←back to thread

589 points atomic128 | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.41842046[source]
And recently found the be vastly more expensive than a renewable grid when looking at total system cost.

It needs to come down by 85% in cost to be equal to the renewable system.

Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels. We get enormously more value of the money simply by building renewables.

> The study finds that investments in flexibility in the electricity supply are needed in both systems due to the constant production pattern of nuclear and the variability of renewable energy sources. However, the scenario with high nuclear implementation is 1.2 billion EUR more expensive annually compared to a scenario only based on renewables, with all systems completely balancing supply and demand across all energy sectors in every hour. For nuclear power to be cost competitive with renewables an investment cost of 1.55 MEUR/MW must be achieved, which is substantially below any cost projection for nuclear power.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030626192...

replies(2): >>41842608 #>>41846480 #
1. crazygringo ◴[] No.41842608[source]
> Every dollar invested in nuclear today prolongs our reliance on fossil fuels.

How does that follow?

How does using nuclear for some of our energy needs bias the rest of our energy sources towards fossil fuels? As opposed to renewables or even more nuclear?

replies(1): >>41843013 #
2. ViewTrick1002 ◴[] No.41843013[source]
We get vastly more bang for the buck when investing in renewables.

Fixing climate change is both having enough energy to displace all fossil fuel we consume and being quick enough with the transition lessen the end state carbon content in the atmosphere.

replies(1): >>41848644 #
3. crazygringo ◴[] No.41848644[source]
I still don't see how nuclear prolonging fossil fuels follows from any of that.

Building nuclear doesn't prevent or slow the rest from transitioning to renewable. If anything, it can get us off of fossil fuels faster because it handles the base load.