U.S. Sets Targets to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050(energy.gov)
energy.gov
U.S. Sets Targets to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/us-sets-targets-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050
226 comments
Also relevant:
China Added More Solar Panels in 2023 Than US Did In Its Entire History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-26/china-add...
China Added More Solar Panels in 2023 Than US Did In Its Entire History
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-01-26/china-add...
Yes. China has also opened more coal power plants than the rest of the world combined over the past couple of years.
It should be clear from these three examples that some regulatory environments are more conducive to rapidly building infrastructure than others.
It should be clear from these three examples that some regulatory environments are more conducive to rapidly building infrastructure than others.
Not sure why that should be clear?
It’s not about the “regulatory environment”, which is almost irrelevant when talking about China. What’s driving this is state-led development with clear goals, like reaching peak carbon by 2030, a claim which they can actually back up with developments like these.
It’s not about the “regulatory environment”, which is almost irrelevant when talking about China. What’s driving this is state-led development with clear goals, like reaching peak carbon by 2030, a claim which they can actually back up with developments like these.
I don’t think Xi cares about carbon. He just wants to build as much power as possible so that China becomes an economic powerhouse (no pun intended). Imagine what would happen in Europe or the US if power is 1/5th the price or lower. It would open many opportunities for building and innovation.
Or he cares about both, but obviously prioritizes domestic energy security. Masses complained about air quality, hence move to renewables. Otherwise no reason to build out new plants that are more efficient / less poluting if old dirty one's suffices for occasional peaking. Or try to shift to renewables so fast that there were power shortages a couple summers ago due to adverse climate effects on generation . Or stop building 100s of billiions of dollars worth coal plants abroad as part of BRI.
IMO Xi/PRC is a little bit TOO magnanimous about enviroment / eliminating carbon. While US continues to increase (and now lead) in oil/lng exports, PRC is leaving good money on the table not building 1000s of coal plants abroad or exporting their centuries of thermal coal stock. That's the kind of irrational behaviour you expect from someone that cares about enviroment.
IMO Xi/PRC is a little bit TOO magnanimous about enviroment / eliminating carbon. While US continues to increase (and now lead) in oil/lng exports, PRC is leaving good money on the table not building 1000s of coal plants abroad or exporting their centuries of thermal coal stock. That's the kind of irrational behaviour you expect from someone that cares about enviroment.
From what I’ve seen, they’ve extended their environmentalism to beyond carbon into the anti pollution in other forms. I agree regarding power cost though. That’s a huge missed opportunity in the west.
China is all in on renewables because their domestic fossil fuel resources are extremely limited. They import close to 100% of oil and gas and significant coal right now, basically the same situation the US was in before fracking took off. Xi is worried about being cut off from energy by an American blockade.
Correct. They’re building everything, clean or dirty, at a rapid pace. I wonder if they just skip over environmental concerns. In the US these would require a wildlife or wetlands study which take a long time
These coal plants are meant as backups. They specifically invented peakable coal plants so that they can fulfill that role. They even optimized the hell out of these coal plants: new Chinese coal plants are the most efficient in the world. These new coal plants also replace a bunch of older, more polluting plants.
A couple of years ago in China it was cloudy, non-windy, and dry at the same time for an extended period of time.
The energy transition isn't as simple as "build more solar, shut down coal".
A couple of years ago in China it was cloudy, non-windy, and dry at the same time for an extended period of time.
The energy transition isn't as simple as "build more solar, shut down coal".
I don't think it invalidates anything, they will shut those off if there isn't any use for them anymore.
It has a lot to do with outside groups using the bureaucratic process to slow things down. A popular method is using what it's called environmental impact study. If an EIS identifies that some little field mouse might be harmed if the nuclear power plant is built, an outside organization can use that report to sue to stop the entire project. This tactic has been used countless times to stop everything from copper mining, to solar farms. Worse, still, if a group sues, and they win, the government picks up the tab. It's called environmental justice lawsuits, and they have utterly destroyed most Green projects in America.
I think the Office of Nuclear Energy is trying to get in front of Musk shutting all these projects down and moving the green funding to solar and battery.
Built it all - decreasing the cost of energy is how we raise quality of life. More non-oil energy is how we decrease carbon emissions.
Musk has an established track record of pro-nuclear sentiment (see my other comment for example). I see no reason to expect him to do any such thing.
The vast amounts of waste in building nuclear power is part of why it is so expensive, with projects traditionally ballooning to triple budget estimates. Exactly the stuff he is required to cut hard by mid-2026. With the numbers in plain sight, arguments of corruption will be rejected, despite the fact he stands to gain billions due to owning the biggest slice of proven, lower cost, less wasteful alternative.
Musk also has a track record of being a gigantic tool to serve his own interests. So I'll only believe it when I see it
I have given evidence; thus far you offer only personal sentiment. Feel free to explain how increased nuclear energy capacity would even hinder Musk's interests in the first place.
Trump is all about the oil, drill baby drill
Going against this may lose him is "first buddy" position and influence on the US government
Going against this may lose him is "first buddy" position and influence on the US government
Hopefully Kirk Sorensen / Flibe will finally get some more presence. ( https://flibe.com )
"Operational production reactors coming online in 2040."
That's about a decade and a half too late. We need to be reducing our carbon footprint right now, and we have that ability: wind and solar. Low initial impact, fast to net carbon negative.
