power generation is far simpler than nuclear. Regulatory barriers against nuclear power are far more detrimental to nuclear as a result because the issues compound.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#77

Post by nandomrumber »

pjc50 wrote: post #33
sebastialonso wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The nuclear boosters are particularly odd. I can engage in solar boosterism with my own money: I have 3.7kW on my house. I'm not going to have a backyard reactor, this isn't the Jetsons.

Roof top solar doesn’t work in apartments, and it also doesn’t work for renters.

Roof top solar is great for people with spare cash to optimise heir future cash flow.

I advocate for nuclear because it guarantees the poor won’t freeze in the dark.

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#79

Post by biophysboy »

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.

I think we would have a harder time finding food and clean water in this scenario

Re: Google to back three new nuclear projects

#80

Post by ruined »

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…

california electric rates are so high because the state board keeps raising them

https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/statement/2025/02/pge-reco...

PR staff will talk about the insurance liability and mandated action to improve infrastructure (wildfires keep starting on power lines and then burning down cities) but it's hard to look away from the record profits

Post reply on HN