←back to thread

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

(www.wsj.com)
589 points atomic128 | 3 comments | 14 Oct 24 19:06 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[14 Oct 24 19:45 UTC] No.41841147[source]▶
> using renewables and batteries? and they’d have results in 2 years instead of 2 decades

We have nothing close to the battery fabrication pipeline to make that timeline true, certainly not at scale. If this move works, Google will have cemented its power needs and economics for decades to come.

replies(4): >>41841275 #>>41841498 #>>41841512 #>>41842549 #
matthewdgreen ◴[14 Oct 24 20:21 UTC] No.41841512[source]▶
Global battery manufacturing capacity was 2,600GWh in 2023 [1], and has probably already exceeded that this year. The IEA projects closer to 4TWh by 2025, and nearly 7TWh by 2030 [2].

You need to pay attention because this is happening fast.

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-04-12/china-... [2] https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/lithium-ion-b...

replies(1): >>41841634 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[14 Oct 24 20:31 UTC] No.41841634[source]▶
> nearly 7TWh by 2030

That's a big number. Here's a bigger one: 30,000 TWh, about our current electricity consumption [1]. 7 TWh in 2030 is less than 1/4,000th total electriciy production today. (You obviously don't need 1:1 coverage. But 2 hours in 2030 against a year's demand today is still a nudge.)

Now consider EVs. Then add the tens of TWh of annual power demand AI is expected to add to power demand [2]. (And I'm assuming a free market for battery cells, which obviously isn't where we're heading. So add local production bottlenecks to the mix.)

Battery numbers are going up. But they aren't going up fast enough and never could have, not unless we ditch electrifying transportation. Nukes or gas. Anyone pretending there is a third way is defaulting to one or the other.

[1] https://www.iea.org/reports/electricity-information-overview...

[2] https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-...

replies(9): >>41841796 #>>41841957 #>>41841969 #>>41842073 #>>41842132 #>>41842204 #>>41844378 #>>41844409 #>>41846922 #
ViewTrick1002 ◴[14 Oct 24 21:18 UTC] No.41842132[source]▶
5 hours of storage and a 98.6% renewables system.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-renewable-gr...

Investing in nuclear power today is an insane prospect when the energy market is being reshaped at this speed.

In Europe old paid off nuclear plants are regularly being forced off the markets due to supplying too expensive energy.

This will only worsen the nuclear business case as renewable expansion continues, today being a bonanza fueled by finally finding an energy source cheaper than fossil fuel.

Nuclear power is essentially pissing against the wind hoping the 1960s returns.

replies(3): >>41842457 #>>41845675 #>>41846390 #
Moldoteck ◴[15 Oct 24 08:42 UTC] No.41846390[source]▶
In eu France is the biggest net exporter in the EU while Germany with huge renewable capacity net imported 20+TWh this year. Look how Germany's generation was yesterday to get a sneak peek
replies(1): >>41846507 #
atwrk ◴[15 Oct 24 08:59 UTC] No.41846507[source]▶
This is only because it is profitable for Germany to do so, not because of lack of capacity. Germany imports energy when there is low demand (and price) and exports when there is high demand (and price). Look at this chart: https://energy-charts.info/charts/power_trading/chart.htm?l=...
replies(1): >>41846590 #
1. Moldoteck ◴[15 Oct 24 09:12 UTC] No.41846590[source]▶
another reason is to fire up coal less.

Again, look at yesterday generation. They were not able to satisfy local demand with renewables and bumped up coal+gas by a lot.

Also, if you look at the numbers - the price difference isn't that huge but trade difference is huge. This year export price is less than 1$ more than import. Problem is Germany net imported 25TWh so they are still in a big trade deficit and it continues to grow considering dunkelflaute is ahead

replies(1): >>41846689 #
2. ViewTrick1002 ◴[15 Oct 24 09:29 UTC] No.41846689[source]▶
Yes, Germany is targeting a 80% renewable electricity mix by 2030 and 100% by 2035. They have no illusions about being perfect today. Their current status is 65% renewable for 2024.

Maybe stop looking at instants and start looking at the larger picture: keeping our cumulative emissions as low as possible.

Starting a nuclear construction project which won't deliver any decarbonization for 15-20 years is accepting large cumulative emissions.

replies(1): >>41846860 #
3. Moldoteck ◴[15 Oct 24 09:54 UTC] No.41846860[source]▶
they don't target 100% by 2035. They want to close last coal plant by 2038 which is a bit optimistic looking at yesterday's generation. For gas it's even worse - the plan is totally unrealistic and their planned h2 ready plants that'll use gas initially, will probably still use a mix with gas when/if green h2 becomes reality or they'll replace the generators with pure h2(unlikely) which has huge nox emissions due to high burn temperature

Larger image is yesterday's generation + https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-05-29/germany-s... and https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/germany-looks-specia...

And nuclear construction can be much faster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant or you can look at projects from China