Nukes take decades to dig themselves out of their carbon positive holes, if they ever do so at all (the nuclear industry does not account for most of the CO2 generated from supply and operations.)
That's about a decade and a half too late. We need to be reducing our carbon footprint right now, and we have that ability: wind and solar. Low initial impact, fast to net carbon negative.
Nukes take decades to dig themselves out of their carbon positive holes, if they ever do so at all (the nuclear industry does not account for most of the CO2 generated from supply and operations.)
Net carbone negative is bullshit (no such things as net emissions if you don't have a "removal" side, which is not happening rn)
Then nuke is much better for low co2 energy mix, cf France vs Germany
Then nuke is much better for low co2 energy mix, cf France vs Germany
I wonder how they plan to keep costs under control. Spending $19 billion USD on 2,4GW capacity as with Georgia does not sound like a keeper.
Better than $5 billion on 11 EV chargers.
https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/5b-for-ev-infrastru...
https://www.governing.com/infrastructure/5b-for-ev-infrastru...
As your article clearly states the money mostly hasn't been spent and the delay in giving out the money is why most stuff hasn't happened yet.
If you can declare that a failure before most projects have a spade in the ground then this newly announced nuclear plan has already failed.
If you can declare that a failure before most projects have a spade in the ground then this newly announced nuclear plan has already failed.
Along with cost, the biggest issue is still local opposition, right? Is there any plan to solve that?
With all due respect, we really ought to wait on things like this until at least February. While nuclear is likely to continue we must be aware that it's not fossil fuel and not guaranteed.
I don't have any faith in these kinds of plans. The US doesn't seem capable of actually finishing nuclear projects. I assume this is just a grift for someone to siphon away a whole lot of money.
> The US doesn't seem capable of actually finishing nuclear projects.
Vogtle 3 and 4 were completed in the last couple of years, plus Watts Bar Unit 2 8 years ago.
Also let's not forget the work to maintain and upgrade units so they can run beyond the 40 year initial license.
Vogtle 3 and 4 were completed in the last couple of years, plus Watts Bar Unit 2 8 years ago.
Also let's not forget the work to maintain and upgrade units so they can run beyond the 40 year initial license.
Vogtle 3 and 4 were such colossal economic failures that they likely killed all investment in nuclear for the next decade.
So nuclear will stay roughly were it is as a fraction of total electricity production?
It will probably go down over time. These targets are nice but it takes a long time for those plans to become reality. Plenty of time for changing the plans or cancelling them completely.
Regardless of those plans and whether they are cancelled or not, renewables are going full steam ahead in most of the world and will likely add essentially all of the planned nuclear capacity in a matter of years. And then some.
At this point renewables are, by far, the most cost effective way to generate power. Wind, solar, and battery storage are growing at a ridiculous rate. That's actually causing headaches for plans made years ago for e.g. gas plants and indeed nuclear plants. Some gas plants that opened fairly recently are actually facing early closures because they are no longer price competitive.
Regardless of those plans and whether they are cancelled or not, renewables are going full steam ahead in most of the world and will likely add essentially all of the planned nuclear capacity in a matter of years. And then some.
At this point renewables are, by far, the most cost effective way to generate power. Wind, solar, and battery storage are growing at a ridiculous rate. That's actually causing headaches for plans made years ago for e.g. gas plants and indeed nuclear plants. Some gas plants that opened fairly recently are actually facing early closures because they are no longer price competitive.
In Australia they've started planning for the closure of gas grid connections to people's homes.
Since they were built with the idea of supplying gas for a few decades and will be obsolete before that planned date, they're started to raise the rates they charge to ensure it gets paid off in time. This then accelerates the pace of people moving off gas.
Since they were built with the idea of supplying gas for a few decades and will be obsolete before that planned date, they're started to raise the rates they charge to ensure it gets paid off in time. This then accelerates the pace of people moving off gas.
How much of this is those SMEs that people are making specifically to power AI?
Is it even vaguely price competitive with solar & battery at this point?
It is worth investing a little more on nuclear in the interest of energy security. It isn't always a race to the bottom.
A diverse and robust energy grid is composed of various generation sources that differ in capacity factors, environmental impact, stability, availability, etc.
A diverse and robust energy grid is composed of various generation sources that differ in capacity factors, environmental impact, stability, availability, etc.
Energy security is way more important than people make out. You'd think that politicians would focus on relying less on the countries that they have political tensions with
This is a difficult question because if you build 1 plant, it clearly isn't. But there are large learning effect. Any nation that builds many plants, shares workforce and management rapidly drops cost.
If you look at UAE building South Korean plants, they were finishing plants pretty rapidly and if they had simply continued, they could have turned 100% green in just a few more years at quite a low cost overall.
It also depends on your energy market and financing. If you have a lot of solar, that simply destroys the market during certain periods, nuclear isn't gone be that profitable. But if you don't have a bunch of wind/solar and you actually value stable energy production. Then its much more reasonable.
A nuclear plant can run for 80+ years. So it depends on interest rates you use.
If you look at UAE building South Korean plants, they were finishing plants pretty rapidly and if they had simply continued, they could have turned 100% green in just a few more years at quite a low cost overall.
It also depends on your energy market and financing. If you have a lot of solar, that simply destroys the market during certain periods, nuclear isn't gone be that profitable. But if you don't have a bunch of wind/solar and you actually value stable energy production. Then its much more reasonable.
