So, net, there is about a minute and a half of energy storage across the entire grid. (Most, about 90%, is pumped hydro, not battery). Of course, not really. Most regional areas have roughly 10-30 seconds until the gas peakers absolutely unequivocally must be turned on before brownouts occur.
Hours? Minutes? We are not talking about hours and minutes. We are talking about seconds.
Look at the price of a powerwall. That's for the energy needs of a residential home. What happens to your AWS bill if us-east-1 was to buy a powerwall? Let alone steel, chemical, paper, mineral processing industries. What would happen to our economy if capacity for every one of those was cut by 1/3rd (or more depending on local climate)? Never mind your power bill.
This is the problem that I have with these solar capacity discussions. The number on the tin misrepresents things in just such a fundamental way that these cost discussions don't make sense. The reason, of course, is because fossil fuels are the big batteries we turn on at night when solar is not working.
If you actually care about making the grid green, you must solve this problem. Either with transmission, with battery manufacturing (the cost and environment friendliness curve on that is a bit less rosy compared to solar power...), or with nuclear. There is simply no other way.
This caught my eye: "Prior to Vogtle Unit 3, the last nuclear reactor to start in the United States was Watts Bar Unit 2 in Tennessee. Construction on Watts Bar 2 began in 1973 but was suspended in 1985. Work resumed in 2007, and the reactor came online in 2016."
I can't even imagine how you'd get the parts, and they probably can't change the plans either. Ok so I decided to look into it a bit more, and here are some interesting details from documents on the nrc.gov and EIA.gov:
Here's some context for what was happening in 1985, from the eia:
>"As a consequence of the identification of a large number of deficiencies shortly before the WBN Unit 1 license was expected to be issued, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sent a letter to TVA [...]. In response to this letter, TVA developed a Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP) to address corporate and site-specific issues, establishing programs to address a wide variety of material, design, and programmatic deficiencies. WBN Unit 2 construction was suspended at about that time, with major structures in place and equipment such as reactor coolant system piping installed."
And while most of the documentation was very terse and spoke more about specific regulatory requirements that I don't understand, this is pretty interesting:
(From the nrc.gov)
>"The NRC staff reviewed TVA’s refurbishment program and found the following: (1) TVA was refurbishing or replacing most active components and instruments; (2) TVA had determined the potential degradation mechanism for each category of components, along with any contributing environmental factors; (3) the acceptance criteria were developed from the licensing basis, design specifications, and vendor specifications; (4) the proposed inspections and testing included in the program could be expected to identify degradation; and (5) refurbishment activities would be in accordance with applicable vendor and design specifications or requirements."
That sounds like a massive, massive amount of work. It explains why it took longer even if the reactor was apparently 60% completed.
(From the eia) :
>"That time, a study found Unit 2 to be effectively 60% complete with $1.7 billion invested. The study said the plant could be finished in five years at an additional cost of $2.5 billion"
> Construction on Watts Bar 2 began in 1973 but was suspended in 1985. Work resumed in 2007, and the reactor came online in 2016.
That seems to be common with nuclear power plants. The latest one near where I live (Angra 3) has been under construction since 1984, and it should be complete in a few more years if it doesn't pause again; construction of the previous one (Angra 2), according to Wikipedia, started in 1976 and came online in 2001.
Construction on WNP 3 & 5 began in 1977 in Elma, WA by Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS, AKA "Whoops!"). The plant is partially finished, and every decade or someone tries to get work started again. There is a business park at the base of the cooling tower, which reportedly held an overstock.com call center for a while. During Dieselgate, Volkswagen used the facility to house 10s of thousands of recalled vehicles. The tower is often used as a filming location, including adult films.
If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete. The world will be installing a terawatt of solar capacity per year soon.
*excluding research or military reactors of course.
One kilogram of uranium-235 (50 cm^3) can theoretically produce about 20 terajoules of energy. One square kilometer of solar panels can theoretically produce the same amount (as 50cm^3 U235) in a day. I'll take this bet.
Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak energy consumption, and storage is very difficult, so realistically we'll need a wide variety of energy options to fully transition to renewables. Nuclear is reliable and to some degree adjustable, helping to alleviate the storage issue. Basically, it's my opinion that nuclear works well with other renewable sources, and a full renewable transition will certainly involve more of it.
