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

91–100 of 112 posts

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

#91

Post by triceratops »

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.

The smart thing to do is take advantage of China's subsidies and import every solar panel they have on offer. It's like they're handing out free money.

They stop selling? No problem, the ones you have will work for the next 2 decades. You'll be lucky to build one new nuclear plant in that much time.

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

#92

Post by triceratops »

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…

As of 2025, even accounting for the costs of storage, solar and wind are cheaper than nuclear.

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

#93

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #86
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The obvious problem with studies like these is when they're from the period in history when the attitude towards regulatory costs was that the cost/benefit of any particular rule should be ignored and the total number of rules should only increase over time. Especially so when the study is from France, where these attitudes are even more entrenched and on top of that the program is centrally planned -- not the thing…

The study also shows the same pattern in the US.

> Whereas what you want is multiple companies building these things on an assembly line, where you can plop the components out of a truck already approved and ready to be turned on.

How many trillions in handouts from tax payer money to get there?

Renewables and storage deliver that dream unsubsidized today.

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

#94

Post by tb_technical »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #77
lm28469 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

None of those are the reasons that Chinese solar panels are cheap. They don't use rare earths. They don't use much labor. They're cheap because they're made in massive "lights out" highly automated factories. Access to cheap capital and automation. Those are supposed to be American strengths, and China is beating America at its own game.

Frankly, the reason China is the last man standing on solar was their aggressive subsidy in the 2010s. Killed all of the American and European manufacturers, then the subsidy ended and they were the last man standing.

The other things you are said are also true, I just wanted to provide a little historical context.

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

#95

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #93
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious problem with studies like these is when they're from the period in history when the attitude towards regulatory costs was that the cost/benefit of any particular rule should be ignored and the total number of rules should only increase over time. Especially so when the study is from France, where these attitudes are even more entrenched and on top of that the program is centrally planned -- not the thing…

The study also shows the same pattern in the US. > Whereas what you want is multiple companies building these things on an assembly line, where you can plop the components out of a truck already approved and ready to be turned on. How many trillions in handouts from tax payer money to get there? Renewables and storage deliver that dream unsubsidized today.

> The study also shows the same pattern in the US.

The modern US where a negligible number of reactors are being built, or the US in the period of the regulatory changes that accompanied the Cold War when everyone was afraid of nuclear bombs and then The China Syndrome and Chernobyl?

If you want it to mean anything you need data from when the regulatory environment isn't increasing in hostility over time during the measurement period.

> How many trillions in handouts from tax payer money to get there?

It's a loan at an interest rate higher than the government itself is paying to issue the bonds, i.e. the taxpayer is making money from this.

Also, the main issue isn't funding it, it's making it cost less, e.g. by moving most of the approvals from being needed at each and every site to the factory where components are being mass produced.

> Renewables and storage deliver that dream unsubsidized today.

Then why does the price per kWh that consumers are paying keep going up instead of down?

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

#96

Post by stinkbeetle »

UltraSane wrote: post #43
tjmc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we're even happier if you keep it!

Nuclear power is great and Australia is foolish for having 1/3 of all uranium in the world and not using it.

Doubly so when you consider their enormous reserves of bauxite, iron ore, and met coal.

They could have set up green steel and aluminum industries supplying the world. Instead they ship millions of tons of unprocessed ore and thermal coal to east asia where it's processed with CO2 intensive energy, and then the metals are shipped back in the form of automobiles and construction materials.

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

#97

Post by UltraSane »

protocolture wrote: post #44
UltraSane wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power is great and Australia is foolish for having 1/3 of all uranium in the world and not using it.

100%. We have this thing where every 10 years or so we collectively admit that if we started nuclear 10 years ago it would be fine, but we need it now, so it should remain illegal because its too expensive. Its some of the most insane doublethink in human politics.

And peak demand in 2024 was only 38GW so you would only need like 40 reactors to provide all electricity.

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

#98

Post by bryanlarsen »

tb_technical wrote: post #94
bryanlarsen wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of those are the reasons that Chinese solar panels are cheap. They don't use rare earths. They don't use much labor. They're cheap because they're made in massive "lights out" highly automated factories. Access to cheap capital and automation. Those are supposed to be American strengths, and China is beating America at its own game.

Frankly, the reason China is the last man standing on solar was their aggressive subsidy in the 2010s. Killed all of the American and European manufacturers, then the subsidy ended and they were the last man standing. The other things you are said are also true, I just wanted to provide a little historical context.

Chinese subsidies were smaller than European and American subsidies on a relative basis. (but not absolute). The difference was that European and American subsidies also subsidized Chinese panels.

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

#99

Post by protocolture »

UltraSane wrote: post #97
protocolture wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100%. We have this thing where every 10 years or so we collectively admit that if we started nuclear 10 years ago it would be fine, but we need it now, so it should remain illegal because its too expensive. Its some of the most insane doublethink in human politics.

And peak demand in 2024 was only 38GW so you would only need like 40 reactors to provide all electricity.

And we are swimming in Uranium and water for cooling, and we are tectonically stable.

And every single argument is a weird either or scenario. Like some people want Gas. JUST Gas. Some people want Solar and Wind. JUST Solar and Wind.

Nuclear power can also fill batteries. Can also fill pumped hydro storage. Ditto Gas. Nuke and Gas are good for restarting a grid when theres a catastrophe, see Spain.

Give engineers more tools, not less. Its infuriating.

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

#100

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #95
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study also shows the same pattern in the US. > Whereas what you want is multiple companies building these things on an assembly line, where you can plop the components out of a truck already approved and ready to be turned on. How many trillions in handouts from tax payer money to get there? Renewables and storage deliver that dream unsubsidized today.

> The study also shows the same pattern in the US. The modern US where a negligible number of reactors are being built, or the US in the period of the regulatory changes that accompanied the Cold War when everyone was afraid of nuclear bombs and then The China Syndrome and Chernobyl? If you want it to mean anything you need data from when the regulatory environment isn't increasing in hostility over time during the m…

I love how it's always someone elses fault that nuclear power never delivered on its promise. Despite handout after handout trying to get the industry to work.

> It's a loan at an interest rate higher than the government itself is paying to issue the bonds, i.e. the taxpayer is making money from this.

This assumes the risk is zero. Which given e.g. Virgil C. Summer is not the case.

> Then why does the price per kWh that consumers are paying keep going up instead of down?

Depends on where you are in the world. In Europe most of the recent price increases are coming from fossil energy becoming expensive.

The ETS system is making coal power expensive and running a peaker on LNG is extremely expensive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Emissions_Tradi...

So now we're seeing large swings from extremely cheap renewable electricity to expensive fossil based.

Post reply on HN