A nuclear plant can run for 80+ years. So it depends on interest rates you use.
It depends on how you regulate the market. Part of the reason solar is still expensive on the market in Europe is because of regulations. To counter this to not kill growth you have various forms of economic incentives like tariffs for solar where the various government’s subsidies make up for the regulation. It’s to keep the fossil and nuclear energy market in Europe sustainable. Since we still heavily rely on these sources when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.
The battery industry is expected to grow a maddening percentage in the coming decade. Germany moving their renewable goal from 60-80% by (I’m not sure about the year but I think it’s 2030), alone increased the expected economic growth for supplying battery storage by 800%. There is nowhere near enough storage to make nuclear and fossil fuels obsolete yet however. Especially not if we also increase the EV market share.
Solar isn’t optimal in very hot regions, however, as the efficiency goes down 0.3-0.5% in efficiency for every degree Celsius above 0 degrees Celsius. So in some regions nuclear is going to be a good option. I’m not personally a fan of nuclear because its safety depends on governments being willing to regulate the safety, but there is no denying that it’s still a much, much, better alternative to fossil fuels as far as delivering power on demand.
This is how it looks in Europe. I have no idea how it looks in the US.
The battery industry is expected to grow a maddening percentage in the coming decade. Germany moving their renewable goal from 60-80% by (I’m not sure about the year but I think it’s 2030), alone increased the expected economic growth for supplying battery storage by 800%. There is nowhere near enough storage to make nuclear and fossil fuels obsolete yet however. Especially not if we also increase the EV market share.
Solar isn’t optimal in very hot regions, however, as the efficiency goes down 0.3-0.5% in efficiency for every degree Celsius above 0 degrees Celsius. So in some regions nuclear is going to be a good option. I’m not personally a fan of nuclear because its safety depends on governments being willing to regulate the safety, but there is no denying that it’s still a much, much, better alternative to fossil fuels as far as delivering power on demand.
This is how it looks in Europe. I have no idea how it looks in the US.
The battery industry being built at the moment in Sweden is having some major issues right now when investment money and subsidizes are running dry. The biggest actor are close to bankruptcy and rushing to find new sources of money.
There seems a general pattern that if you need to build it outside of china, be that batteries, nuclear power plants or solar panels, it becomes too expensive.
There seems a general pattern that if you need to build it outside of china, be that batteries, nuclear power plants or solar panels, it becomes too expensive.
The market is consolidating in the wake of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the challenges with the global supply lines and the increased interest rates. A lot of the smaller projects backed by semiprofessional investors will be picked up by larger investment fonds.
There is also still a couple of years until the European battery factories that are under construction will actually be operational.
Unless the economy picks up I suspect we’ll see a lot of bankruptcies in the coming five years. Currently it’s not just the price of solar panel production that is an issue, it’s also that you make equal and safer money on other investments. Back when the interest rates were basically 0% the 3-7% returns on solar were very attractive but now that is just not the case. This is why you see Japan picking up as an attractive place for solar these years, because in Japan a 3-7% return is still very good.
There is also still a couple of years until the European battery factories that are under construction will actually be operational.
Unless the economy picks up I suspect we’ll see a lot of bankruptcies in the coming five years. Currently it’s not just the price of solar panel production that is an issue, it’s also that you make equal and safer money on other investments. Back when the interest rates were basically 0% the 3-7% returns on solar were very attractive but now that is just not the case. This is why you see Japan picking up as an attractive place for solar these years, because in Japan a 3-7% return is still very good.
China is not afraid of subsidies and central planning, for better and worse.
France leads the world in this department, with 70% of their electricity generation coming from nuclear, and serving as the world's largest net exporter of electricity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France). The consensus among sources I can readily find is that home consumers pay around 25-30 euro cents per KWh for electricity, and electricity production wholesales at around 8 euro cents per KWh.
I'd say it's competitive, yes.
A lot of French nuclear plants are scheduled to be decomissioned in the next years because these nuclear plants are getting old. There's an ongoing discussion about extending the life of some of those plants. And there are some plans for new reactors with estimated cost currently at ~50 billion euros. Of course that's extremely likely to go up further. Nuclear projects always balloon in cost.
Energy prices are set by the government and don't reflect the actual cost. French tax payers pay for the difference and have done so for years. The cost price probably excludes quite a bit that tax payers are also paying for.
The sad reality with nuclear is that it's a very unprofitable business unless you get governments to sponsor construction, waste disposal, security, etc. and then bail out failing nuclear companies when they fail anyway. All of these things have happened in France. France has nuclear reactors because it regards being a nuclear power as strategically important. Not because it's particularly cheap. It never was.
As of now, that somewhat artificial cost of 8 cents per kwh is actually on the high side for renewables. There are cheaper ways to get power these days.
Energy prices are set by the government and don't reflect the actual cost. French tax payers pay for the difference and have done so for years. The cost price probably excludes quite a bit that tax payers are also paying for.
The sad reality with nuclear is that it's a very unprofitable business unless you get governments to sponsor construction, waste disposal, security, etc. and then bail out failing nuclear companies when they fail anyway. All of these things have happened in France. France has nuclear reactors because it regards being a nuclear power as strategically important. Not because it's particularly cheap. It never was.
As of now, that somewhat artificial cost of 8 cents per kwh is actually on the high side for renewables. There are cheaper ways to get power these days.