A little bit silly to compare the price of solar and batteries, which has been driven down due to extensive government subsidy, tax incentives, and massive economies of scale over the past few decades (including production in China), to the current estimated cost of nuclear plants that we have almost no experience building anymore.
If we embarked on a sustained plan to invest in nuclear the way we have in solar and wind, nuclear's all-in cost would be far cheaper. I guarantee it.
You are probably right, but only in the short term. Long term, there will be the political will for projects that require 10-100x our current power production, and nuclear will look attractive again. Alternatively, the renewables curve may flatten before we are fully decarbonized simply because the maintenance and materials don't scale well. Nuclear is expensive up front, but maintenance requires far fewer (albeit more specialized) personnel and way less material per kwh.
Moreso, solar and wind are too predictable. How Big Things Get Done ranks them up with road construction as top projects that barely go over budget. If you expect to spend $100 million on solar or wind, then it’s probably going to cost <$110 million. Meanwhile other projects could go 2, 3, 7x over budget, time or money or both.
Someone who builds a solar array will be able to go directly to build another, not have to lick their wounds and repair their reputation or business.
Nuclear power seems like a good option for non-military boats too, like container ships and oil tankers. It's already a very well proven maritime technology.
Perhaps, but so far in the US we still don't have any really large battery storage facilities connected to the grid. These will be necessary if want to have reliable base load capacity without building more nuclear or fossil fuel power plants. The largest battery storage facility being built right now only has 2165 MWh of capacity, which is a drop in the bucket relative to demand.
Battery prices keep falling, but the supply chain is still constrained and there are huge expenses involved in building storage facilities that go beyond the cost of the cells. Other storage systems such as pumped hydroelectric or electrolyzed hydrogen may play a role but aren't cheap either.
Another big advantage of solar, and wind to some extent, is that is distributed. It provides resilience to the network. Nuclear produces a lot of power, sure, but it's one big fat single point of failure.
Batteries haven't gotten cheap; unless we get some crazy breakthrough total wind and solar power production will probably peak within the next 20 years.
It seems to me that having a couple of nuclear reactors as base load spread throughout the country would be more useful than having a massive spread out battery & solar infrastructure.
I mean as an example many companies, especially PG&E can't maintain adequate powerlines, who is banking on the fact that they'll do an even better job when we quintuple the amount of infrastructure and they have to develop a whole new domain of expertise based in battery technology.
Not to mention even the supposedly clean, solar and batteries, still have an enormous amount of carbon emissions involved in their supply chain, and need to be replaced on a fairly regular basis.
I don't know how many times this needs to be said: solar and wind and batteries can't provide consistent enough power, either for current or the growing energy needs, of the US or the world. Alternative power sources are required to maintain energy sufficiency into the future. Period. Ask any company that builds green energy if you don't believe me.
What's more ridiculous than this oversight is the idea that the cost of wind, solar, or batteries is somehow never going to go up. News flash: all advanced industrial processes that depend on a global supply chain are subject to price fluctuations.
> If I was a betting man, I would put money down that Vogtle 4 is the last nuclear reactor that gets built in the US. Solar and batteries are just too cheap for nuclear to compete.
On the contrary, solar and wind are _waaaaaay_ too expensive if you actually want your generation to be reliable. Just ask Texas.
I was a nuclear engineer for eight years and I left the industry because I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Every time someone says "nuclear is the only practical solution for climate change, it's not possible to build solar or wind fast enough or cheaply enough", you can point them to this press release. All the nuclear supporters I know deal heavily in magical thinking, completely ignoring the factual reality of the industry.
Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks.
I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas.
A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due to weather.
One technology for power generation should not “win”. Employing a variety of power generation methods will give you the most stable power grid.
Yes, we need a mix of technologies. But at the current state of things, nuclear shouldn't be something to invest into. Yes, existing reactors should be used for their full life time, but there is far too much speaking against building new ones.
As exciting as this should be, the soaring cost overruns on this project means we Georgians have been left holding the bag. There’s now a “Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery” line item on my bill, so electricity costs more rather than less.
