[HN Gopher] Britain to start approval process for Rolls-Royce mi... ___________________________________________________________________ Britain to start approval process for Rolls-Royce mini nuclear reactor Author : leephillips Score : 298 points Date : 2022-03-07 16:30 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | qwertox wrote: | So let's assume 10 of these got deployed, and then one of them | develops a problem. No explosion, just something which could | evolve into a serious issue if not taken care of within a couple | of months. | | This would mean that all the 9 other reactors would have to be | shut down until the root cause has been fixed, due to | regulations. | | That is 10 million homes which will require a relatively quick | alternative source of energy, for around one year. | | Is this a problem? I don't know, that's why I'm asking. | | But for some reason this would appear to increase the probability | of failures of the overall deployed MW capacity by all these | systems together. | 7952 wrote: | Power grids are designed to have lots of redundancy and tend to | have more capacity than is actually needed. It is perfectly | normal for large generators to be offline. It might increase | prices, but the grid should be designed to cope. | blibble wrote: | reactors share a design at present | | has this sort of co-ordinated shutdown ever happened before in | the history of the nuclear industry? | | because I don't think it has | olau wrote: | Yes, of course it has. I'm certainly not an expert, but the | plants are operating on a set of risk calculations based on | assumptions about their designs. If one of the safety | assumptions are challenged, you have to shut the reactors | down and address it. | | Now, I'm sure you can find instances where this was not done. | But if you just vaguely follow nuclear news around the world, | nuclear power plants do indeed have correlated shutdowns. The | most widely reported one in the past decade probably started | with the accident at the Fukushima power plant. But there are | many examples of smaller ones. | KaiserPro wrote: | Sizewell c is 3200mw. So if that goes offline you have | effectively 7 RR reactors offline. | | This is why design, commissioning and testing of nuclear power | plants is so crucial | pjc50 wrote: | > due to regulations | | [citation needed]: which regulations of which country? | | The French nuclear fleet has a problem with cracks, but they've | only shut down the affected reactors. | https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/France-Cl... | | Heck, they kept one of the Chernobyl units online for years | after the other one blew up, because they needed the power. | LatteLazy wrote: | It will be safe, quick, clean, cheap and efficient. They just | need 500bn to build the first part of the first one, 50 years to | plan it, a huge liability cover and unlimited cleanup support. | olivermarks wrote: | I'm a big fan of this project. Once they actually get going it | will be possible to get costs down, as has happened with actual | EV and battery production, rather than R&D theory and | experiments. | | Until it all becomes reality the costings will initially be high | and then practical knowledge and economies of scale will bring | them down fast. | Gwypaas wrote: | THE FORGOTTEN HISTORY OF SMALL NUCLEAR REACTORS | | > The dream of small nuclear reactors did not die with the 1960s. | In the 1980s, the nuclear industry was reeling from high cost and | schedule overruns in reactor construction that had begun in the | previous decade. And so, proponents of nuclear power circled back | to the idea of going small. | | > A 1983 paper in the journal by analyst Joe Egan offered his | vision of small, prefabricated reactors. "A novel, factory-based | approach to manufacturing reactors under 400-MWe size may | alleviate many of the pragmatic constraints on nuclear business," | he wrote, suggesting that "prefabrication and standardization of | major plant components could lower dollar-per-kilowatt capital | costs to levels now boasted by 1,000-MW models." Such factory | assembly could further reduce costs, he wrote, by reducing | regulation, shortening construction times, and avoiding quality | issues with components. | | > "The reactors, once assembled on barges (or even railroad cars, | in one case), would be floated across oceans, up rivers, or be | carted cross-country to operating sites," Egan added. "There, | purchasers would anchor the plants and simply 'turn the key' for | 200-400 MWe of instant power." | | > This vision never materialized. No turnkey reactors were carted | cross-country or floated up rivers. Then, as earlier, they were | deemed too expensive. Sadly, the nuclear industry continues to | practice selective remembrance and to push ideas that haven't | worked. Once again, we see history repeating itself in today's | claims for small reactors--that the demand will be large, that | they will be cheap and quick to construct. | | > But nothing in the history of small nuclear reactors suggests | that they would be more economical than full-size ones. In fact, | the record is pretty clear: Without exception, small reactors | cost too much for the little electricity they produced, the | result of both their low output and their poor performance. In | the end, as an analyst for General Electric pronounced in 1966, | "Nuclear power is a big-plant business: it is most competitive in | the large plant sizes." And if large nuclear reactors are not | competitive, it is unlikely that small reactors will do any | better. Worse, attempts to make them cheaper might end up | exacerbating nuclear power's other problems: production of long- | lived radioactive waste, linkage with nuclear weapons, and the | occasional catastrophic accident | | https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuc... | | I wonder if this is simply a bid to keep a nuclear industry in | Britain for the naval reactors and as a planting ground for | people going into nuclear weapons research? | Qub3d wrote: | https://archive.ph/O5EFA | daviddumenil wrote: | The GDA process for for the Chinese-developed reactor planned for | the UK [1] took four and a half years [2] | | 1. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradwell_B_nuclear_power_stati... | | 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hualong_One | bjourne wrote: | A Swedish professor Janne Wallenius recently got a government | grant of 100 msek for building the same thing. But his smr is | lead-cooled and supposedly much safer than a pwr reactor which | can overheat. The advantages are supposedly the same as with | Rolls-Royce's reactor; low construction-costs due to standardized | design. In a recent interview he stated that his design could be | ready for mass-production in the mid 2030's. | Melatonic wrote: | So can we assemble one of these on the moon already? | LightG wrote: | Let's multiply the geographic spread of nuclear waste, multiply | and spread thinly the amount of security needed to protect these | sites, and fall into a government story after the disaster of | Brexit. | | A tip for international readers, the UK is currently captured by | the worst government in a generation and it is inherently | untrustworthy. | | Spraying $546m at a "profile-lifting" project is nothing to a | government that will waste billions at the behest of Tory donors | without a second thought. | | I'll classify this under "R&D puff piece that will likely amount | to nothing, or a loss", like nearly everything else the current | UK government has done. | Aardwolf wrote: | Ok so it's not a car, but it does remind me of the ones in | "Fallout" and the real life concept car: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon | Jenz wrote: | It's unclear to me, exactly how they intend to use these. | bdcravens wrote: | Am I the only one who thought about Mr. Fusion? | moffkalast wrote: | Nah it's the other one that needed fuel from Libyans. | gautamdivgi wrote: | Who else saw the title and thought that the cars were going to | have nuclear reactors for their fuel? | livinglist wrote: | I was thinking about that as well.... | roschdal wrote: | Imagine the horrors when the Russians sets these reactors on fire | :-O | | *why the downvotes? Security is a fatal flaw with nuclear energy. | consumer451 wrote: | I just tried to buy iodine tablets in Prague and they were | already sold out, with an unknown restock date. [0] | | Nuclear power is a very complex issue. However, from a security | point of view, putting dirty bomb ingredients around your | country is not a genius move in a less than peaceful world. | | [0] Pharmacist told me that my best bet at this point was a | supplement product made from seaweed. She stressed it was not | medical grade. That might be in stock later in the week. | | note: but also, we are advised here on HN to not talk about | getting downvoted. You get extra downvotes for that. | somethoughts wrote: | I'd be curious to why this isn't an issue as well? I'd be | really interested in a cogent description of how this isn't a | concern. | | Taking out a small reactor from the air or some sort of inside | job would be an obvious first target. The excuse would likely | be similar to the one used in the current conflict that | happened last week - "We just need to take it out to take | critical 'infrastructure' offline." I think what makes it less | worrisome is that the current aggressor has a lot to lose | economically and also wants to occupy the area long term - so | they were mostly operating in a safe manner. But if you had a | group that had less to lose and had no intent on long term | occupation - they could just go the destruction route. | | I could also see how it could easily lead to one upsmanship to | real nuclear weaponry as it plays out in click heavy media news | reporting - "Well they started us down the path by blowing up | the nuclear reactor - so we'll need to counter that with some | nuclear weapons..." | | So the real concern is about escalation in the event of | conflict where decisions are made under duress and the | public/politicians are not familiar with the details of nuclear | energy safety and thus can easily be swayed. | blibble wrote: | at the point the russians are attacking UK nuclear reactors | we're already in a hot nuclear war | somethoughts wrote: | The issue that would concern me is more that once these | technologies are developed by private companies, the | companies will want to recoup the R&D costs by selling the | technology oversees. | | At that point, the "small reactor" industry will become | entrenched enough to have a lobbying arm - who will make | sure the license to export include all short term prospects | - including ones in less than savory geopolitical issues. | appletrotter wrote: | So, I listened to a conversation between a nuclear engineer and | a few other engineers and some soldiers the other night on | twitter spaces. | | The thing the nuclear engineer kept hammering home is that the | biggest risk realistically is damage to the equipment, as in it | would suck to lose the reactor but no one's going to get hurt | if no one's on site. | | The type of shelling that was going on, just fundamentally | wasn't the kind to cause a serious event. | | Worst case scenario, if Russia is actively trying to cause an | incident, is they drop a large bomb on it. | | This would still be nothing at all like Chernobyl. | | Because of the fundamental differences in design, this would be | an event on the scale of Three Mile Island. | | They didn't even stop using the other reactor at Three Mile | Island. | | Honestly the biggest thing, even, is that if the Ukranians were | to shut down the reactors, the potential for this immediately | drops. | | Dropping the control rods immediately 'poisons' the material. | It takes weeks to get the reactor back to full power. | throwawayboise wrote: | They didn't stop using the other three reactors at Chernobyl | either, at least not right away. They are all in | decommissioning now. | caffeine wrote: | I think you could have phrased it more constructively, but your | question is valid - does it make sense to build nuclear given | we may be entering a period of prolonged warfare? | | Most fossil fuel facilities are equally vulnerable to | destruction, and a blown up coal or natural gas facility would | probably pollute to a similar degree. | | Modern nuclear facilities are also designed not to pollute in | the event of destruction. | | Finally, the pollution from the normal operation of a fossil | fuel facility would probably kill similar numbers to the | pollution of a destroyed nuclear facility. | | Finally I would say that war demands a lot of energy - we | should be focusing on expedience at the moment. | userbinator wrote: | _and a blown up coal or natural gas facility would probably | pollute to a similar degree._ | | Not even close. Radioactive decay can continue for centuries | and is difficult to contain. Burnt fossil fuels are burnt and | that's it. No need to build a containment or maintain an | exclusion zone. | isomel wrote: | Did you know that coal ashes is also a bit radioactive? | Contrary to the fuel of a nuclear power plant which is very | radioactive but well contained, these ashes are just spread | in the atmosphere during normal operation. | consumer451 wrote: | We, at least I, was not thinking about normal operation. | This is about events like the shelling of the largest | nuclear plant in Europe. There are others which the | Kremlin will attempt to take with force as well. I was | unable to purchase iodine tablets as they were out of | stock already. | | https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60613438 | blibble wrote: | at the point they're shelling the UK: we're way past a reactor | exploding being the #1 problem | schaefer wrote: | I know, you're just joking about current events, but still... | | It would be nice if we could mention nuclear power projects | without instantly brandishing fear, uncertainty, and doubt. | | after all, some studies attribute deaths from fossil fuel as | high as 1 in 5 premature deaths! | | [1] https://www.nrdc.org/stories/fossil-fuel-air-pollution- | kills... | avs733 wrote: | Obligatory...not the car brand | | This is the aerospace/power/transportation rolls royce: | https://www.rolls-royce.com/ | | This is the car brand: https://www.rolls- | roycemotorcars.com/en_US/home.html | 8ytecoder wrote: | The car brand is a BMW subsidiary. | kitd wrote: | More pertinently, it's the brand that produces the nuclear | power plants on Britain's submarine fleet: | | https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and-services/defence/su... | mywittyname wrote: | RR is the British equivalent of GE. | Apocryphon wrote: | Or Mitsubishi. | sandGorgon wrote: | anyone know what is the difference between what Rolls Royce is | building and Terrapower ? | | It seemed there's widespread criticism of Terrapower's modular | nuclear reactor | | https://www.dw.com/en/scientists-pour-cold-water-on-bill-gat... | Ergo19 wrote: | Sodium-cooled reactors do not have much of a track record, and | what there is fairly negative. | | https://harpers.org/archive/2022/01/spent-fuel-the-risky-res... | yodelshady wrote: | $500 M feels like the sweet spot for me actually. It's enough you | can actually do something useful, unlike say "fusion never", but | it's no so much as to be unauditable. If RR can't produce some | goods with that amount (and, institutionally, they have the | technical competence), you can ask why. | nonrandomstring wrote: | I'm interested in the "modular" aspect here. It's not so clear | what this means, but my must hopeful take is: | | - core technology can be switched (pop in a thorium core when | it's available, leaving all the cooling, turbines and electrical | as is) | | - better maintenance, swap out parts with short downtimes | | - interoperability, add a cooling system from another | manufacturer like TeraPower or even a Chinese or Russian firm | (after this war nonsense ends). If we're going to counter climate | change with nuclear it must be a global effort. | | - easier, safer decommissioning. No need to carefully demolish 5 | acre concrete bunker sites, just tow away old parts for disposal | at a safe place. | | Anyone know what "modular" really means in this context? | sephamorr wrote: | I think the biggest contributor is shrinking the size of the | engineering effort. The cost scaling curve for large | infrastructure projects is often not beneficial - the idea is | that a (50%) smaller reactor requires substantially smaller | containment, on-site development, etc, which should reduce | costs by far more than 50%. More parts can be build in a | factory rather than on-site, and higher unit volumes can | support a learning curve. | gendal wrote: | None of the above. AFAIK, 'modular' here is shorthand for | '(mostly) assembled on site from modules made in factories'. | The idea is that if you can transform nuclear build-out from a | civil engineering problem into a manufacturing problem you can | massively lower costs if/when you reach some level of