> A lot of French nuclear plants are scheduled to be decomissioned
Really? Aren't they getting life-extended past 40 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant was closed down due to Swiss/German objections, but are any of the other PWRs planned to be closed down?
> French tax payers pay for the difference and have done so for years.
Social tariffs are a thing, as is redistribution of wealth.
> that somewhat artificial cost of 8 cents per kwh is actually on the high side for renewables
Let us not conflate the price paid to a generator with the cost to the consumer. Also why do renewables need subsidies in France? https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume...
Really? Aren't they getting life-extended past 40 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fessenheim_Nuclear_Power_Plant was closed down due to Swiss/German objections, but are any of the other PWRs planned to be closed down?
> French tax payers pay for the difference and have done so for years.
Social tariffs are a thing, as is redistribution of wealth.
> that somewhat artificial cost of 8 cents per kwh is actually on the high side for renewables
Let us not conflate the price paid to a generator with the cost to the consumer. Also why do renewables need subsidies in France? https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/api/files/docume...
[deleted]
The first hit for "france nuclear power production cost" comes up with this:
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran...
> The full cost of existing nuclear power calculated by the CRE amounts to respectively €60.7/MWh over the period 2026-2030
And the first hit for "wind power cost europe mwhr" shows just how subsidized nuclear is:
https://windeurope.org/policy/topics/economics/
At its cheapest wind is half the cost of nuclear and at its worst is the same cost as nuclear - with none of the massive headaches.
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran...
> The full cost of existing nuclear power calculated by the CRE amounts to respectively €60.7/MWh over the period 2026-2030
And the first hit for "wind power cost europe mwhr" shows just how subsidized nuclear is:
https://windeurope.org/policy/topics/economics/
At its cheapest wind is half the cost of nuclear and at its worst is the same cost as nuclear - with none of the massive headaches.
> > The full cost of existing nuclear power calculated by the CRE amounts to respectively €60.7/MWh over the period 2026-2030
Assuming that price is with a 77% capacity factor there is an easy way to reduce the cost per MWh; get them to run with a higher capacity factor. Finland has achieved 94% over the last few years, and the US is up at 93% I believe. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
Assuming that this is mainly fixed costs the price could be down to 60.7*.77/.94 = 50 EUR/MWh; fuel is a minor input and might bump the price up to perhaps 53 EUR/MWh.
Assuming that price is with a 77% capacity factor there is an easy way to reduce the cost per MWh; get them to run with a higher capacity factor. Finland has achieved 94% over the last few years, and the US is up at 93% I believe. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....
Assuming that this is mainly fixed costs the price could be down to 60.7*.77/.94 = 50 EUR/MWh; fuel is a minor input and might bump the price up to perhaps 53 EUR/MWh.
> The full cost of existing nuclear power calculated by the CRE amounts to respectively €60.7/MWh over the period 2026-2030
Which is 6 euro cents per KWh. Fully in line with what I said.
French consumers are paying less for their electricity than, for example, Californians (https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/heres-the-ave...) where electricity largely comes from natural gas (https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...).
>And the first hit for "wind power cost europe mwhr" shows just how subsidized nuclear is:
This source makes a vague claim about LCOE estimations not taking subsidies into account. It says nothing to establish the amount of those subsidies, or even to quantify the cost of any power source besides wind.
>with none of the massive headaches.
Onshore wind generation has plenty of drawbacks. Much of what's commonly said against nuclear is baseless fearmongering.
Which is 6 euro cents per KWh. Fully in line with what I said.
French consumers are paying less for their electricity than, for example, Californians (https://www.cnet.com/home/energy-and-utilities/heres-the-ave...) where electricity largely comes from natural gas (https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/califo...).
>And the first hit for "wind power cost europe mwhr" shows just how subsidized nuclear is:
This source makes a vague claim about LCOE estimations not taking subsidies into account. It says nothing to establish the amount of those subsidies, or even to quantify the cost of any power source besides wind.
>with none of the massive headaches.
Onshore wind generation has plenty of drawbacks. Much of what's commonly said against nuclear is baseless fearmongering.
Wind has huge headaches.. bird deaths, littering the landscape with ugly windmills. Offshore wind farms also harm whales. The turbine blades end up in landfills.
> bird deaths
Ugh how long will it take for this to die?
Ugh how long will it take for this to die?
Should operators be exempted from fines and liability when endangered birds are killed?
If the answer is no, then the myth can die.
If the answer is yes, then it will survive until wind farms operators no longer seek to be exempted.
If the answer is no, then the myth can die.
If the answer is yes, then it will survive until wind farms operators no longer seek to be exempted.
Why should they not be exempted when we today understand how and why it’s happening and they are following the environmental rules set forth for their operating permit?
For example ensuring plants don’t get built in endangered bird habitats and rules concerning operation during endangered birds migratory periods.
Seems like you want wind power to fail, like nuclear is, and are attempting to sling any potential mud you can find.
For example ensuring plants don’t get built in endangered bird habitats and rules concerning operation during endangered birds migratory periods.
Seems like you want wind power to fail, like nuclear is, and are attempting to sling any potential mud you can find.
> Why should they not be exempted when we today understand how and why it’s happening and they are following the environmental rules set forth for their operating permit?
So we should allow companies to operate unhindered within (evidence based) rules. Seems like an idea. Let us use that approach for all activities, including nuclear power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model is a model with scant evidence in the range relevant to operating a power station. Having said that the ICRP will be updating their model within a decade or so, so perhaps that barrier will disappear.
