←back to thread

589 points atomic128 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | 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 #
Kon5ole ◴[] No.41842672[source]
> Nuclear fission is safe, clean, secure, and reliable.

Which energy source has stricter safety and security regulations than nuclear? Surely the strictest security regulations are applied to the least safe and secure operations?

Which other source has cleanup operations going for decades, 1000s of miles from where a single plant operated? What other power source has the military guarding its waste?

The reliability seems great until unexpected failures drops a large percentage of the national power supply in a matter of minutes (as seen in France, Sweden and Finland for example). Such events are more disruptive than cloudy days are with Solar.

> Nuclear fission power plants are expensive to build but once built the plant can last 50 years

But they keep costing money for longer than the US has existed after they close.

Surely investing in hydrogen or similar is way better for the future than nuclear.

replies(4): >>41843237 #>>41847842 #>>41850769 #>>41851939 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[] No.41843237[source]
> Which other source has cleanup operations going for decades, 1000s of miles from where a single plant operated

Chernobyl is a bad example.

The Soviets knew it was an inherently unsafe design and built it anyway.

When you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

Fukushima is a better example.

replies(1): >>41846653 #
sensanaty ◴[] No.41846653[source]
And even then, it took a string of extreme circumstances for Fukushima to happen, and compared to Chernobyl/TMI wasn't nearly as disastrous. A strong earthquake AND a tsunami AND people once again ignoring the safety instructions to shut it down early.
replies(2): >>41849256 #>>41851969 #
1. asdf000333 ◴[] No.41851969[source]
Earthquakes and tsunamis often go together, and operator mistakes always happen.