Notify me if they can keep it running economically and without hidden costs.
this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023
249 points (95.6% liked)
Technology
59204 readers
3707 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Have others been uneconomical?
Not at all, but long term storage of exhausted nuclear rods still costs an unknown amount of money endless centuries into the future. So you can't really put a number on the final bill.
Some types of reactors can also use those waste products as fuel and in turn make them into other waste products that only last a couple hundred years, so it's not a easy calculation to make unless you know what's deployed in the future.
Eh we’ll just dump em into the Sun someday if we start running out of space here on earth.
That has been suggested for decades, problem is that if any of the transporters blow up on their way to space, you essentially have a dirty bomb covering half the planet. No bueno.
It was usually old-style (insecure) and expensive, covered with hidden funding, or new tech (somewhat secure) and even more expensive.
Depends. Right now it isnt really that impressive. Bit questionable to build new nuclear power imho.
Just given that other power sources are so much cheaper.
Then there is also the controversy of explicit and implicit subsidies. For instance here: https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/nuclear_subsidies_summary.pdf
a report that shows historically the subsidies were enormous. Right now it seems a bit tricky to estimate - but I haven't read the report in detail.
Edit: sorry wanted to answer @qooqie
Cheaper because it’s being subsidised and supported by gas peaker plants. If renewables had to deliver guaranteed capacity (and not just “yeah, I might deliver some power and some point and when I do, you better be able to receive it”) the real price would show. As it happens, grid operators can accept it because we’ve still got a grid full of steerable generation (mainly gas and nuclear) that they can turn off. Once it’s renewables all the way down, what are we going to do on the many periods where we don’t have wind for days? Storage?! Puhlese, the scale of the requirement is a magnitude higher than we could ever hope to store.
In the end, renewables will be shitloads cheaper if we maintain some steerable demand. I’d rather that be nuclear.
It’s best if we don’t think like a fanboy - but instead have a realistic debate about the price of integration nuclear at high penetration. The total mix price will be a lot cheaper if we maintain 20% steerable.
The science is pretty clear on this.
I think that is a relevant point. But if solar capacity is that much cheaper you can just build much more of it and still offset thenprice.
Germany had >80% renewables for many days this year
Are you suggesting nuclear is steerable? Because afaik it is not.
I don't see an alternative to 100% renewable + higher capacity to offset storage inefficiency. France is trying it, but it is super costly and unreliable.
steerable demand. I’d rather that be nuclear.
Not going to happen. That's not how nuclear works.
Nuclear is steerable for renewables, sure. You wouldn’t use nuclear for frequency management (pumped storage, battery and a few - hopefully never used - gas plants manage frequency) but renewables don’t change their output that quickly. You pretty much know what you’re going to get out of renewable resources tomorrow and you certainly know what you’re going to get out in the next four hours. If nuclear was built to support this planning (with molten salt or other heat store) it could be done very economically. Look at how Sweden manage their nuclear output depending on the amount of wind Denmark has to sell them cheaply.
I'm struggling to fine anything that says Sweden have used there nuclear power flexibility. That's not even mentioning if they have done it for a good price point.
Why is it hydro always left out of these comparisons?
Have you got a nice big valley with an existing water flow to donate or sell to a new hydro plant?
Hydro is absolutely great (if you ignore local ecosystem ecological damage) but it has very significant land use requirements. These can make it difficult to build practically once you have most of the good spots filled in, so it's incredibly difficult to price new builds of it. Some areas may be infinite cost because the land topology simply doesn't exist. Others may have the perfect site and be relatively cheap.
All power sources have requirements. It's no reason to remove this or that one from the comparison.
Off shore wind hehe
Nuclear was never "really" that cheap.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
BEIJING, Dec 6 (Reuters) - (This Dec. 6 story has been corrected to change the timing and reason for NuScale's plant termination in paragraph 5)
China has started commercial operations at a new generation nuclear reactor that is the first of its kind in the world, state media said on Wednesday.
Compared with previous reactors, the fourth generation Shidaowan plant in China's northern Shandong province is designed to use fuel more efficiently and improve its economics, safety and environmental footprint as China turns to nuclear power to try to meet carbon emissions goals.
Xinhua news agency also said the 200 megawatt (MW) high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor (HTGCR) plant developed jointly by state-run utility Huaneng, Tsinghua University and China National Nuclear Corporation, uses a modular design.
Proponents say they can operate in remote locations and power traditionally hard-to-abate heavy industry sectors, but critics say they are too expensive.
China has also not signed a pledge by 20 countries at the COP28 climate conference taking place in Dubai to triple nuclear power capacity by 2050.
The original article contains 266 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 35%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
I know China is mostly going green because they don't have that much oil compared to other minerals, but it's still very nice to see all these advantages they to in renewable energy.
Both solar and nuclear.
Is the world's factory getting clean in a few years maybe?
Energy is just one facet of industrial pollution. Unfortunately I don't see that happening in our lifetime.
What's "4th generation"? Is it a whole new process or did they just make the previous stuff more efficient?