So we should allow companies to operate unhindered within (evidence based) rules. Seems like an idea. Let us use that approach for all activities, including nuclear power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model is a model with scant evidence in the range relevant to operating a power station. Having said that the ICRP will be updating their model within a decade or so, so perhaps that barrier will disappear.
Let’s remove the Price Anderson act as well and have the nuclear plants insure for Fukushima level accident costs rather than relying on the tax payers to pick up the tab.
The entire industry would shut down tomorrow if they had to pay the true insurance cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
The entire industry would shut down tomorrow if they had to pay the true insurance cost.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...
> have the nuclear plants insure for Fukushima level accident costs
The flip-side of the Price Anderson act is that the NRC is deeply involved in the operations of nuclear power stations.
Why stop at nuclear; why not aircraft, social networks or unvaccinated people? Also make all companies unlimited liability so their shareholders are accountable when something goes wrong.
The flip-side of the Price Anderson act is that the NRC is deeply involved in the operations of nuclear power stations.
Why stop at nuclear; why not aircraft, social networks or unvaccinated people? Also make all companies unlimited liability so their shareholders are accountable when something goes wrong.
Now you managed to pinpoint the issue with nuclear power.
Criticism is met with “don’t you dare question the subsidies” and then a stream of whataboutism across completely different industries rather than daring to compare with the alternative: renewables.
Because you already know that comparison makes the nuclear case even worse than it already is.
Renewables don’t have capped liability, at worst if regular insurance coverage is not enough the company will be bankrupted and the assets sold to pay for the damages.
For renewables it is already baked into the price because the risks are near zero.
Criticism is met with “don’t you dare question the subsidies” and then a stream of whataboutism across completely different industries rather than daring to compare with the alternative: renewables.
Because you already know that comparison makes the nuclear case even worse than it already is.
Renewables don’t have capped liability, at worst if regular insurance coverage is not enough the company will be bankrupted and the assets sold to pay for the damages.
For renewables it is already baked into the price because the risks are near zero.
> For renewables it is already baked into the price because the risks are near zero.
Remind me how much each eagle is worth? How about power cuts caused by wind farms tripping incorrectly? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49309691 How about disruption caused by failure to provide power in low wind conditions, or is that just a societal risk rather than investor risk?
Remind me how much each eagle is worth? How about power cuts caused by wind farms tripping incorrectly? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49309691 How about disruption caused by failure to provide power in low wind conditions, or is that just a societal risk rather than investor risk?
That does not include the deficit these reactors ran up, nor all the subsidies they got from tax payers in many forms
See also Canadian data (https://www.cns-snc.ca/learn-nuclear/basics-of-nuclear/how-m...). We're blessed to have abundant access to hydroelectric energy which is even cheaper to produce here, but otherwise we should be outraged by the decommissioning of nuclear plants - and, indeed, there have been recent campaigns to revive old plants and step up production.
> but otherwise we should be outraged by the decommissioning of nuclear plants
No, we shouldn't. Pull up charts for energy generation by type for the US, Canada, and Europe. Notice that solar and wind (especially wind) has skyrocketed and far eclipsed the capacity loss of nuclear. In the US, 7 times as much wind power is going in as nuclear plants being taken offline. In the UK, 30% of power generation (and growing) is from wind.
Now, who do you think knows better here? The power companies who have been shutting down nuclear and coal plants because they're more expensive than wind and solar? Or...uh...you?
If your answer is "me", then clearly you should get a job in energy production, or become an investor, and make a bazillion dollars knowing more than everyone else in the industry, in nearly every country.
US, EU, UK...all seeing massive capacity growth in wind, far eclipsing nuclear decommissioning. Several countries have hit days in the last few years where they didn't need to have any fossil fuel plants online.
> indeed, there have been recent campaigns to revive old plants and step up production.
That is because the nuclear industry is lobbying desperately to stay alive.
If you need to lobby the government to force power companies to use you while also handing you a big fat check written by taxpayers, that is proof you're not market competitive.
No, we shouldn't. Pull up charts for energy generation by type for the US, Canada, and Europe. Notice that solar and wind (especially wind) has skyrocketed and far eclipsed the capacity loss of nuclear. In the US, 7 times as much wind power is going in as nuclear plants being taken offline. In the UK, 30% of power generation (and growing) is from wind.
Now, who do you think knows better here? The power companies who have been shutting down nuclear and coal plants because they're more expensive than wind and solar? Or...uh...you?
If your answer is "me", then clearly you should get a job in energy production, or become an investor, and make a bazillion dollars knowing more than everyone else in the industry, in nearly every country.
US, EU, UK...all seeing massive capacity growth in wind, far eclipsing nuclear decommissioning. Several countries have hit days in the last few years where they didn't need to have any fossil fuel plants online.
> indeed, there have been recent campaigns to revive old plants and step up production.
That is because the nuclear industry is lobbying desperately to stay alive.
If you need to lobby the government to force power companies to use you while also handing you a big fat check written by taxpayers, that is proof you're not market competitive.
For the sake of an argument lets say wind and solar are free. What are we supposed to do when they are not available? How much is stability worth?
For the H100/B200 AI clusters ?
Make a cost calculation of how much solar and battery you need to keep your lights on during peak summer and then do the same calculation for how much solar and battery you need to keep the lights on in the middle of winter when a large scale 5 day blizzard.
