←back to thread

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

(www.wsj.com)
589 points atomic128 | 4 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | 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. cyberax ◴[14 Oct 24 23:03 UTC] No.41843120{3}[source]▶
> edit: to be clear, 1GW of wind or solar is $1B.

No, it's not. Right now it's probably more than $10B a GW if you want the same level of reliability as nuclear.

replies(1): >>41846561 #
2. atwrk ◴[15 Oct 24 09:07 UTC] No.41846561[source]▶
You can't just invent a number because you like it more. Solar and Wind are cheaper than nuclear even if you go beyond LCOE and include system costs. Even the nuclear lobby acknowledges this nowadays and has switched to other arguments.
replies(1): >>41850081 #
3. cyberax ◴[15 Oct 24 16:13 UTC] No.41850081[source]▶
No.

Not even close. Wind and solar are cheap _only_ if you don't depend on them. In particular, for the wind the adequacy rating is about 10% in most places. It means that you can expect 10% of the nameplate capacity to be available at all times system-wide. So multiply the wind energy costs by 10x, and suddenly they are quite more expensive than nuclear.

It's not even a question for the solar, it simply can't provide power during a day without storage.

> Even the nuclear lobby acknowledges this nowadays and has switched to other arguments.

Nope.

replies(1): >>41857048 #
4. atwrk ◴[16 Oct 24 09:05 UTC] No.41857048{3}[source]▶
First, capacity factor is a silly metric to use for this. The industry uses LCOE or system LCOE, because this is about dollars per actual TWh produced, not capacity. In other words: A capacity factor of 10% doesn't matter if building 10x the amount is still cheaper.

With that said, the wind capacity factor in Germany is 20% for onshore and 40% for offshore, so even that was wrong by a factor of 2-4.