←back to thread

589 points atomic128 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | 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 #
jl6 ◴[] No.41840955[source]
Nuclear is absolutely necessary to complete the clean energy transition, but is it really an either-or with solar and wind? We need massive amounts of clean electricity to displace fossil energy sources, not just to power the grid but also to synthesize all the chemical feedstocks that currently come from oil. The skills and resources needed to build out nuclear capacity and solar/wind capacity are quite different and needn't compete with each other.
replies(4): >>41841027 #>>41841035 #>>41841051 #>>41841990 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41841027[source]
> is it really an either-or with solar and wind? We need massive amounts of clean electricity

No. This is a false dichtomy pushed, from what I can tell, by the gas lobby. It's solar and wind + nukes or gas.

Batteries work in theory but not in practice: production doesn't scale fast enough, and that was before LLMs brought a new and growing source of power demand to the table. (I'm ignoring that grid batteries compete with transport electrification. A combination of economies of scale and common bottlenecks in construction of battery plants, irrespective of chemistry, links the pursuits.)

replies(3): >>41841564 #>>41842003 #>>41844221 #
justatdotin ◴[] No.41844221[source]
I'm not sure that grid batteries should compete with transport electrification. One reason I haven't moved yet on batteries for the home is that I'm still interested to see what alternatives to lithium emerge. It seems to me that transport prioritises size and weight, whereas home and grid might take a hit on those measurements to maximise efficiency, durability, etc
replies(2): >>41844357 #>>41847100 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41844357[source]
> not sure that grid batteries should compete with transport electrification

The bottlenecks are in processing materials, forming anodes and cathodes and packaging them into cells. Processes preserved across most chemistries. There is a reason the guys who built Li-on plants are pretty good at building LFP plants, and why the guys building LFPs are making announcements about sodium.

replies(1): >>41859371 #
1. pfdietz ◴[] No.41859371[source]
Why can't processing be ramped up arbitrarily? There's no compelling limit on how many factories can be built.

This is the glory of industry: if the process is profitable, you can stamp out factories and generate ever larger profits, up to the point the market is saturated.