Pretend you are a metal foundry.
Good luck.
Pretend you are a metal foundry.
Good luck.
Okay, I'm moving my metal foundry to a location that's sunny all year round, just like I've previously moved it to Iceland for geothermal or next to big hydro dams. Cheap energy makes it worthwhile.
The fact that you can do this and still be a bit cheaper for those periods than nuclear power is what makes it really ridiculous:
https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...
Of course, we'll never stop building nuclear power in spite of this because it provides indirect subsidies for the military.
https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/17/wind-power-windgas-chea...
Of course, we'll never stop building nuclear power in spite of this because it provides indirect subsidies for the military.
That windgas study is rather poor. I responded to that a few months ago in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40834377#40853888
Big fat wire to somewhere which isn't in a blizzard.
Or just build the metal foundry in the non-blizzard-prone area in the first place, because the blizzard takes out power lines even if there was a nuclear reactor on the other end.
I've done the maths, and I'd it wasn't for geopolitics, China makes enough Aluminium to make an HVDC grid so thick that it would have so little resistance that they could usefully connect every grid in the world for a cost of 250e9 USD for the Aluminium.
Scaled down to just the USA, no international stuff, it's something you can easily do if someone convinces Trump or Musk to delete any internal obstruction.
Or just build the metal foundry in the non-blizzard-prone area in the first place, because the blizzard takes out power lines even if there was a nuclear reactor on the other end.
I've done the maths, and I'd it wasn't for geopolitics, China makes enough Aluminium to make an HVDC grid so thick that it would have so little resistance that they could usefully connect every grid in the world for a cost of 250e9 USD for the Aluminium.
Scaled down to just the USA, no international stuff, it's something you can easily do if someone convinces Trump or Musk to delete any internal obstruction.
Your last sentence sounds optimistic. Load-bearing "easily". Any convincing needs to demonstrate that also the "libs are owned".
If they need to make it a culture war thing, they could just call it the Keystone pipeline of electricity, or the Trump Powerline, or similar.
(As a non American, I may be misjudging this: I don't care too much about US culture wars, they don't connect to me any more than the US or Chinese sports teams whose names I don't know).
You may be correct that I am over-optimistic, though for what it's worth my optimism is not universal to all of the aspects of Musk let alone Trump (mostly pessimistic about him), and not with regard to other greenhouse gas emissions besides electrical, heating, and transportation.
(As a non American, I may be misjudging this: I don't care too much about US culture wars, they don't connect to me any more than the US or Chinese sports teams whose names I don't know).
You may be correct that I am over-optimistic, though for what it's worth my optimism is not universal to all of the aspects of Musk let alone Trump (mostly pessimistic about him), and not with regard to other greenhouse gas emissions besides electrical, heating, and transportation.
"Thousands of miles of big wires are free"
Why don't we just assume that power will be free and infinite and plug our grid into that assumption? We can even write it down on the socket and paint it green, based on how these arguments always read out that's the only thing needed to maintain electrified high tech society.
Why don't we just assume that power will be free and infinite and plug our grid into that assumption? We can even write it down on the socket and paint it green, based on how these arguments always read out that's the only thing needed to maintain electrified high tech society.
Me: "world for a cost of 250e9 USD for the Aluminium"
You: "Thousands of miles of big wires are free"
If anywhere's going to get mixed up between "250 billion dollars" and "free", it's going to be politics.
You: "Thousands of miles of big wires are free"
If anywhere's going to get mixed up between "250 billion dollars" and "free", it's going to be politics.
>"If we buy nuclear power plants on Temu we can have a 1GW reactor for $1000, but most likely it will be on sale (lucky us!) so it's actually more like $400 per reactor. And if we use green thorium then the fuel is $2.50 for ten years"
I reconstructed your argument to be in favor of nuclear power, and because I mentioned Temu as a source it actually have an infinite amount of more ties to reality than your story did.
Wow no wonder people like to argue for green energy if it's this easy to make up arguments for it
I reconstructed your argument to be in favor of nuclear power, and because I mentioned Temu as a source it actually have an infinite amount of more ties to reality than your story did.
Wow no wonder people like to argue for green energy if it's this easy to make up arguments for it
You've done as bad a job of that as GPT-2. Not ChatGPT, just 2.
You can very easily look up the resistivity of aluminium, which will tell you that if you want a loop around the equator to have a resistance of one ohm over that length, it needs to be about a square metre cross section. You can look up the density and the cost, too. You get around 250 billion dollars depending on the exact market price when you were looking it up.
You can very easily look up the resistivity of aluminium, which will tell you that if you want a loop around the equator to have a resistance of one ohm over that length, it needs to be about a square metre cross section. You can look up the density and the cost, too. You get around 250 billion dollars depending on the exact market price when you were looking it up.
You suggest buying 100 million metric ton of aluminium when the global annual production is 70 million. And magically you'll get it delivered as a pre-installed global power grid as opposed to ingots.
Just like when you go for a cup of coffee at a cafe and you only pay the commodity price of coffee beans, which at like $5 per kg and 20 grams of coffee per cup means a cup at starcucks is just 10cents. Right?
Just like when you go for a cup of coffee at a cafe and you only pay the commodity price of coffee beans, which at like $5 per kg and 20 grams of coffee per cup means a cup at starcucks is just 10cents. Right?