Not actually both "robust passive safety systems", but the original safety systems in Fermi's reactor were certainly robust.
> In case of emergency, such as Weil becoming incapacitated or failure of the automatic control rod, Norman Hilberry stood on the balcony with an improbable nuclear safety device: an axe. In an emergency, he would cut a rope that ran up to the balcony, releasing another emergency control rod into the pile. The last line of defense consisted of a "liquid-control squad" that stood on a platform, ready to flood the pile with a cadmium-salt solution. Taken together, these safety precautions were a strange combination of the high-tech and the ad hoc.
> The first EPR unit to start construction, at Olkiluoto in Finland, originally intended to be commissioned in 2009, started commercial operation in 2023, a delay of fourteen years.[3] The second EPR unit to start construction, at Flamanville in France, is also facing a decade-long delay in its commissioning (from 2013 to 2024).[4] Two units at Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom received final approval in September 2016; the first unit is expected to begin operating in 2027.[5][6]
1.1GW for 30 BILLION dollars? Jeez, that's an insane amount of money for this little power.
Probably pretty high cost per kWh, too, which has to be guaranteed by the government I guess.
For comparison in my country they built a 1,6GW off-shore windfarm in 2 years with 0 government subsidy.
I understand that a nuclear plant provides power 24/7, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. But the cost of nuclear power is just insane compared to wind and PV.
It's just setting up your country for higher energy cost than needed for the next 40 years, while the government takes all the risk.
I really want nuclear reactors and clean energy but I’m keenly aware that we are rushing headlong and with pathetic levels of self-control into AI.
A global environment filled with nuclear reactors and AIs operating only in the lower interests of individual nation states is a risk I haven’t seen much discussion about, but it’s not a great scenario.
There is a distinct possibility that no security system design will be impervious to AGI: a weird-to-consider existential risk.
Could have been worse, hehe. Finland had a (in)famous nuclear power plant project which went years and billions over budget only to be effectively terminated after the Russian invasion of Ukraine (Rosatom was a major investor)
Pretend I’m country’s government A. Am I incentivized to make sure that country B doesn't get access to nuclear energy, since that is the precursor to a nuclear program? Therefore, I have to make sure that nuclear energy stays unpopular
Please correct me if I'm wrong but a) it's not possible to convert spent nuclear fuel into nuclear weapons (or am I misunderstanding your point?) and b) I'm pretty sure you can just Google how to make a nuclear bomb at this point so what are you really protecting against.
It would be great to get a straightforward assessment of the improvements in reactor tech in this new plant. "Passive safety features" sound pretty good to my untrained ear. But how much of this is marketing bullshytt?
Since the usual arguments pro RE are being made: One of the main downsides of RE is
a) its need of fossil backup and b) profits of solar / wind goes into the pockets of its owners while
c) the costs of fossil backup and increased network capacities are to be borne by the general public so that
d) wealth is distributed from the bottom to the top whose
e) RE systems a being subsidized by the public too.
In conclusio, the bottom half pays for the profit of top earners who can afford to invest in RE. That’s the green „revolution“ for ya.
[+] [-] mlsu|2 years ago|reply
Let's do some math.
There is a total of around 10 GWh of deployed grid storage in the US.
The US consumed about 4,000 TWh of electricity in 2022.
(10GWh/ 4000TWh) * (31,536,000 seconds) == 78 seconds.
So, net, there is about a minute and a half of energy storage across the entire grid. (Most, about 90%, is pumped hydro, not battery). Of course, not really. Most regional areas have roughly 10-30 seconds until the gas peakers absolutely unequivocally must be turned on before brownouts occur.
Hours? Minutes? We are not talking about hours and minutes. We are talking about seconds.
Look at the price of a powerwall. That's for the energy needs of a residential home. What happens to your AWS bill if us-east-1 was to buy a powerwall? Let alone steel, chemical, paper, mineral processing industries. What would happen to our economy if capacity for every one of those was cut by 1/3rd (or more depending on local climate)? Never mind your power bill.
This is the problem that I have with these solar capacity discussions. The number on the tin misrepresents things in just such a fundamental way that these cost discussions don't make sense. The reason, of course, is because fossil fuels are the big batteries we turn on at night when solar is not working.