scale. | thinkyfish wrote: | I think it just means that the whole reactor itself IS a | module, can be removed, put on a truck, repaired, upgraded, and | replaced as needed. Here is a Wikipedia link that has a picture | of one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NuScale_Power | dazbradbury wrote: | Are the various "small" nuclear reactor projects seen as a way to | tide over the gap until fusion (which has a similar number of | startups and organisations working on it) takes over? Or a bet | that fusion won't be feasible in the end? Or are they seen as | filling different gaps and co-existing longer term? | nicoburns wrote: | Fusion isn't proven yet, so government can't really plan for | it. Even if it does arrive, nobody knows when that might be. It | could easily be in 100 years for all we know. Small nuclear | reactors are seen as a way to get the benefits of fission at | lower cost. | bpodgursky wrote: | There's not really that level of central planning going on here | (and IMO that's a good thing). | loeg wrote: | Neither? Fusion is not feasible right now, and we need power | now. It doesn't really matter whether fusion eventually becomes | viable. Fission is fine for the long term; fusion would also be | fine, if it eventually worked. | toast0 wrote: | I think all of these projects are coming together primarily to | replace the existing nuclear plants. As the older plants reach | the end of their operational life, there's still a desire for | fission power; building a new plant with the old designs | doesn't work for a lot of reasons, so hopefully new designs | that take into account 40-60 years of operational, | construction, and regulatory experience will make it possible | to fill the void. I'm sure all the teams are also hoping to | broaden the market for fission power too; if they can show the | ability to build reactors in reasonable timelines and with | reasonable budgets and operability, it could happen. If not, | these are likely to be the last generation of fission plants | (aside from naval applications) | moffkalast wrote: | It's always been a problem that the current way we do | reactors involves lots of one-off designs, with gigantic | powerplants that require too much red tape to get finished in | a reasonable time frame. | | Now instead of that have a small modular core that is | certified to high heaven and can be mass produced. It would | cut down maintenance, deployment, construction, everything. I | truly think this is a fantastic way towards a net zero | future. | aeontech wrote: | I think small reactors are proven to be feasible now, and can | be producing energy in short term. | | Fusion is a longer-term bet - it's probably coming, but there's | no certainty on the timeline. | dmitrygr wrote: | Even if fusion is feasible, it will not solve the problems | people keep hoping it will. | | 1. Proliferation. A thorium reactor already has no | proliferation risks | | 2. Costs. LOL. At least 2000 years to recoup the R&D, and then | OpEx still exists | | 3. Fuel availability. Thorium. Reactor. | | 4. Waste. Where do you think all those neutrons will go? The | container. which will slowly become radioactive as you | transmute it thus... IT will also become brittle and need | replacement. It is ... nuclear waste. Radioactive and in need | of storage. Also: a thorium reactor can use existing nuclear | waste to for a while it'll REDUCE amount of waste we have to | deal with | | The one and only thing fusion does have going for it: at least | _IN THEORY_ it might be possible to do on a space ship by | collecting interstellar gas. Not much heavy isotopes there but | plenty oh H and some He | philipkglass wrote: | Thorium reactors still have proliferation risks. See this | explanation written by physicist and HN commenter | acidburnNSA: | | https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html#myth3 | soperj wrote: | There's already a reactor that can do this (CANDU reactor), | and has been operational for decades, no research required. | That there is little new investment in building them tells me | that no one really cares about reducing the amount of nuclear | waste, and that it's all very political. | retrac wrote: | Yep. Ontario's power reactors can (and have!) run on plain | uranium, partially depleted uranium "waste" from American | power reactors, and my favourite: a mix of depleted uranium | and ex-Soviet warhead plutonium [1]. A thorium breeding | cycle is also possible, in theory with CANDU and it's | actually being done with India's heavy water pressurized | reactors using thorium, which are an indirect derivative. | | [1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/russian-plutonium-one- | step-cl... | zucker42 wrote: | Metaculus indicates that the first fusion plant may not be | online until the 2040s[1]. We shouldn't be not building lower | carbon energy infrastructure now with the idea that fusion will | save us. | | [1] https://www.metaculus.com/questions/363/will-a-fusion- | based-... | brandmeyer wrote: | None of the above. Smaller nuclear reactor projects are an | effort to reduce the capital requirements to get started. There | are inherent economies of scale in the physics which promote | building larger reactors. Military propulsion reactors are < | 1/10 the size of commercial power reactors today, and they are | safe enough that we operate them with enlistees. But they are | far too expensive for commercial operation. | sh4rks wrote: | I feel stupid for thinking these would be used to power car | engines. | 8ytecoder wrote: | Rolls Royce hasn't produced cars in years. They sold their | brand and factory to BMW. They're a jet engine manufacturer | though. | aunty_helen wrote: | Along with being one of the big 3 turbine manufacturers, they | also do a lot of military and marine stuff. This nuclear tech | fits their business as the Vanguard submarines are powered by | RR reactors. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_PWR | WithinReason wrote: | Like in Fallout? One can dream... | orangepurple wrote: | Or infinite batteries in A Roadside Picnic | moffkalast wrote: | Ford Nucleon | jollybean wrote: | Thank you Putin for helping us to move away from fossil fuels. | folli wrote: | Nuclear power can be considered a fossil fuel, as it relies on | non-renewable metals for fusion. | azornathogron wrote: | The term "fossil fuel" is not (and never has been) a synonym | for "non-renewable". | | Nuclear power is non-renewable, but it is not a fossil fuel. | isomel wrote: | 1. A fossil fuel is a hydrocarbon-containing material. The | fuel used for nuclear doesn't fit that description. | | 2. We're talking about fission, not fusion | | 3. We have enough of these non-renewable metals for a very | long time. | zeruch wrote: | I still haven't seen a canonical bit of (non lobbyist funded) ROI | that shows that same dollar investment isn't better spent on | alternate means (varies by nation of course but by and large some | combo of renewables for most geos seems a better bet, and less of | an environmental AND security risk). | whiddershins wrote: | Almost all renewable calculations elide the storage cost. | dpierce9 wrote: | Imagine I have a load that varies between 10kW +\\- 50% and | an intermittent generator that outputs 1kW at maximum and | sometimes zero. I don't have any need for storage so why | would I have to calculate any storage cost? This is basically | the situation the US grid is in as a whole today. If you want | higher renewable usage with fewer fossil backups then you may | need to price storage but that isn't where we are today. | 7952 wrote: | Storage is far easier though if the input power is cheap. | Cost per MW is strongly correlated with cost per MWh. | moffkalast wrote: | And that solar is the most expensive way of producing power | per kWh and would go nowhere if not subsidized to the moon | and back. | Gwypaas wrote: | Unsubsidized on-shore wind and solar is the by far cheapest | sources of energy today. They are down at the marginal cost | of existing, paid of, traditional power plants. That is | where the current explosion in renewable growth is coming | from. It is simply a more efficient use of capital to close | down your existing nuclear plant and build new renewables | instead. | | https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of- | energy-... | dpierce9 wrote: | That just isn't true. Solar is among the cheapest per watt | to build [0] and produces very cheap electricity [1] even | if you remove subsidies. It isn't a perfect technology but | that is beside the