> You suggest buying 100 million metric ton of aluminium when the global annual production is 70 million.
How do you think aluminium works, that you burn it? These things last multiple decades, and even then the wires are still around, it's mostly the rest of the stuff you need to maintain — one of the recent-ish fires in California was that the tower on which the wire was strung wore through, the wire fell off, sparked, the wood caught fire.
At the scale I'm describing, even if you spread it over 2,500 parallel paths (which you should, not just for redundancy but also because of the magnetic field it produces if you don't), the aluminium looks like a structural member rather than looking like a wire.
> And magically you'll get it delivered as a pre-installed global power grid as opposed to ingots.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I very specifically and deliberately noted that I was just talking about the aluminium material cost itself.
Also, at this scale, you can basically process the ore directly into the metal in a trench in the ground that (1) becomes your wire immediately as you've finished processing it and (2) supplies the energy to the next section you want to electrolytically extract.
Aluminium is unusually good for this specific task, compared to other metals.
> Just like when you go for a cup of coffee at a cafe and you only pay the commodity price of coffee beans, which at like $5 per kg and 20 grams of coffee per cup means a cup at starcucks is just 10cents. Right?
Not at this scale, no.
If you're drinking at Starbucks, not only are you paying for the rent of the shop to give you somewhere to drink it and the time of the staff to prepare it and clean the place after you (and the seat and cup, if you sat down and got a ceramic cup rather than a disposable take-away), you're also enriching Starbuck's shareholders.
At this scale a grid is an international strategic decision even though it's theoretically in the zone where a corporation could afford it, and the surprise extra costs are the opportunity costs and the political capital gained or spent on proposing the thing on the one side, and of encouraging or allowing it on the other.
The USA right now is terrified of China, and only China can make enough aluminium; having a global grid creates a trade opportunity for those with something to gain, and a new risk factor for those with something to lose. America has stuff to lose, most of the world has stuff to gain.
So, if you want a Starbucks comparison, it's the cost of coffee from the point of view of Starbucks itself, not as a customer.
How do you think aluminium works, that you burn it? These things last multiple decades, and even then the wires are still around, it's mostly the rest of the stuff you need to maintain — one of the recent-ish fires in California was that the tower on which the wire was strung wore through, the wire fell off, sparked, the wood caught fire.
At the scale I'm describing, even if you spread it over 2,500 parallel paths (which you should, not just for redundancy but also because of the magnetic field it produces if you don't), the aluminium looks like a structural member rather than looking like a wire.
> And magically you'll get it delivered as a pre-installed global power grid as opposed to ingots.
You keep putting words in my mouth. I very specifically and deliberately noted that I was just talking about the aluminium material cost itself.
Also, at this scale, you can basically process the ore directly into the metal in a trench in the ground that (1) becomes your wire immediately as you've finished processing it and (2) supplies the energy to the next section you want to electrolytically extract.
Aluminium is unusually good for this specific task, compared to other metals.
> Just like when you go for a cup of coffee at a cafe and you only pay the commodity price of coffee beans, which at like $5 per kg and 20 grams of coffee per cup means a cup at starcucks is just 10cents. Right?
Not at this scale, no.
If you're drinking at Starbucks, not only are you paying for the rent of the shop to give you somewhere to drink it and the time of the staff to prepare it and clean the place after you (and the seat and cup, if you sat down and got a ceramic cup rather than a disposable take-away), you're also enriching Starbuck's shareholders.
At this scale a grid is an international strategic decision even though it's theoretically in the zone where a corporation could afford it, and the surprise extra costs are the opportunity costs and the political capital gained or spent on proposing the thing on the one side, and of encouraging or allowing it on the other.
The USA right now is terrified of China, and only China can make enough aluminium; having a global grid creates a trade opportunity for those with something to gain, and a new risk factor for those with something to lose. America has stuff to lose, most of the world has stuff to gain.
So, if you want a Starbucks comparison, it's the cost of coffee from the point of view of Starbucks itself, not as a customer.
The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices.
Also, economics are not equal to climate/carbon. If we want to reduce climate change only nuclear is the way to go - not solar/battery.
I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Need to consider a nuclear plant may have a 60 year life whereas panels would be 20 at best and batteries probably less.
Also, economics are not equal to climate/carbon. If we want to reduce climate change only nuclear is the way to go - not solar/battery.
I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers. Need to consider a nuclear plant may have a 60 year life whereas panels would be 20 at best and batteries probably less.
You can’t mention price without including the externalities and the total cost of ownership. Regulations attempt to price those.
If regulations priced carbon externalities then solar would be more expensive than nuclear, but they don't.
Edit: I can't reply so adding this for context around my comments on carbon intensity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
Edit: I can't reply so adding this for context around my comments on carbon intensity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
No it wouldn't.
Even decade old solar was competitive with nuclear on a carbon per watt basis:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.
Even decade old solar was competitive with nuclear on a carbon per watt basis:
https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
Pricing carbon would mostly drive fossil fuels from the grid (unsurprisingly). It might boost nuclear as a result but it would boost renewables far more.
Ultimately it's about energy return on investment.
Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
Solar + battery requires plenty of materials and energy to put together. It also needs to work in the middle of winter for it to be a fair comparison. When you consider it in that way it favours nuclear. It also has a shorter lifespan than nuclear, so that should be included.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
Energy return on investment is pure crankery. It's a meaningless number that has basically no impact on any decision.