If you actually care about making the grid green, you must solve this problem. Either with transmission, with battery manufacturing (the cost and environment friendliness curve on that is a bit less rosy compared to solar power...), or with nuclear. There is simply no other way.
[+] [-] simonw|2 years ago|reply
More on that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Bar_Nuclear_Plant#Unit_2
[+] [-] mardifoufs|2 years ago|reply
Here's some context for what was happening in 1985, from the eia:
>"As a consequence of the identification of a large number of deficiencies shortly before the WBN Unit 1 license was expected to be issued, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) sent a letter to TVA [...]. In response to this letter, TVA developed a Nuclear Performance Plan (NPP) to address corporate and site-specific issues, establishing programs to address a wide variety of material, design, and programmatic deficiencies. WBN Unit 2 construction was suspended at about that time, with major structures in place and equipment such as reactor coolant system piping installed."
And while most of the documentation was very terse and spoke more about specific regulatory requirements that I don't understand, this is pretty interesting:
(From the nrc.gov)
>"The NRC staff reviewed TVA’s refurbishment program and found the following: (1) TVA was refurbishing or replacing most active components and instruments; (2) TVA had determined the potential degradation mechanism for each category of components, along with any contributing environmental factors; (3) the acceptance criteria were developed from the licensing basis, design specifications, and vendor specifications; (4) the proposed inspections and testing included in the program could be expected to identify degradation; and (5) refurbishment activities would be in accordance with applicable vendor and design specifications or requirements."
That sounds like a massive, massive amount of work. It explains why it took longer even if the reactor was apparently 60% completed.
(From the eia) :
>"That time, a study found Unit 2 to be effectively 60% complete with $1.7 billion invested. The study said the plant could be finished in five years at an additional cost of $2.5 billion"
[+] [-] cesarb|2 years ago|reply
That seems to be common with nuclear power plants. The latest one near where I live (Angra 3) has been under construction since 1984, and it should be complete in a few more years if it doesn't pause again; construction of the previous one (Angra 2), according to Wikipedia, started in 1976 and came online in 2001.
[+] [-] huytersd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ortusdux|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arcfour|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mcmoor|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ano-ther|2 years ago|reply
"Georgia nuclear rebirth arrives 7 years late, $17B over cost" https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
[+] [-] MichaelNolan|2 years ago|reply
*excluding research or military reactors of course.
[+] [-] internetter|2 years ago|reply
Edit: Tried to edit the edit but somehow deleted the rest of the edit. It was something to the tune of how a big problem with renewables is the fact that peak solar production does not match peak energy consumption, and storage is very difficult, so realistically we'll need a wide variety of energy options to fully transition to renewables. Nuclear is reliable and to some degree adjustable, helping to alleviate the storage issue. Basically, it's my opinion that nuclear works well with other renewable sources, and a full renewable transition will certainly involve more of it.
[+] [-] avalys|2 years ago|reply
If we embarked on a sustained plan to invest in nuclear the way we have in solar and wind, nuclear's all-in cost would be far cheaper. I guarantee it.
[+] [-] arrosenberg|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hinkley|2 years ago|reply
Someone who builds a solar array will be able to go directly to build another, not have to lick their wounds and repair their reputation or business.
[+] [-] UberFly|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
It's indeed not a lot. At a great cost. That kind of is the point. Nuclear is very costly.
Solar, wind, battery storage, and other cheap alternatives are indeed being rolled out at a plural orders of magnitude larger scale.
[+] [-] colmmacc|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beanjuiceII|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nradov|2 years ago|reply
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/projects/edwards-sanborn-so...
Battery prices keep falling, but the supply chain is still constrained and there are huge expenses involved in building storage facilities that go beyond the cost of the cells. Other storage systems such as pumped hydroelectric or electrolyzed hydrogen may play a role but aren't cheap either.
[+] [-] redandblack|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lopis|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway2037|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tick_tock_tick|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gustavus|2 years ago|reply
I mean as an example many companies, especially PG&E can't maintain adequate powerlines, who is banking on the fact that they'll do an even better job when we quintuple the amount of infrastructure and they have to develop a whole new domain of expertise based in battery technology.