point. Further, every other technology | for producing electricity has subsidies: wind (similar tax | benes), nuclear (the gov acts as the insurer of last resort | in a catastrophe, unpriced externality of waste heat), coal | (unpriced externalities for carbon, soot, heavy metals, | waste heat), natural gas (unpriced externalities for | carbon, waste heat for combined cycle), hydro has all sorts | of hard to price externalities and they are usually built | with the help of the government (financing, dislocating | people, rights of way, building new shipping lanes, etc). | | [0] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/pdf/table_ | 8.2.p... | | [1] https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_genera | tion.... | baq wrote: | dollar cost is not as important as the time it takes to get to | first watt, since the only reasonable alternative to fission | base load generators is fusion... if you can build these in 12 | months instead of 12 years, you'll find yourself unable to meet | demand. | thehappypm wrote: | Everyone keeps talking about fusion, am I out of the loop or | something? It's not a proven tech, why is it being brought | up? | parineum wrote: | You may not have seen it but Rolls-Royce is a company looking | to make money building these things. You can assume they have | done this research. | zeruch wrote: | RR deciding to lobby in the UK for business where they have | few competitors (versus in renewables where their competitive | landscape is considerable and growing by the quarter) doesn't | seem like an ROI I buy into, much as Phillip Morris' | "scientific research" into the effects of smoking on lung | cancer didn't seem altogether self-serving. | mateo1 wrote: | Their reasearch: "If we lobby really hard, get someone's | political career tied to the success of our project and sink | enough public funds into this so backing out is no longer | considered an option, we'll make tons of money. p=0.05 btw" | kitd wrote: | Their research includes producing the nuclear power plants | on the UK's submarines btw: | | https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-and- | services/defence/su... | parineum wrote: | Why wouldn't you lobby to get public funds _and_ do | something that can actually sell mass market? | jillesvangurp wrote: | I think these projects are less about making money directly. | Mostly these projects are only profitable/feasible with the | help of lots of government funding. I assume they have | secured some of that. | | The reason that the British government is interested in | subsidizing nuclear is that they want to maintain their | nuclear capability and want to stay credible as a nuclear | power. That, and the French are also investing. Either way, | that makes it interesting for the likes of Rolls Royce to get | involved. There's government money to be had. And maybe Rolls | Royce stumbles on something useful; like a cost reduction | that makes nuclear a bit less expensive. I wouldn't count on | that happening quickly though or in any amounts that really | matter. | Ericson2314 wrote: | Look, the end goal is "too cheap to meter", whether it is | public transit or electricity generation. And that is not | profitable. | | The goal is to make something smaller enough that one can make | it enough times to make the production process more efficient. | Then they export them to every fucking country and make money | _one off_. And then no more global warming world peace or | whatever. | Gwypaas wrote: | Considering nuclear is by far the most expensive source of | energy that seems like dream based on unicorns and fuzzy warm | feelings. In reality, nuclear is as dead as coal due to the | steam based thermodynamic cycle. | | https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of- | energy-... | isomel wrote: | Your link show the opposite of what you claim. According to | the main graph. Nuclear generation is not more expensive | than other sources. | | Also the costs at the output of the generator is one thing, | but what counts is actually the cost of the useful power | used. And renewables puts a lot of extra cost on the grid. | Gwypaas wrote: | You mean this graph? | | https://www.lazard.com/media/451885/grphx_lcoe-07.png | | The right side has one magical word in the title: | "marginal". | | New built renewables have a lower cost than your paid off | traditional plants. In other words, to get a more | efficient capital allocation you would close your | existing nuclear plant and build new renewables. That is | where we are today. | | In the same fashion nuclear puts a lot of cost on the | grid since you need to plan for the largest producer | cutting out at any time. That can be phased out with | renewables. | | Battery storage is also starting catch on due to lowered | costs. For 2022 10 GW is planned to be added to the US | grid. | | https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51518 | Ericson2314 wrote: | My problem with this is that the costs of doing storage | for 100% are a lot more hypothetical than the costs of | doing 100% Nuclear. If something addresses that problem | head on, fine. But most stuff seems to just do optomistic | extrapolations from today's current storage experiments. | Gwypaas wrote: | Why hypothetical? The famously least regulated grid of | all is heading straight into battery based storage | without a subsidy in sight. Nothing hypothetical about | it. | | > "Battery storage. In the next two years, power plant | developers and operators expect to add 10 GW of battery | storage capacity; more than 60% of this capacity will be | paired with solar facilities. In 2021, 3.1 GW of battery | storage capacity was added in the United States, a 200% | increase. Declining costs for battery storage | applications, along with favorable economics when | deployed with renewable energy (predominantly wind and | solar PV), have driven the expansion of battery storage." | | https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=51518 | Manuel_D wrote: | Sure, there are other options. But they each have their | downsides: | | * Natural gas supplemented by renewables like solar and wind is | cheaper, but it's still emitting carbon (plus fostering | dependency on natural gas exporters like Russia). | | * Hydroelectricity and geothermal are excellent carbon-free and | controllable energy sources. But they are geographically | dependent. If you don't have a river flowing through a dam-able | valley, or access to a seismic fault line you're not going to | be building any of these. | | * Renewables plus storage can hypothetically delivery cheaper | power. But storage at anywhere near the required capacities | remain hypothetical. The few solutions that do seem to deliver | good storage costs are geographically limited, like | hydroelectric reservoirs. | | Nuclear remains the only non-intermittent, geographically | independent source of carbon-free energy. | aunty_helen wrote: | Hydro isn't carbon free. It takes a lot of cement to build a | hydro dam. Even earth damns need to have their central and | powerhouse structures made of cement. | Manuel_D wrote: | Hydro emits less carbon per unit of electricity than solar | [1]. And drastically less than the renewables + natural gas | mix that's used in practice to accommodate renewables' | intermittency. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life- | cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis... | olau wrote: | The reason storage for renewables is still hypothetical has | to do with the fact that the storage has not really been | required yet because people are still willing to burn stuff. | | Also, when you offer nuclear as an option, you need to | remember that nuclear can't do the job without storage either | - unless you're willing to pay out of your nose for something | that sits idle most of the time. | | Also, in your incomplete list, you're missing biomass, | biogas, thermal-electric storage, thermal storage (in the UK, | a lot of the energy required could be stored and used as | heat) and grid interconnections. | | Thermal and thermal-electric are still not widely deployed. | But biomass and biogas are. | Manuel_D wrote: | > Also, when you offer nuclear as an option, you need to | remember that nuclear can't do the job without storage | either - unless you're willing to pay out of your nose for | something that sits idle most of the time. | | The disparity between peak electricity consumption and | minimum electricity consumption is not so great as most | people make it out to be [1], and base load still accounts | for the majority of electricity demand. | | Furthermore, nuclear plants can module their electrical | output by more aggressively cooling the reactor. Your claim | that nuclear requires storage is demonstrably false: France | operates a grid over 70% nuclear (over 80% at its peak) | without energy storage. | | > biomass, biogas, thermal-electric storage, thermal | storage | | What do you mean by biomass and biogas? Burning wood and | capturing methane from landfills has been done, but not on | a relevant scale. | | Thermal and thermal electric storage remain in the | prototyping stage. If they prove to be cheap and scalable | then great. But that's still in the world of hypotheticals, | it may or may not pan out. | | 1. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915 | roenxi wrote: | These moves should probably be considered in context of the UK's | collapsed/collapsing ability to produce energy [0]. These stats | are a bit laggy, but it looks like they're being choked out of | any sort of industrial relevance to anything. | | It is hard for me to imagine how that doesn't translate into a | crisis of living standards. Either they're directly losing the | ability to secure people comfortable lives, or they are losing | the ability to export valuable products and becoming more | vulnerable to foreign pressure. They literally can't have goods | and services without energy. | | [0] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_Kingdom#O... - | the table here is a jaw dropper, looks like they are | deindustrialising. | sgt101 wrote: | It's worth noting that the UK has now started developing very | large scale off shore wind systems. You are right though - | there has been massive deindustrialization and especially a | shift from processing of raw material into intermediate forms. | For example steel manufacturing in the UK is only for | specialist products. | hkt wrote: | Offshore wind has been growing quickly for 20 years. | Deindustrialisation started in the 80s. None of this is new, | really. | bpye wrote: | The U.K. is primarily a services based economy, I think it is | conceivable that the economy can grow whilst energy consumption | decreases if you're seeing a transition from manufacturing and | heavy industry to commercial and services. | chrisco255 wrote: | And in a wartime era in a world that is de-globalizing, how | does that strategy play out for a country? | encoderer wrote: | Rolling blackouts. | params wrote: | You could swap UK with Sweden and your comment would be just as | relevant. Ok, it's a bit of harsh when applied to us, I'm not | sure if we are choked out, but the energy crisis is real and | high-energy industries are halting and forced to stop their | expansion or even shrink their operations. | | Another aspect is that energy and gas went from being | affordable to a _luxury_ , that's right, a growing chunk of | swedes will have to cut back on their use of electricity (how | would that even work). The prices on electricity have gone up | 400% in ONE year, gas prices have gone up about 200%. Wages | have halted since forever if you account for inflation. | | I'm realizing the terrifying pace of this just now when writing | it out, it's just unfolding in front of our eyes, we are in for | one hell of a ride.. | inglor_cz wrote: | "that's right, a growing chunk of swedes will have to cut | back on their use of electricity" | | This is really something that would have been unthinkable a | mere 5 years ago. Sweden, one of the richest nations of | Earth, having to be careful about electricity prices. | orf wrote: | Household energy usage has decreased a lot, especially with the | push for more efficient household appliances, lighting and | better insulation. | | During this time some power-hungry industry has closed, and we | shuttered basically all of our coal power plants. | loudthing wrote: | "Britain last year backed a $546 million funding round at the | company to develop the country's first small modular nuclear | reactor (SMR), part of its drive to reach net zero carbon | emissions and promote new technology with export potential." | | Cool. Although I foresee exporting this technology will be | difficult as far as fuel and waste supply chain goes. Having the | possibility of multiple new, smaller countries receive nuclear | power makes moving fuel and waste across multiple borders more | difficult. Also, protecting the technology so it doesn't fall | into the wrong hands becomes more difficult as well (assuming | these things can enrich uranium). | | "Each mini plant can power around one million homes...". | | This is where I did a spit take. I was really underestimating the | capacity for these "mini" reactors. Being able to power so many | homes (and being more centralized than I thought) means these | reactors would still require huge infrastructure investment in | order to spread the power. | dr_orpheus wrote: | > This is where I did a spit take. I was really underestimating | the capacity for these "mini" reactors. | | Yeah, "mini" seems like it would be an order of magnitude less | than the existing nuclear reactors. But the 470 MW mini reactor | is just on the low side of current operational reactors which | are in the 400 - 1200 MW range: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_commercial_nuclear_rea... | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | That's not even midi in my book. | fortysixdegrees wrote: | Really, they top out at 1200MW and not 1210MW?! Come on now | moralestapia wrote: | More specs: | | Land footprint: ~2 football pitches [1] | | Cost: ~2.4 billion USD [2] | | 1:https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/small-modular- | reactor... | | 2:https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Rolls-Royce- | secu.... | philipkglass wrote: | The second article says "The target cost for each station | is GBP1.8 billion (USD2.4 billion) by the time five have | been built, with further savings possible." | | This indicates that cost per station could be significantly | higher before 5 of them have been built. It's reasonable to | believe that doggedly continuing to build more of them will | bring costs down eventually, but if early units have high | costs (or worse, if build progress falls behind schedule) | then it could be difficult to maintain support for building | more of them. | KaiserPro wrote: | at PS120(current price is PS240) per mwhr that's still | PS430 million a year income. With a 60 year lifespan, | naively 5-8 years to profitability. | | The main risk to nuclear plant building is overuns of the | reactor and problems with commissioning. If all your | doing is hooking up pipes to heat exchangers then that | simplifies significantly the building of a plant. | jhgb wrote: | > at PS120(current price is PS240) | | PS120/MWh is a rather terrible price. That's basically | Hinkley Point C level rate, which is something many grid | operators would never accept. So much for "export | potential"? | Manuel_D wrote: | A high price, but it's for non-intermittent, | geographically independent carbon-free generation. | Nothing else offers that capability. Hydro and geothermal | are great, but not geographically independent. Renewables | are cheaper, but are intermittent and still | geographically dependent. To fairly compare them to | nuclear you have to take in the cost of storage, which is | immense unless you are lucky to have an alpine lake next | door. | Joeri wrote: | I think you may have to recheck those facts. | | All power sources are intermittent, and nuclear is no | exception. Nuclear power plants go offline unexpectedly | all the time. Every energy grid needs a mix of sources to | deal with intermittent production, preferably ones that | are controllable and can follow loads. | | Nuclear power is not quick to follow loads. This makes it | good for base load, somewhat able to do load following, | and unable to handle peak loads. Currently peak loads are | handled using fossil fuel plants. Even if a country | embraces nuclear power wholesale they will still have to | invest in storage as well if they want a green energy | grid, to be able to fully handle peaks. Hydro (dam) | storage is not what is being looked at in most places | because of cost and climate impact (concrete), the | current plans involve a mix of batteries and hydrogen. | | And finally, current nuclear power depends on uranium, | and many countries have to import that, so it's not quite | geographically independent. There are approaches for | nuclear power technologies that reduce the need for | uranium, but