And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too.
It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue.
And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
And, if you take that crankery seriously, then renewables vastly outperform fossils and are speeding past nuclear on this metric too.
It's basically impossible for energy tech to come down in price by magnitudes and not have increasing EROI as energy inputs cost money. This is predicted to continue.
And despite this metric being great for renewables, you don't hear anyone crowing about it, because it's meaningless.
Probably not if you include the cost of decommissioning and dealing with nuclear waste (which is still an unsolved problem).
Do you have any calculations to back this up? With which carbon price is this calculated?
>The price is a function of regulations. It is self imposed, so a concerted effort here could reduce prices.
In other words, if you cut corners you can make nuclear cheap.
In other words, if you cut corners you can make nuclear cheap.
It's not about cutting corners but regulating nuclear only to the extent that it is as safe as the next best alternative rather than orders of magnitude safer and until the point it is uneconomic.
This is good for regulatory discussions and historical context:
https://gordianknotbook.com/
This is good for regulatory discussions and historical context:
https://gordianknotbook.com/
The regulations imposed on nuclear in many places are absurd and not justified by any actual risk incurred. Especially considering the implications if the same regulations were imposed on coal plants - see e.g. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... .
> I don't think solar+battery is cost competitive if you were to replicate nuclear completely, but I've not looked at the numbers.
Why are you commenting then? This is a complex, deeply researched topic. It's contentious enough already, no need to add more noise.
"Looking at the numbers" is literally the one thing one needs to do in order to be able to add to this discussion.
Why are you commenting then? This is a complex, deeply researched topic. It's contentious enough already, no need to add more noise.
"Looking at the numbers" is literally the one thing one needs to do in order to be able to add to this discussion.
Anyone who cares about numbers isn't going to form their opinions reading HN in 2024, the debate for them has been settled since the 1980s. We're in a 40 year run where people who can invest in nuclear reactors are better off than people who do not.
If there is anything to talk about seriously it hasn't come up on HN in the last few years. The last time something happened that moved the needle on whether there was any real policy question by the numbers was probably Chernobyl.
If there is anything to talk about seriously it hasn't come up on HN in the last few years. The last time something happened that moved the needle on whether there was any real policy question by the numbers was probably Chernobyl.
I wonder though how much is it that nuclear was helping economically, and how much was it that an already strong economy could afford to splurge on nuclear?
I don't know the exact numbers but I know that's how it shakes out. This is not noise - it's just the truth.
Here's something on carbon:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
The problem with economic arguments is that externalities are not priced in. We don't price in the carbon of china solar manufacturing for example.
The other problem of economic arguments is that regulations are expensive in nuclear, and it is orders of magnitude safer than next best alternatives.
Which means: economic arguments miss the point when considered in the broader context.
Here's something on carbon:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment
The problem with economic arguments is that externalities are not priced in. We don't price in the carbon of china solar manufacturing for example.
The other problem of economic arguments is that regulations are expensive in nuclear, and it is orders of magnitude safer than next best alternatives.
Which means: economic arguments miss the point when considered in the broader context.
Couldn't disagree more. The point you're making boils down to saying that because it's complicated, we can't rely on reason and rather have to go with gut feeling.
The fact is that state of the art research into this does very much consider those points you think aren't being considered, and has been doing so for decades.
Here is a link to such research: https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i This particular EU project started in 1995.
You can easily find much more on Google, from US sources as well if you choose to mistrust EU publications.
I'm not commenting with more details ("numbers") because I very much am not qualified to give a detailed, well-founded opinion on this that doesn't randomly leave out half the story.
But I do know enough to tell you aren't either, that the way you are talking about this is way under-complex and totally misses the mark in terms of where the state of the art is. One specific way (possibly of many) in which it does so is in ignoring the absurd exponential learning curve that renewables + storage technology is on.
The fact is that state of the art research into this does very much consider those points you think aren't being considered, and has been doing so for decades.
Here is a link to such research: https://op.europa.eu/s/zX4i This particular EU project started in 1995.
You can easily find much more on Google, from US sources as well if you choose to mistrust EU publications.
I'm not commenting with more details ("numbers") because I very much am not qualified to give a detailed, well-founded opinion on this that doesn't randomly leave out half the story.
But I do know enough to tell you aren't either, that the way you are talking about this is way under-complex and totally misses the mark in terms of where the state of the art is. One specific way (possibly of many) in which it does so is in ignoring the absurd exponential learning curve that renewables + storage technology is on.
Meanwhile battery energy storage deployments increase about 100% per year in both China and the US.
That means battery deployments will have tripled in... 2026.
Just to show the difference in growth rate, if batteries would keep increasing 100% annually, installations will have increased 1*2^25 = 300 million times by 2050. So multiple orders of magnitude different is what I'm trying to point out.
The growth rate that the US government sets here is 4% (1.04^25 = 3).
It's meaningless I think. It doesn't move the needle.
That means battery deployments will have tripled in... 2026.
Just to show the difference in growth rate, if batteries would keep increasing 100% annually, installations will have increased 1*2^25 = 300 million times by 2050. So multiple orders of magnitude different is what I'm trying to point out.
The growth rate that the US government sets here is 4% (1.04^25 = 3).
It's meaningless I think. It doesn't move the needle.
smt88(9)
Based. I hope my country does this too.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-20/china-app...