Not to mention even the supposedly clean, solar and batteries, still have an enormous amount of carbon emissions involved in their supply chain, and need to be replaced on a fairly regular basis.
[+] [-] osigurdson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgaunard|2 years ago|reply
Chinese nuclear can compete just fine.
[+] [-] amateuring|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|2 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] throwawaaarrgh|2 years ago|reply
What's more ridiculous than this oversight is the idea that the cost of wind, solar, or batteries is somehow never going to go up. News flash: all advanced industrial processes that depend on a global supply chain are subject to price fluctuations.
[+] [-] cyberax|2 years ago|reply
On the contrary, solar and wind are _waaaaaay_ too expensive if you actually want your generation to be reliable. Just ask Texas.
[+] [-] erngkejr|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klipklop|2 years ago|reply
I didn’t run the math but I’m guessing it’s not feasible to build a battery pack large enough to ride out winter in some areas. The SF Bay Area, sure, but I suspect blackouts will be common in solar+battery only areas.
A preferred solution would be a mix of both with nuclear handling disruptions due to weather.
One technology for power generation should not “win”. Employing a variety of power generation methods will give you the most stable power grid.
[+] [-] gretch|2 years ago|reply
To me, this is a false dichotomy.
In my opinion energy is one of the most important pillars of society. It is so important that it must be hedged.
I don’t think we can afford to put all of eggs in 1 basket, no matter how confident we are in a single basket.
I support all forms of sustainable energy advancement and research.
We need more nuclear plants AND more solar/wind. And probably also geothermal, and tidal, and other things I don’t even personally know about.
[+] [-] _ph_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chaseha|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dkobia|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|2 years ago|reply
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67757333.amp
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38706547
[+] [-] evilos|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stetrain|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgalt212|2 years ago|reply
> In case of emergency, such as Weil becoming incapacitated or failure of the automatic control rod, Norman Hilberry stood on the balcony with an improbable nuclear safety device: an axe. In an emergency, he would cut a rope that ran up to the balcony, releasing another emergency control rod into the pile. The last line of defense consisted of a "liquid-control squad" that stood on a platform, ready to flood the pile with a cadmium-salt solution. Taken together, these safety precautions were a strange combination of the high-tech and the ad hoc.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Event...
[+] [-] sgu999|2 years ago|reply
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
> The first EPR unit to start construction, at Olkiluoto in Finland, originally intended to be commissioned in 2009, started commercial operation in 2023, a delay of fourteen years.[3] The second EPR unit to start construction, at Flamanville in France, is also facing a decade-long delay in its commissioning (from 2013 to 2024).[4] Two units at Hinkley Point in the United Kingdom received final approval in September 2016; the first unit is expected to begin operating in 2027.[5][6]
[+] [-] apexalpha|2 years ago|reply
Probably pretty high cost per kWh, too, which has to be guaranteed by the government I guess.
For comparison in my country they built a 1,6GW off-shore windfarm in 2 years with 0 government subsidy.
I understand that a nuclear plant provides power 24/7, so it's not an entirely fair comparison. But the cost of nuclear power is just insane compared to wind and PV.
It's just setting up your country for higher energy cost than needed for the next 40 years, while the government takes all the risk.
[+] [-] happytiger|2 years ago|reply
A global environment filled with nuclear reactors and AIs operating only in the lower interests of individual nation states is a risk I haven’t seen much discussion about, but it’s not a great scenario.
There is a distinct possibility that no security system design will be impervious to AGI: a weird-to-consider existential risk.
[+] [-] exabrial|2 years ago|reply
A truly unlimited energy source with solve everything from poverty to wars over oil.
[+] [-] laszlojamf|2 years ago|reply
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
[+] [-] rareitem|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tills13|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OliverJones|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] indysigners|2 years ago|reply
a) its need of fossil backup and b) profits of solar / wind goes into the pockets of its owners while c) the costs of fossil backup and increased network capacities are to be borne by the general public so that d) wealth is distributed from the bottom to the top whose e) RE systems a being subsidized by the public too.
In conclusio, the bottom half pays for the profit of top earners who can afford to invest in RE. That’s the green „revolution“ for ya.