Hacker News Reader

Comment by adev_ | Hacker News Reader

> Just how you can jump from that to opposing renewables build outs is beyond me.

No you do not get it I think.

The world need Nuclear AND Renewable energy. Working hand to hand to accelerate decarbonization, as fast as you can.

We need low carbon electricity production. And try to achieve that exclusively with renewable due to (close to) religious beliefs is an extremely dangerous bet on humankind.

I am not aware of many lobbies arguing that we need a world 100% nuclear.

However, I know many old world lobbies (like Greenpeace) that would prefer to die on the hill of climate change instead of admitting that the world need nuclear energy.

View on HN

> Nuclear AND Renewable energy

It cannot be done because it financially condemns new nuclear plants. "The rates at which conventional power plants are utilized will continue to decrease as competitive pressure from near-zero marginal cost solar photovoltaic and onshore wind power, and battery energy storage continue to grow exponentially worldwide."

Eye-opening video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg

It is does not. LCOE is a metric from the Lazard institute has been debunked many time alreayd because it does not take into consideration the cost of the capacity guarantee of the grid.

If you had that, Nuclear become competitive.

If you had that and tax properly coal and Gas plant proportionally to the emission they really do.

Nuclear become even incredibly cheap, specially if we consider its hydrogen co-generation capabilities.

Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe).

Nuclear is, by any metric you want, on the actual happening markets too expensivebto build new capacity. No amount of "if-only-and-then-if"s changes that.

> Well, institute or not, European elextricity markets, which include grid operators and plant operators, agreed on awarding contracts based on generation cost alone (mostly fuel and certificates, I'd have to sig up the details but am literally to lazy to do for a discussion that seems to happen 50% in the land of make believe).

It is not true anymore [1]

[1]: https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/deal-on-eu...

I didn't find any details on the new pricing structure so in the article...

Just dig up a bit the way the CfDs are working ....

So, how are they working? Contract for Difference of Cumputational Fluid Dynamics, bothbof which are related to electricity generation?

LCOE (cost of produced electricity: the difference between nuclear and renewables is huge, and growing. Therefore it offers financial resources to build what is needed for a renewables-based system to provide most of the time: continental grid interconnections (many already done, most already planed because they are useful even without renewables), green hydrogen backup, V2G and smartgrid (also planed whatever the type of production units)...)

> hydrogen co-generation

Nuclear-generated electricity is way more expensive than renewable-generated electricity, and on the hydrogen chain all other costs are the same whatever the type of electricity-production units. Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.

> Therefore choosing to produce H thanks to nuclear instead of renewables is only useful in order to bump up their capacity factor (reducing their total cost) and may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.

Which is entirely ok.

There is one thing people mis-understand often about Nuclear power: The cost of fuel is close to zero. Consequently running a powerplant at full charge or half-charge is exactly the same (It can even be inverted).

So using co-generation as a load regulation is only an economical benefit from a Nuclear perspective.

> may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.

The problem is exactly the same than for electrolysis done associated with intermittent renewable. It is quite laughable to see the "full renewable church" bringing Hydrogen as the solution to every grid capacity problem and at the same time bringing that as an argument against Nuclear.

Cost of nuclear fuel close to zero? Where I can buy that magic fuel? The little much money I have should do the trick!

It is wise to not combine sarcasm and ignorance in the same sentence. That allows to avoid looking like a fool.

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...

Better not use biased opinion pieces, when there numbers from government sources (US, but eho cares):

LCOE (total, incl. CAPEX, in USD per MWh):

coal 82.6, combined cycle 39.9, advanced nuclear 81.7, geothermal 37.6, biomass 90.1, onshore wind 40, offshore wind (that one was a surprise, since offshore wind should be quite cheap, mainly driven by capital cost of 104 USD per MWh) 105, solar 33.8, solar hybrid 49 and hydro 64.

Variable cost (same as above):

coal 23.7, combined cycle 27.7, adv. nuclear 10.3, geothermal 1.2, biomass 30, onshore wind 0, offshore wind 0, solar 0, solar hybrid 0, hydro 4.1

All number from here:

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation...., page 9.

The main challenge is peak uranium, as "The amount of uranium present in all currently known conventional reserves alone ((...)) is enough to last over 200 years at current consumption rates." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla... therefore a real nuclear 'renaissance' implies a dangerous bet (on new uranium reserves, industrializing breeder reactors, or GenIV...)

Nuclear power: about 10% of global electricity generation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Production ) which is about 22% of final energy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_supply_and_consum... ). Therefore the nuclear fleet (~440 reactors) now provides a meek ~2.2 of final energy. To reach about 11% implies building 2200 reactors (good luck with this), and would only let known uranium reserves provide each reactor for ~40 years, with few hopes towards the discovery of new reserves ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38288706 ).

In such a context uranium will become more and more rare, and therefore more and more expensive... and strategic (keyword: 'embargo').

> The cost of fuel is close to zero. Consequently running a powerplant at full charge or half-charge is exactly the same (It can even be inverted).

This is false from an economical/financial point of view: "Another important factor in estimating a NPPs lifetime cost derives from its capacity factor. According to Anthonie Cilliers, a scholar and nuclear engineer, "Because of the large capital investment, and the low variable cost of operations, nuclear plants are most cost effective when they can run all the time to provide a return on the investment. Hence, plant operators now consistently achieve 92 percent capacity factor (average power produced of maximum capacity). The higher the capacity factor, the lower the cost per unit of electricity." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...

This is also false upon a purely technical considerations as modulating induces thermal shocks leading to failures.

>> may prove to be a bad deal as electrolysis equipment doesn't like (breaks sooner) when using an intermittent electricity input.

> The problem is exactly the same than for electrolysis done associated with intermittent renewable

Nope, as an electrical system based upon intermittent renewables must be continental ( https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... ), the powerful grid needed being paid by the low LCOE of renewables and enabling the system to route overproduction, wherever they occur, towards centralized water-electrolysis plants. Good luck trying to convince anyone brain-equipped to pay for such a powerful continental grid along with the high LCOE of nuclear. 'Laughable', seems adequate.

> If you had that, Nuclear become competitive.

Source? There are several studies looking at what it’d take to go for 100% renewable energy that ends up with a lower total cost of energy than what we have today. Including costs for balancing the grid. This assumes no technological improvements.

Considering the cost of nuclear today, I don’t see how nuclear could ever contributing to lowering the total costs.

Yes, with technological improvements, and scaling up manufacturing, I’m sure nuclear could become much cheaper. But so could renewables and energy storage solutions. And energy storage solutions have network effects with decarbonisation of transportation that nuclear power doesn’t get to benefit from. I don’t see a way for nuclear to catch up considering how solar and battery technologies are rapidly becoming essential to every aspect of society. The amount of R&D going into these fields is absolutely staggering.

And nuclear power has this sword of Damocles hanging over it: if advanced geothermal gains significant traction, nuclear is doomed. Both nuclear and geothermal is essentially ways of getting thermal energy with near zero operating costs. But geothermal is much easier in terms of regulation and have zero concerns regarding waste management. What do you think will happen when the entire oil and gas industry is made redundant? An industry whose main competency is drilling deep. Just focus on drilling deeper, cheaper, and you get infinite free and green energy forever.

We need nuclear, as a stop gap. New NPS are just impossible in the developed world, cost as well as time wise. Keeping existing NPPs online, sure, as long as safely possible (which is what Germany did). That is not really the argument you are making so, is it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com