←back to thread

Google commits to buying power generated by nuclear-energy startup Kairos Power

(www.wsj.com)
589 points atomic128 | 1 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | source
Show context
philipkglass ◴[14 Oct 24 19:32 UTC] No.41841019[source]▶
Based on the headline I thought that this was an enormous capital commitment for an enormous generating capacity, but the deal is with a company called Kairos that is developing small modular reactors with 75 megawatts of electrical output each [1]. 7 reactors of this type, collectively, would supply 525 megawatts (less than half of a typical new commercial power reactor like the AP1000, HPR1000, EPR, or APR1400).

Kairos is in a pretty early stage. They started building a test reactor this summer, scheduled for completion by 2027:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/kairos-power-starts-const...

EDIT: Statement from the official Google announcement linked by xnx below [2]:

Today, we’re building on these efforts by signing the world’s first corporate agreement to purchase nuclear energy from multiple small modular reactors (SMRs) to be developed by Kairos Power. The initial phase of work is intended to bring Kairos Power’s first SMR online quickly and safely by 2030, followed by additional reactor deployments through 2035. Overall, this deal will enable up to 500 MW of new 24/7 carbon-free power to U.S. electricity grids and help more communities benefit from clean and affordable nuclear power.

[1] https://kairospower.com/technology/

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41841108

replies(8): >>41841055 #>>41842094 #>>41842395 #>>41843875 #>>41844253 #>>41845537 #>>41845613 #>>41848283 #
onepointsixC ◴[14 Oct 24 19:37 UTC] No.41841055[source]▶
Yeah I’m not going to lie, that’s quite disappointing. Google funding several AP1000’s would be huge.
replies(4): >>41841072 #>>41841432 #>>41841621 #>>41844089 #
iknowstuff ◴[14 Oct 24 19:39 UTC] No.41841072[source]▶
seeing how 2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, why would Google waste $120B when they can get the same output for at most half the price (and realistically more like 1/10th) using renewables and batteries? and they’d have results in 2 years instead of 2 decades.

edit: to be clear, 1GW of wind or solar is $1B. Build 3GW for overcapacity and you’re still at just 17% of the cost of 1GW of nuclear, and you technically have 3x more capacity. Now figure out how many megapacks you can buy for the $14B/GW you saved https://www.tesla.com/megapack/design (answer: 16GW/68GWh)

replies(9): >>41841088 #>>41841147 #>>41841158 #>>41841606 #>>41843120 #>>41843823 #>>41844522 #>>41845945 #>>41846378 #
1. mindslight ◴[14 Oct 24 20:29 UTC] No.41841606[source]▶
So using your numbers, it is solidly a little less than half the cost, not one tenth (26GWh seems around the necessarily amount for riding out ~14 hours of darkness. I'm assuming your factor of 3 makes up for seasonal variation and cloudy days). The panels take up 9 acres of land area, and need to be kept clean of snow and dust. The battery lifetime is small compared to expected life of a nuclear reactor, but the battery lifecycle is more straightforward. This seems like the territory of having a reasonable tradeoff between the two, not some unequivocal win for an Internet smackdown about how we should avoid one approach.