this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
946 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

60047 readers
2865 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 11 months ago (26 children)

Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (8 children)

Nuclear power is good for its consistent output that is independent of outside factors like wind, clouds, or drought. Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn't particularly expensive.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Plus much of the cost of nuclear is tied with the construction of the plant not the operating costs, so a paid off plant isn’t particularly expensive.

I wish that were true. Nuclear plants built in the 60s and 70s (but still operating today) was losing money in Ohio. So the power companies bribed the Republican Ohio Speaker of the House $60 million dollars to pass a law that citizens have to pay extra fees totally over $1 billion dollars to power plants so that power companies can make a profit on nuclear. The bill was passed, and signed into law by the governor of Ohio, and years passed before the investigation found the bribery scandal.

That former Ohio Speaker of the House was sentenced to 20 years in prison finally.

The bad bribed-passed law is still on the books in Ohio and citizens are still paying extra to artificially make nuclear profitable for the power company. Here's just a small source for the whole sorted story..

So no, even old built nuclear power plants are still more expensive that nearly all other electricity sources in the USA.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Besides maybe coal

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They've had to keep upgrading them - the percentage of nuclear is the same, but no new plants have been built, so that extra power has come from research on how close to the red line they can actually run.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (4 children)

New reactors just came online in Georgia this year. A $15 billion dollar planned project that cost $30 billion with overruns.

So new or old, nuclear is really expensive electricity.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 11 months ago (7 children)

That consistent output isn't as useful as you think. Solar and wind are ridiculously cheap, so we would want to use them when they're available. That means winding down nuclear plants when those two spin up. I'm turn, that means those initial construction costs you mentioned aren't being efficiently ammortized over the entire life of the plant.

What we can do instead is take historical sun and wind data for a given region, calculate where the biggest trough will be, and then build enough storage capacity to cover it. Even better, aim for 95% coverage in the next few years, with the rest taken up by existing natural gas. There's some non-linear factors involved where getting to 100% is a lot harder than 95%.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 11 months ago (1 children)

This is the trap. The fossil fuel industry has co-opted wind and PV solar by way of filling in the gaps and transitioning to net zero emissions. Of course, the gaps will always be there and the transition will never complete and "net zero" seems to just leave the door open on fossil fuels forever.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, has the reliability that @[email protected] mentioned and it closes any of the gaps from wind and solar right up. You don't have to quickly cut the power on a reactor if it's sunny or windy, just divert it to hydrogen and ammonia production. Even if the efficient high temperature electrolysis tech isn't ready yet, it doesn't really matter since it's emissions free. Furthermore, nuclear power produces good heat/steam to support cogeneration and various industrial processes.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Nonsense. Conservatives have brought up nuclear for decades as a way to play "gotcha" with anti-nuclear progressives. Maggie Thatcher, for example, embraced the science of climate change early on as a way to push nuclear. It was never serious, though. Always a political game that resulted in no new nuclear being built while coal and oil continued to ramp up.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

I think Thatcher just wanted to privatize, deregulate, and liberalize as much as she could, all fundamentally bad moves from the perspectives of both labor and greenhouse emissions concerns.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago (5 children)

The problem is that there are currently no good (cheap, scalable) technologies to store these large amounts of electrical energy.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

There are several lines of storage research that only need to be ramped up to mass production at this point. Since stationary storage doesn't have the weight restrictions that electric car batteries do, there are many different viable options. Flow batteries, sodium batteries, pumping water uphill, big tower of concrete blocks on pullies, hydrogen electrolysis, big ceramic block that gets hot. Some will work wherever, others are only viable in certain situations, but there are many options and we only need one of them to work at scale.

When nuclear tries to make improvements, it tends to do one thing per decade. If it fails, wait another decade to try the next thing. Last decade, it was the AP1000 reactor. It was hoped it would make a single, repeatable design that would avoid the boutique engineering that caused budget and schedule overruns in the past. Didn't work out that way. This decade, it's Small Modular Reactors. The recent collapse of the Utah project doesn't give much hope for it.

Even if it does, it won't be proven out before 2030. We'll want to be on 90% clean electrical technology by then if we have even a hope of keeping climate change at bay. There is no longer a path with nuclear that could do so. Given project construction times, the clock ran out already.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

While I don't disagree that it's going to be too late, I do think SMRs are likely to go the distance, at least abroad.