all attempts to build those and run them at | reasonable cost have failed. | Manuel_D wrote: | No, nuclear plants go offline very rarely. The have the | highest capacity factor of any source [1]. And more | importantly, this downtime is scheduled. Where's your | source for your claim that "nuclear power plants go | offline unexpectedly all the time"? | | Nuclear power can be modulated by more aggressively | cooling reactors. France has been able to operate a grid | over 70% nuclear (over 80% at its peak) without issue, so | these concerns about nuclear's inability to match | shifting loads are demonstrably false. | | Nuclear plants are geographically independent. Sure, | uranium has to be shipped. But that's the point: uranium | fuel _can_ be shipped. Rivers and valleys cannot be put | in shipping containers and moved to where they 're | needed. Geothermal vents cannot either. | | 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average- | capaci... | KaiserPro wrote: | You're damn right its shit. | | Hinkley was bollocks because the strike price was that | high. If we don't agree to stupid strike prices (ie PS60 | per mwh) then its not a disaster. Even at PS60 | profitability is inside 12 years. | | Unless we start building generation capacity, then the | wholesale price will go up as time goes on. Or as new | renewable come on line, we'll get even more price | fluctuations. | | it doesn't take many of these to even out pricing. | pydry wrote: | If the strike price wasnt that high it never would have | been financed. | moralestapia wrote: | I could imagine they already have contracts in place, | even at a higher price tag. It's Rolls-Royce after all, | also, they mention they have some MoUs in place. | | (This is not based on any facts, it's just a moonshot) If | they manage to drive cost down to 1/10th of that, while | actually delivering and showing their design is safe | (which I think it is), this could be a global energy game | changer. | | The world's total energy consumption from "dirty" sources | is ~140,000TWh, one of these SMRs could plausibly produce | 3TWh/year, so about ~45k would be needed to match our | current energy demands. The world is not going to switch | to 100% of these, obviously, but nonetheless their market | is HUGE (trillions!). | nicoburns wrote: | I imagine given that the whole point of these small units | is batch manufacturing that several would be ordered | together. | mywittyname wrote: | Also that building multiple facilities at once will | streamline regulations and building codes. | | What killed the large nuclear reactors was the need for | so many "one-off" design changes to accommodate safety | regulations, which would vary by site. This means that | economies of scale are lost when compared to gas power | stations, because every nuclear reactor was essentially | unique. | Manuel_D wrote: | There were plenty of repeated design that started during | the 1960s and 70s. Accordingly, costs were considerably | lower, often in the range 1 to 2 billion USD per GW. | mywittyname wrote: | After this period, costs to build nuclear power plants | skyrocketed. When the reasons behind these escalating | costs were studied in depth, it was found to be due to | the fact that plants lack standardization across the | board, leading to ballooning engineering and labor costs | as designs are reworked in site-specific ways: | | > Overall, a common theme emerging from this analysis is | the lack of anticipation in engineering models of the | cost-increasing contributions of soft technology external | to standard reactor hardware, in response to changing | regulations and other factors such as variable project- | specific conditions. Prospective modeling shows the | potentially transformative effect of rethinking | engineering design to adapt to these factors, for example | through reduced commodity usage and the automation of | some construction processes. | | https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30458-X | ?_r... | bobthepanda wrote: | That actually seems reasonable for the cost of a power | station. | | The problem recently is that privatized energy operators | have a hard time securing financing in the orders of tens | of billions. Wind, solar and gas may have higher per-unit | costs but you can actually build one for under a billion | dollars, and in the case of rooftop solar we are talking | tens of thousands of dollars, and it is a lot easier to | secure loans of that size. Tens of billions of dollars is | basically reserved for the bond markets and state actors. | AdamN wrote: | There's also the lifecycle cost of the fuel and the power | station itself to account for. This is higher for nuclear | than for solar/wind. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | Are these going to produce 470MW?! | | A 1MW wind turbine costs ~$4M and is competitive with | oil/gas. | | At $2.4Bn - anything above 400+ megawatts sounds like a great | deal - since you don't have to worry about the wind blowing | or the sun shining. | | If these can produce 470MW at that price - what has been the | hold up?! | dijit wrote: | 1) People are skittish on Nuclear because of the perceived | danger. | | 2) We still can't solve the waste problem, the best we have | is putting it underground in Finland. | | I disagree with these opinions, since the waste is | minuscule for the amount of power generated. (1 cubic | centimeter of uranium per million homes per day or so) and | coal is killing more than nuclear ever will.. but, hey ho. | diordiderot wrote: | The French seem to have solved the waste problem. | | And either way, at least it's less urgent than the | climate one | tonyedgecombe wrote: | Coal is a bit of a red herring in the UK as we don't burn | much of it anymore. | infinityio wrote: | To be fair, even oil and gas are orders of magnitude more | dangerous than nuclear per unit energy | topspin wrote: | "This is where I did a spit take." | | That's understandable. 470 MW is not "small." It's over 50% of | the size of conventional PWRs. Also 470 MW is probably not | sufficient for "one million homes." It might be sufficient for | one million small efficiency apartments, assuming they are well | built, equipped with modern appliances and not over occupied. | But a conventional detached residential structure is 1 KW+. | That's without charging any electric vehicles. | | Marketing exaggerations aside, good to see at least some | innovation in nuclear design. The design anticipates factory | built reactor vessels, which is a fundamental improvement. | IanCal wrote: | Not in the UK. While there's peaks, we don't average | 24kwh/day, that would be enormous. Even looking at detached | houses, it's less than half of that. | gjvc wrote: | This is an excellent summary from 2020 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37M7ffjro3I -- what's | notable is how much gas (as in ethane, propane, and butane) | is used in place of coal. | rowanajmarshall wrote: | > It might be sufficient for one million small efficiency | apartments, assuming they are well built, equipped with | modern appliances and not over occupied | | So I live in a small, not especially energy-efficient | Victorian-era London apartment with my partner, without fancy | appliances. The boiler is gas-powered but the cooker is | electric. And last month we averaged about 6-7 KwH/day, and | this was working from home 90% of the time. | downrightmike wrote: | Having many small reactors all over the place has been done, | and yes poses the problems when people who don't know what they | even are find them and try to scrap them | https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0931jtk/the-nuclear-lighthou... | leephillips wrote: | > infrastructure investment in order to spread the power. | | What infrastructure do you have in mind? Are you thinking of | places without an existing power grid? | Manuel_D wrote: | > This is where I did a spit take. I was really underestimating | the capacity for these "mini" reactors. Being able to power so | many homes (and being more centralized than I thought) means | these reactors would still require huge infrastructure | investment in order to spread the power. | | This is not only untrue, it is the opposite of true. | Centralized power sources mean you can build generation | facility close to places with energy demand (usually population | centers). | | People keep touting decentralized grids as some sort of | advantage over centralized grids. It's the complete opposite. A | decentralized grid needs more transmission infrastructure to | connect large areas often far away from where energy is | actually consumed. Renewable projects are often blocked because | transmission infrastructure can't support them, e.g. [1]. | | 1. https://www.vox.com/videos/22685707/climate-change-clean- | ene... | ajross wrote: | > $546 million funding round | | This is where nuclear just loses me. The first number I pulled | up on Google says that this is what you would pay to build, | site and install 400 MW of wind capacity. The reactor when | eventually built (at much greater cost, of course) is only | going to produce 470 MW. You'd need to get a second reactor | installed just to break even for _one round of R & D funding_. | It just doesn't work. | | I'm all for nuclear power in principle. I'm broadly opposed to | tearing down existing capacity. But I'm absolutely horrified at | the degree to which people want to throw money at this | boondoggle. There is low hanging fruit all over the renewables | market. Can we please pick it first before chasing radioactive | unicorns? | floren wrote: | How much area do you have to cover with turbines to get | 400MW? This may be a figure of interest to, say, a small | island nation. | dane-pgp wrote: | > a small island nation. | | That is to say, an island with extensive scope for offshore | wind. | | The real question for a well-populated island nation is how | much area do you have to write off if a nuclear reactor | suffers from a major accident (or attack)? | | For reference, the Fukushima exclusion zone was 311.5 | square miles, and Chernobyl's was 1,600 square miles. | | https://www.britannica.com/story/nuclear-exclusion-zones | arrosenberg wrote: | > The real question for a well-populated island nation is | how much area do you have to write off if a nuclear | reactor suffers from a major accident (or attack)? | | I always roll my eyes at this line of reasoning. First, | the number of nuclear incidents of that scope can be | counted on one hand, and at least the Fukushima one was a | result of poor planning. Second, that analysis never | accounts for the externalities incurred by continuing to | use fossil fuel Peaker plants, the externalities of | etching solar panels and creating batteries, etc. Yes, | nuclear power accidents can be very bad if we do a bad | job of engineering the plan, and our other forms of | energy production have major externalities even if we do | a very good job. | dash2 wrote: | I kind of wonder if Putin's rationale for starting a fire | at that Ukraine plant was "let's show them nuclear power | can be risky... if some bad guy starts firing at it". | floren wrote: | My first thought when I heard about Russia shelling the | nuke plants: "ah, that's a good way to make sure Europe | will keep buying Russia gas..." | VBprogrammer wrote: | Ah now, let's not get ahead of ourselves. 400MW of wind power | is actually about 120MW of actual power when you take into | account the capacity factor typically 30% in the UK. While | it's true that nuclear plants also have a capacity factor due | to down time and refueling it's >90%. | | You also can't just arbitrarily increase the amount of wind | generation and hope the grid copes. There need to be major | structural changes to cope with the intermittency of power. | ajross wrote: | See... this is again the rathole that leads to boondoggle | spending. I'm not saying "buy wind only" as all the | commenters immediately interpreted. I'm pointing out that | this (hypothetical!) reactor is, even now, even in the | development stage, _already_ as expensive (plus or minus an | order of magnitude) as readily deployed solutions already | available in the market. | | Be real. It's not going to catch up financially. It will | never catch up financially. Nuclear will be what we start | deploying only when we're working on the last 20% of | capacity and trying to wind down the old fossil fuel | generators (which will themselves be increasingly expensive | as they become peaker plants). | | Nuclear will never appeal to market producers of energy. | It's just too expensive. Which is why we need to throw | public funds at it instead. And if we're going to throw | public funds at the problem, let's start with the low | hanging fruit. The UK should be putting that money | somewhere else, not here. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | Keep fighting the fight. Your comment is correct despite | starting to get grayed out. I always sense shenanigans on | nuclear posts on the internet. | nicoburns wrote: | > Nuclear will be what we start deploying only when we're | working on the last 20% of capacity and trying to wind | down the old fossil fuel generators > Nuclear will never | appeal to market producers of energy. It's just too | expensive. | | It seems to me that these two sentences contradict. The | first implies that Nuclear will be appealing for 20% of | the energy market, which is still a _huge_ market. | ajross wrote: | If it was appealing, private industry would be | _investing_. What I 'm saying is that the only time | nuclear makes sense is when you're trying to back-fill | the last 20% (or whatever) of capacity that can't easily | be born by other renewable sources. That doesn't make | that 20% magically profitable, it's a gap that needs to | be filled (likely by public investment). | gwbrooks wrote: | :::Helion's $500m funding round has entered the chat::: | scrollaway wrote: | It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time, | but there is ROI, and it's not even that far in time. | It's just that you have to spend more time in debt. | | https://youtube.com/watch?v=UC_BCz0pzMw | ajross wrote: | > It does catch up, of course it does. It takes some time | | It's had 70 years! | scrollaway wrote: | ... goalposts, much? Watch the video, it takes far less | than 70 years for a nuclear power plant to go ROI- | positive. | | Hi, I'm French, I know a thing or two about how valuable | the ROI on Nuclear is. | whiddershins wrote: | I'm getting confused. GP is saying 90% of 470MW (nuclear) | versus 30% of 400MW (wind) for the same price, and you | are saying that's too expensive? | | Or did you leave a number out of your comment and 400MW | of wind is only 50M, one-tenth the price. | ivalm wrote: | No, the grant, before any reactor, is equivalent to 400 | MW (later adjusted down by capacity factor). The nuclear | reactor itself is vastly more expensive ($2.4B after the | 5th unit). So each reactor is closer to 1500MW of wind | (again if we take 30% then 450MW more in line with the | reactor) and that's optimistic (because early nuke | estimates tend to underestimate cost). So the real reason | for nuclear is that it provides consistent output and | thus has lower requirements on the grid. | andy_ppp wrote: | Have people looked at combining gas generation and wind | power, would being able to generate gas when there was too | much electricity change the capacity factor equation? | mschuster91 wrote: | We don't have anything near that scale in power-to-gas. | And even if we _did_ have, power-to-hydrogen still is at | only 60-70% efficency. | dahfizz wrote: | What is the efficiency of hydrogen-to-power? Or, the | round trip efficiency of using hydrogen as storage? | bjourne wrote: | About 60-70%. Possibly it could be improved with better | electrolysis techniques or large-scale facilities. Some | Swedish companies are pushing for that solution: | https://www.hybritdevelopment.se/en/a-fossil-free-future/ | For now it's only for the steel industry but could in | theory be used for other parts of the grid too. | 7952 wrote: | That efficiency could be good enough if you can buy the | energy cheap and sell high. | mschuster91 wrote: | The problem is, the _only_ place where you can make that | worth the while is by building out solar in Northern | Africa. Unfortunately, the countries in that region are a | combination of failed states, governed by dictators, | under threat of war or terrorism or pissed off after | hundreds of years of Western colonial powers coming in, | taking natural resources and leaving no meaningful income | and perspectives to the locals. | | There's no easy solution for _a single one_ of these | problems, much less for all of them. | Ekaros wrote: | Also knowing the usual imperialist power games played | there even if we would with huge cost stabilise the area, | an other power coming in destabilizing it again is quite | a big risk... | 7952 wrote: | No it could work in other places. You buy 1 unit of | energy for PS50 per unit. And then sell at PS150 per | unit, or PS90 for your remaining 0.6 units. The