Hacker News Reader

Comment by natmaka | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com