The reality is that we aren't going to hit 90% carbon free by 2030 without a huge social and political shift. There's just no way that is happening in 6 years. I really hate being a downer about it but I think we need to face the facts on it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Pumped hydro works well for storage, although it basically has the same problem as hydro power - it's only available in places with water and elevation changes.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Yes, but an elevation change of 100 meters is enough for one: The one near me for example

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago

Interesting! Still way too much elevation needed to be useful for us in Holland though. 😆

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

Kruonis Pumped Storage Plant (the KPSP) is located near Kruonis, Lithuania, 34 km (21 mi) east of Kaunas. Its main purpose is to provide grid energy storage. It operates in conjunction with the Kaunas Hydroelectric Power Plant. During periods of low demand, usually at night, Kruonis PSHP raises water from the lower Kaunas reservoir to the upper one using cheap surplus energy. The station is designed to have an installed capacity of 1,600 MW but only four 225 MW generators are currently operational. With a fully filled upper reservoir the plant can generate 900 MW for about 12 hours. The KPSP uses hydro-resources of artificial water pools existing at different geographical levels. The electricity from this power plant is supplied to a 330 kV electricity line to Elektrėnai, where the largest fossil fuel plant in Lithuania is operating, and Kaunas. During a surplus of electricity generation, the KPSP uses the surplus electricity to pump water from the lower pool to the upper pool. During an electricity output deficit, the Kruonis PSP operates as a regular hydro power plant, letting water flow from the upper pool to the lower pool to generate additional electricity. With a fully filled upper reservoir the plant can generate 900 MW for about 12 hours. Kruonis Plant is the only pumped-storage station in the Baltic states.The Kruonis PSP Industrial Park and Kruonis Technology Park were created as the location, infrastructure and low electricity price are attractive for data centers.A neighbourhood for workers of the Kruonis pumped storage plant plant was built in the 1980s and early 1990s in Elektrėnai, expanding this city of specialists in energetics by area and inhabitants roughly twice.

^article^ ^|^ ^about^

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

If every home was a battery instead of an armory that would be a really cool redundant storage infrastructure. Likely not financially viable compared to centralized storage but it would be kind of cool if their was no immediate central reliance on power so any interruption in power generation could withstand say 1 week of storage reserves nation wide before outages started trickling off to support say hospitals, heating above 40 degrees, etc. Entirely too complicated I’m sure but just a neat thought I had after reading your comment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Even current lithium-based battery storage is already cheaper than nuclear.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I totally agree with this. A lot of places have cheap electricity in off-peak hours, as a workaround to this limitation (steady output).

I think that this obsession about intermittent power comes partially from the idea that any new sources of power must be drop-in replacements for the systems that we've had for so many decades. However those systems run the way they do as an accident of technology, not because of a careful analysis and design to match optimal usage patterns.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

Consistent output is certainly useful when you break down demand into a constant demand + variable demand. For instance, if demand is typically 200-350 kWh, you could build a nuclear plant to generate 200 kWh and constantly run while you meet the varying 0-150 kWh demand with wind and solar.

I will agree though that we need to run numbers on this to determine the best approach. I don't have a feel for what wins out if we make larger solar and wind farms -- increased cost for the additional capacity, or increased efficiency from economies of scale.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

im assuming by "winding down" you mean production of power? Not shutting down the plants, nuclear plants operate the most efficiently at high capacity factor, when they aren't producing power the fuel is still decaying, thus you should be producing power for AS LONG as possible. This is why if you ever look at capacity factor >80% is really common, i've even seen >100% a couple of times, as well as the term "baseload plant" being used almost always in reference to nuclear.

That wouldn't make sense for an existing nuclear plant, the nuclear plant should stay running in place of solar/wind. As you would be burning money actively otherwise, or you could just shut it down permanently, thats the other option.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Yes, running them at a lower level, and yes, that would be my point. You can run them down when renewable sources pick up, but that's inefficient. Solar/wind don't mix well with nuclear; you're leaving something on the table if you try.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 11 months ago

Don't leave out the deconstruction of old nuclear plants after their operational time and the storage of radioactive waste. It's very laborious and expensive.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago

Hydro is also quite independent but it's heavily dependent on geography. That's how Canada is able to be much ahead in renewable energy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

Also, having nuclear in a 100% low carbon grid is great to stabilize the grid.

A French study showed that having around 13% of nuclear in the grid reduce the solar and battery capacity needed by a factor of two compared to no nuclear.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 11 months ago (2 children)

And yet, after many decades of solar, wind construction. It is the energy source in that pie chart that is sizeable (just as much as all wind and solar) and extremely stable (probably for the last 50 years), without any major construction in the past 30 years minimum.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 11 months ago

Wind/solar only ramped up in the last 10 years, not decades. That's when they got cheap. Really cheap. It's nuclear that had a huge head start.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

To be fair, Plant Vogtle just turned on Unit 3 earlier this year and Unit 4 should be coming soon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

modern gen 4 plants are MUCH simpler, foregoing PWR loop entirely in favor of liquid metal/salt type reactors, with various different design choices that are all much simpler, and cheaper to build/maintain.

If we see actual development in that field it's not hard to imagine them playing with the fossil fuels, possibly renewables as well given the base load productivity, and relative lack of waste.

load more comments (23 replies)