←back to thread

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

(www.wsj.com)
589 points atomic128 | 6 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0.881s | source | bottom
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 #
1. throwaway2037 ◴[15 Oct 24 01:40 UTC] No.41844089[source]▶
Nuclear is a terrible investment in 2024. Price per delivered megawatt-hour is guaranteed to be much lower for a combination of solar+battery+wind.

-- Edit --

To clarify, "Nuclear is a terrible investment for private industry in 2024." However, I understand why nation states (and their equivalents) would want a diversity of power sources. There many be non-economic reasons why nations want to build nuclear over solar+battery+wind.

replies(2): >>41844323 #>>41845439 #
2. forgotoldacc ◴[15 Oct 24 02:23 UTC] No.41844323[source]▶
There's something to be said for space. A nuclear reactor takes up far less land than an equivalent amount of wind and solar generation. That's quickly going to become a limiting factor in wind/solar rollout and already is in some smaller countries (unless they're willing to bulldoze their entire land to cover it in solar panels)
replies(2): >>41845384 #>>41856859 #
3. notTooFarGone ◴[15 Oct 24 05:59 UTC] No.41845384[source]▶
Ok we can all agree that the US has not a land problem. This argument is relevant in Europe but the US has more than enough space power transmission is a problem but it's solvable.
replies(1): >>41846447 #
4. jltsiren ◴[15 Oct 24 06:13 UTC] No.41845439[source]▶
Nuclear may not be competitive for electricity, but it could be a viable option for district heating. If you ignore electricity generation completely, you could make small simple low-pressure reactors and hide them underground. There is a spin-off company from a national research institute in Finland that believes it can make 50 MW (thermal) reactors for €100 million, with some municipal utilities semi-committed to buying ~15 of them.
5. forgotoldacc ◴[15 Oct 24 08:51 UTC] No.41846447{3}[source]▶
Just because the US has a lot of area doesn't mean it should all be paved over and turned into solar farms. "Who needs nature and green spaces? It could be cheap electricity instead" is a mindset the next generation will hate us for, just like our generation resents previous generations for thinking "Why not burn coal? It's cheap electricity and there's lots of air left."

The US has a massive green space problem. It's a country of roads, parking lots, and corn fields and it's a problem that's visible from space.

Don't take this as opposing solar energy. I support it versus fossil fuels. But if nuclear is viable, I'm for it.

6. throwaway2037 ◴[16 Oct 24 08:33 UTC] No.41856859[source]▶

    > There's something to be said for space.
I see this argument a lot. Yes, the density is very high for nuclear power plants, but you need to build them in the middle of nowhere, for political and safety reasons. So, are we really saving space compared to solar? Plus, there is much less political resistance to solar farms, and almost zero safety issues (for PV).

This comment:

    > unless they're willing to bulldoze their entire land to cover it in solar panels
Your sentiment is interesting. No one says that when we talk about building new farms. Really, that is what people have done for the past 2000 years to alter our landscape. Can you imagine what Brazil looked like in 1800 vs today? Dramatic landscape changes due to farming. Same for US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. California has plenty of desert or very unproductive land that can be covered with solar panels.