profit is | from the price difference. You make money from arbitrage. | And this is the kind of price difference you would expect | in a grid with lots of intermittent sources. And the | cheaper the source commodity becomes the less efficiency | really matters. | yodelshady wrote: | I'm not currently aware of any wind turbines in the UK | being powered down due to lack of demand, so the 30% | capacity factor is exclusively due to lack of supply, | i.e. no wind to turn the turbines. | | It's definitely worth looking at with another 3x wind | capacity or so. | pydry wrote: | We should probably be building more pumped water storage | now in anticipation of wind cracking 100% of demand. | | There's coire glas being built already but we'll need | more, and it takes about 2x as long to build as a wind | farm does. | Gwypaas wrote: | The latest ~15 MW off-shore monsters are up to capacity | factors of 60-64% now. | | https://www.ge.com/renewableenergy/wind-energy/offshore- | wind... | | https://www.vestas.com/en/products/offshore/V236-15MW | yodelshady wrote: | I... put politely, don't understand how manufacturers can | make that claim, it depends on exogenous factors. That | said, you're right, the newest turbines are impressive | structures and more consistent at their job. | | Also that said, andy_ppp is right, or will be soon. If | you want to make a dent in our fossil fuel needs on a | cold windless day, you'll have giant globs of excess | energy on warm windy days, that is simply orders of | magnitude more than any practically-costed battery can | store. At that point, who cares if electrolysis is only | 30% efficient? | Gwypaas wrote: | Your margins care, since those are a factor of | installation cost, marginal cost and energy lost due to | round trip efficiency. | | That 70% loss defines the lowest possible price | difference between buy cheap power and sell expensive. | Therefore any other smart consumer or storage has that | margin to work against, to compete you out of the market. | This is why batteries can work, in some cases. But it is | a pure inefficiency that will find a minimum equilibrium. | TrispusAttucks wrote: | Wind farm theoretical maximum is not equivalent to sustained | continual power generation. | krona wrote: | These SMRs have a 60 year lifespan[1]. The lifespan of a wind | turbine is optimistically 25 years for offshore (I don't know | whether your stat refers to off/onshore wind.) | | [1] https://www.rolls-royce.com/innovation/net- | zero/decarbonisin... | jhgb wrote: | Even if the SMR itself were to have a 60 year lifespan, | you'll find that the steam turbines attached to it are not | really better than the wind turbines. Comparing an SMR with | a complete wind turbine is like comparing apples and apple | trees. | willcipriano wrote: | > 400 MW of wind capacity | | Isn't that 400 MW when it's windy vs 470 MW all day long? | Buttons840 wrote: | Is that a peak or sustained 400 MW of wind power? | tonyedgecombe wrote: | > You'd need to get a second reactor installed just to break | even for one round of R & D funding. It just doesn't work. | | They aren't planning to make one or two, they want to make | dozens of them. | kmlx wrote: | > 400 MW of wind capacity | | these 400MW are not the same as the ones provided by nuclear. | that's the difference. | londons_explore wrote: | Wind costs a lot more when you add in the storage tech | required to power your citizens homes on non-windy days. | simion314 wrote: | We don't have storage because batteries are super expensive | and are not clean. The good part is that we can work on more | then one problem at a time, like we can install solar panels | on homes, install wind turbines on windy areas and we could | also build safe and cheap nuclear power station to fill the | rest. | 7952 wrote: | Britain has around 1.4GW of battery storage installed and | around 20GW in planning. They are easy to install and mass | producible. | fuddle wrote: | Surely the costs can be reduced once the mini nuclear reactor | technology is used more widely? | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | All I read about are nuclear reactors getting more and more | expensive to where they aren't even feasible when they are | completed. Why would these escape that? | | > Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered | 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was | that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants | based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, | than building the initial plant. | _dain_ wrote: | >Why would these escape that? | | Because they're smaller and faster to build. | ch4s3 wrote: | The regulations changed a loonoverleg that time period as | the tech evolved, so old designed needed expensive | modifications and recertifications to meet new standards | which would often get released during construction. | | Being able to build modular reactors in a factory would | change that. | 8ytecoder wrote: | As it stands wind and solar can't power 100% due to them | being unavailable at times. Not to mention the insane amount | of land and storage capacity required. Nuclear is ideally | suited for the last 30% or so that'll continue to be some | form of steady state power generation required to augment | renewables. | KaiserPro wrote: | > difficult as far as fuel and waste supply chain goes | | Sellafield was one of the biggest waste processors around, | taking fuel from all around the world. So I don't see if being | that big of a problem. well not impossible, there are | reasonably well established processes for this. | blibble wrote: | > Being able to power so many homes (and being more centralized | than I thought) means these reactors would still require huge | infrastructure investment in order to spread the power. | | would it? they'd plug directly into the super-grid, presumably | in locations that are currently undergoing decommissioning | | and then you could slowly replace CCGTs with them | | after that point if you need more energy you'd have to upgrade | the grid | russdill wrote: | Ideally, it would be nice to drop it in as a replacement for | an existing plant. However, it may be that the grid cannot | sustain the existing plant being shut down without new | capacity already in place and there's the more problematic | issue of location. There's plenty of gas peaker plants in | locations where people would not accept a nuclear plant, such | as in the middle of cities. | blibble wrote: | > However, it may be that the grid cannot sustain the | existing plant being shut down without new capacity already | in place | | it already handles this whenever a station trips | | I think the grid is far more resilient than you give it | credit for | | > There's plenty of gas peaker plants in locations where | people would not accept a nuclear plant, such as in the | middle of cities. | | the UK will shortly have a dozen former nuclear power | station sites ready for a couple of new reactors | | it's not an immediate problem for this project | | (did you know there used to be not one but two nuclear | reactors right in the middle of London? one in a 17th | century building) | russdill wrote: | We're not talking about a plant being down for a few | hours, it'd be a few months for the existing plant to be | decommissioned and the new plant to be installed, | assuming the existing footprint does not allow the two | plants to exist side by side | | But yes, many existing nuclear sites may be an ideal | location if available. | 7952 wrote: | The grid is designed to deal with the loss of a power | station like this. In fact it does all the time as | generators go offline for maintenance etc. | | Also, the land requirements for this are really modest. | Our legacy power station sites are pretty big. The old | coal stations needed a lot of space for coal. The nuclear | sites tend to be built in rural areas surrounded by | countryside. There are also quite a few that were built | on massive WWII airfields and have huge areas. Finding | land will not be a problem. | | My guess is that the biggest issue will be finding a site | with suitable geology (for the hole) and access for | heavy/wide vehicles. | hirundo wrote: | > these reactors would still require huge infrastructure | investment in order to spread the power. | | Nah, I've done it in Factorio, a single wire can handle the | full output of multiple reactors. | fennecfoxen wrote: | Pretty sure there's several mods that make that not-true | anymore :) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-07 23:00 UTC)