←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: 0.003s | 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. throw0101d ◴[15 Oct 24 00:53 UTC] No.41843823[source]▶
> seeing how 2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia

Vogtle 4 was (IIRC) 30% cheaper than Vogtle 3.

The problem with nuclear in Georgia, and in the US, was that no one remembers/ed how to do it, and so all the lessons of yore had to be relearned, and the supply chain had to be stood up.

If you put in an order for several reactors, the very first one (especially of a new model, like Vogtle 3 was) will be expensive AF. The second will be expensive. All models after that will be at a more 'reasonable' cost.

Nuclear reactors are just like any other widget: the cost goes down with economies of scale. If you order 4 or 8 reactors at one sites they'll get progressively get cheaper (there is a floor of course). If you then put in an order at a second site, and move the workforce (or a portion) there, the lower costs will still be present.

If you start and stop construction, or order a whole bunch of different models/types, then there economies of scale goes out the window.

replies(2): >>41843944 #>>41854137 #
2. dalyons ◴[15 Oct 24 01:11 UTC] No.41843944[source]▶
Sort of - nuke plants are fundamentally phenomenally complicated compared to true economies of scale technologies like solar. You won’t reap 100x cost savings in nukes, no matter how many you build
replies(1): >>41848988 #
3. throw0101d ◴[15 Oct 24 14:27 UTC] No.41848988[source]▶
Every widget has a price floor since there's parts/materials and labour costs. This is even true for solar.

One simply has to be careful about what something "costs" when you look at the first unit versus the nth unit.

4. iknowstuff ◴[15 Oct 24 23:24 UTC] No.41854137[source]▶
did you see France raising their cost estimate for 5 reactors to $73B? France, the shining beacon of nuclear energy.

by the time they build it, the cost of renewables will halve, and their actual cost of nuclear will have doubled again.