←back to thread

589 points atomic128 | 7 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
atomic128 ◴[] No.41840791[source]
Reuters article, no paywall: https://www.reuters.com/technology/artificial-intelligence/g...

CNBC article, no paywall: https://www.cnbc.com/2024/10/14/google-inks-deal-with-nuclea...

No battery farm can protect a solar/wind grid from an arbitrarily extended period of bad weather. If you have battery backup sufficient for time T and the weather doesn't cooperate for time T+1, you're in trouble.

Even a day or two of battery backup eliminates the cost advantage of solar/wind. Battery backup postpones the "range anxiety deadline" but cannot remove it. Fundamentally, solar and wind are not baseload power solutions. They are intermittent and unreliable.

Nuclear fission is the only clean baseload power source that can be widely adopted (cf. hydro). After 70 years of working with fission reactors, we know how to build and operate them at 95%+ efficiency (https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity). Vogtle 3 and 4 have been operating at 100%.

Today there are 440 nuclear reactors operating in 32 countries.

Nuclear fission power plants are expensive to build but once built the plant can last 50 years (probably 80 years, maybe more). The unenriched uranium fuel is very cheap (https://www.cameco.com/invest/markets/uranium-price), perhaps 5% of the cost of running the plant.

This is in stark contrast to natural gas, where the plant is less expensive to build, but then fuel costs rapidly accumulate. The fossil fuel is the dominant cost of running the plant. And natural gas is a poor choice if greenhouse emissions matter.

Google is funding construction of 7 nuclear reactors. Microsoft is paying $100/MWh for 20 years to restart an 819 MW reactor at Three Mile Island. Sam Altman owns a stake in Oklo, a small modular reactor company. Bill Gates owns a stake in his TerraPower nuclear reactor company. Amazon recently purchased a "nuclear adjacent" data center from Talen Energy. Oracle announced that it is designing data centers with small modular nuclear reactors. As for Meta, see Yann LeCun's unambiguous comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41621097

In China, 5 reactors are being built every year. 11 more were recently announced. The United Arab Emirates (land of oil and sun) now gets 25% of its grid power from the Barakah nuclear power plant (four 1.4 GW reactors, a total of 5.6 GW).

Nuclear fission will play an important role in the future of grid energy, along with solar and wind. Many people (e.g., Germany) still fear it. Often these people are afraid of nuclear waste, despite it being extremely tiny and safely contained (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage). Education will fix this.

Nuclear fission is safe, clean, secure, and reliable.

replies(14): >>41840937 #>>41840955 #>>41840963 #>>41840975 #>>41841013 #>>41841071 #>>41841164 #>>41841279 #>>41841288 #>>41841886 #>>41841976 #>>41842046 #>>41842672 #>>41844728 #
1. dumbo-octopus ◴[] No.41840937[source]
Your link specifically states that no long term storage option exists, but it does so in a rather weaselly (“until {a future date}, there was not {safe long term storage}”) way that seems specifically crafted to confuse the reader.
replies(1): >>41841015 #
2. credit_guy ◴[] No.41841015[source]
In the US long term storage absolutely exists, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [1]. It only stores nuclear waste of military origin (i.e. from the making of the nuclear bombs). But there is no technical reason this storage can't also accommodate civilian waste. By the way, the amount of military waste exceeds the civilian waste by a factor of 3 or so.

[1] https://www.wipp.energy.gov/

replies(1): >>41841228 #
3. RaftPeople ◴[] No.41841228[source]
> In the US long term storage absolutely exists

In one sense it does exist (i.e. it's buried in salt beds 2,000 feet below surface), but is it safe?

In 2014 there was an explosion of a waste container and radioactive particles were spread throughout the facility and up to the surface by the air processing equipment in the mine.

It seems like it's not just a binary choice, but more of a continuum of how safe is the particular solution compared to others.

replies(1): >>41844079 #
4. credit_guy ◴[] No.41844079{3}[source]
I see some moving goal posts here. If long term storage exists, then it's not perfectly good long term storage. It's not a true Scotsman.
replies(1): >>41844440 #
5. dumbo-octopus ◴[] No.41844440{4}[source]
> Nuclear fission is safe, clean, secure, and reliable.

> The only extant long term storage isn’t safe, clean, secure, or reliable

> You’re moving the goalposts! You should be happy with imperfect storage!

replies(1): >>41844543 #
6. credit_guy ◴[] No.41844543{5}[source]
Nope. No nuclear energy supporter will state that nuclear energy is perfectly safe, clean, secure or reliable. Nothing is perfect, why would the bar for nuclear energy be perfection?

Nuclear energy is not perfectly safe for the obvious reason that we've had Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. It is not perfectly clean, since it produces nuclear waste. It is not perfectly secure, just look at the Zaporizhzhia power plant. It is not perfectly realiable: there are times when a lot of French reactors went offline because the water in rivers was too warm.

What exactly is your argument?

replies(1): >>41844552 #
7. dumbo-octopus ◴[] No.41844552{6}[source]
That was a direct quote from the parent.