Ask HN: Isn't Nuclear Too Expensive?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31764310

by skitout • 4 years ago

2 12 4 years ago

news.ycombinator.com

Because of geopolitics, climate change and technological and societal evolution, there are interesting discussions about energy in HN comment sections. Most people here seems to support nuclear. But currently nuclear is super expensive* and there are a lot of uncertainty about future costs...

Isn't nuclear too expensive?

* https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf

spupe4• 4 years ago

Most other energy sources are cheaper - at least upfront. For example, coal and gas are much cheaper, but they cause huge health and climate damage. Solar and wind on the other hand are clean, but they are intermittent, so in bad days you might have zero energy being produced from them.

We will always need a reliable source of energy that is not intermittent, and considering all the other alternatives nuclear is the best one for this task if hydropower is not feasible.

skitout5• 4 years ago

A diversified mixed of renewable energies with peak production higher than peak consumption + energy efficiency + demand response + thermal storage + electricity storage (different battery technologies and other options)seem enough to have a resilient cost effective grid without nuclear or gas

spupe4• 4 years ago

Yeah, it's a great idea. But the problem is the specifics. For example, the electricity storage you describe, do you have any idea of its cost or feasibility? For example, all the battery capacity in the world right now is about 1000 GwH, and optimistic estimates project a 5x growth by 2030 [1]. Even if we take the 2030 figure, 5500 GwH, that number would be enough to power... Less than 500 thousand American people, if my math is correct? [2] Meanwhile, nuclear is currently responsible for 20% of electricity generation in the US, and could be even more, there's no fundamental obstacle in the way except money.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/global...

[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locat...

criticas• 4 years ago

Nuclear (fission) generation is more expensive - but you have to compare apples-to-apples. Electricity production will be a mix of sources. Renewable / Sustainable tends to be variable - think solar, wind, and even hydroelectric to some degree. Exotic technologies like geothermal (land or sea based) may help with this, but we are a long way from having substantial production capability. Base load generation today largely consists of creating heat, boiling water, and spinning a turbine. We have decided that creating heat by burning carbon-based fuels has unacceptable externalities.

Given that, doesn't research and development into making fission safer and more affordable make sense?

skitout5• 4 years ago

Doing research makes sense (not just for nuclear).

But current technologies seem enough to have a resilient cost effective grid without nuclear or coal (A diversified mixed of renewable energies with peak production higher than peak consumption + energy efficiency + demand response + thermal storage + electricity storage (different battery technologies and other options)). The level of uncertainty attached to this scenario is lower than for next gen nuclear (mainly for the cost, but also for security, or the waste). And more importantly, renewable energies and energy efficiency are ready for a fast deployment.

ntsdav5612• 4 years ago

Looking at the levelized cost of energy Page 19 (which should give a reasonable apples to apples comparison), operating nuclear looks more competitive than coal, and even competitive with combined cycle, but with 0 CO2 emissions.

Two major issues with nuclear seem to be:

+ safety risk

+ capital cost & build process

There is an interesting book about how the perception of nuclear risk is not necessarily warranted by the actual risk - Atomic Obsession: https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00F8CWE4U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_... This is related to cost because the risk framework drives regulation and regulation drives capital/operating cost.

It seems there are efforts to solve the capital cost/build delay problem by designing new generating plants to be built in shipyards - https://thorconpower.com/production/

skitout5• 4 years ago

Page 19 shows that nuclear power is less competitive than coal or gas (and vastly less competitive than large wind and solar- before taking in consideration the cost associate with intermittence)

The book you mention talk about nuclear weapons

New nuclear technologies will probably reduce the delay and decrease the cost. But 1) design are not ready and tested yet 2) there is a huge uncertainty about how much it will cut time and price.

This happen while 1) we have proven cheap and working renewable energies, and proven storage technologies (electrical, and thermal) with fast decreasing cost 2) We are sure that wind, solar and storage will see their cost continue decreasing

ntsdav5612• 4 years ago

Did I read the costs (levelized cost of energy (operating)) $/MWhour incorrectly?

I took a low-high range of $24-$33/MWh for nuclear to be less than $37-$47 (coal) and competitive with $19-$29 (gas combined cycle).

Including capital costs, the nuclear cost is much higher which is why technologies are being developed to reduce the initial costs (hence the reference to Thorcon). I am not sure how fast renewables + storage will become viable for baseload, compared to alternative nuclear technologies, so I can make no comment on that.

Sorry - I got mixed up on the book reference - this one - https://www.amazon.ca/Why-Nuclear-Power-Been-Flop/dp/1098308... or this podcast - https://anchor.fm/chris15401/episodes/Why-Nuclear-Energy-Has...

Ask HN: Isn't Nuclear Too Expensive?

Related Stories