Thread

NRC issues first U.S. construction permit for a BWRX-300 small modular reactor

151 points · 191 comments · papa-whisky

idontwantthis · 1790784321 · focus · HN ↗
A nuclear power plant is essentially a coal power plant with free fuel. Today, if you literally built a coal power plant with free fuel it would not be cheaper than solar. My question: If you built a small modular coal power plant, would that be cheaper than solar? It necessarily has to be cheaper than nuclear.
1. bpodgursky · 1790785161 · focus · HN ↗
  When I google "what percent of a coal plant operations is cost of fuel" the response is:
  > The cost of fuel typically accounts for 70% to 75% of a running coal-fired power plant's variable operating expenses.
  I'm not going to do deep research here but it sounds pretty right. And I don't think solar is 4x cheaper than coal yet, especially solar + battery to spread out the load over non producing hours.
  1. [deleted] · 1790787359 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
2. vablings · 1790785994 · focus · HN ↗
  A nuclear power plant is a coal power plant except.
  It has incredibly strict requirements for safety, we are talking SOP & Risk assesment for climbing up a 3ft ladder
  There is a requirement for literally thousands of pounds of concrete to shield the reactor
  The employees have to be highly qualified and trained.
  The construction materials have to be validated, tested certified and then tested again during install to ensure conformance.
  You must deal with spent fuel
  They are not the same and cannot be retrofitted eitherways
  1. idontwantthis · 1790786845 · focus · HN ↗
    That's my point I'm trying to find a good argument for why modular nuclear is a good idea.
    Can modular coal (which doesn't need all of that) beat solar? If not, then I don't know why modular nuclear would be able to.
    vablings · 1790787233 · focus · HN ↗
    Modular nuclear is a great idea, sadly right now and in the foreseeable future solar is absolutely king in terms of cost/kWH, we should build what makes sense for our needs with regards to power in the USA then worry about other tech later considering the state of our grid.
    idontwantthis · 1790787403 · focus · HN ↗
    But why is it a great idea if solar provides more power, more cheaply without any danger whatsoever?
    bobthebuilders · 1790787528 · focus · HN ↗
    Solar gives power in the wrong time, making the duck curve a thing, and requiring conflict prone minerals storing dangerous amount of powers to smooth out. On net, this is probably worth it, but solar isn't free as you claim.
    jonah · 1790787983 · focus · HN ↗
    There are so many other methods aside from lithium batteries for grid scale energy storage.
    One of my favorites is pumped storage hydro.
    <a href="https://www.energy.gov/cmei/water/pumped-storage-hydropower" rel="nofollow">https://www.energy.gov/cmei/water/pumped-storage-hydropower
    unrented7977 · 1790795712 · focus · HN ↗
    Pumped hydro is fantastically expensive, not all that efficient, and only works with extremely specific (and rare, aiui) geography. It also comes with the same ecological disasters as dams, displacing entire ecosystems or towns and producing a ton of methane emissions from the now-submerged and decaying plant life.
    There's no such thing as a free lunch.
    crote · 1790842714 · focus · HN ↗
    A lot of the duck curve can be solved by tiny changes on the demand side. Uranium isn't exactly conflict-free either. Grid storage can also be done with sodium ion batteries or iron redox batteries - even better than the current EV-spinoff lithium ones.
    Sure, solar isn't free, but most of the problems it faces aren't exactly insurmountable. In fact, we are already seeing those solutions being deployed in the world - mostly for economic reasons.
    viraptor · 1791110739 · focus · HN ↗
    > and requiring conflict prone minerals storing dangerous amount of powers to smooth out
    Sodium batteries are available these days. No rare minerals, non-flammable, almost fully recyclable.
    kayfox · 1790792553 · focus · HN ↗
    It can provide power when solar and wind are not generating, and while doing so also provide base generation that allows the grid to be robust against fluctuations in solar and wind.
    dalyons · 1790801867 · focus · HN ↗
    except it cant do that without going bankrupt. Nuke power costs too much, you have to be selling it at 100% 24x7 to have any chance of paying back the capex.
3. legulere · 1790786018 · focus · HN ↗
  Uranium mining, milling, conversion, enrichment and fuel fabrication are all not free.
  Because of protection from radioactive radiation, you have higher costs handling anything in a nuclear reactor compared to a coal plant. Then you have the issue of runaway nuclear reactions, hydrogen buildup etc.
  1. idontwantthis · 1790786897 · focus · HN ↗
    See reply above. That's my point.
    By "free" I mean that you need so little fuel over the lifetime of the reactor the cost is negligible compared to all the other extensive costs of building and managing the plant.
4. GeoAtreides · 1790788016 · focus · HN ↗
  There are between 6 to 9 orders of magnitude difference between coal energy and nuclear energy... and between 4 to 5 orders of magnitude difference on waste generation
5. BugsJustFindMe · 1790797103 · focus · HN ↗
  The comparison to solar is incomplete, because nuclear and coal aren't sunlight-dependent. You need to compare solar + energy storage. I know that solar generation is cheaper. Is it still cheaper with storage?
  1. dalyons · 1790802048 · focus · HN ↗
    the answer to your question is a quick google away, plenty of studies. the answer is roughly;
    yes solar+storage is cheaper than new coal
    maybe solar+storage is cheaper than existing coal, they are similar, depends where you are
    yes solar+storage is (much) cheaper than new nukes
    no solar+storage is cheaper than old paid off nukes
  2. iknowstuff · 1790870528 · focus · HN ↗
    Nuclear costs $16B/GW
    Solar $1B/GW. $1B buys 5GWh of storage.
    You do the math
6. mpweiher · 1790850855 · focus · HN ↗
  You need to take into account
  a) backup/firming, both day/night and seasonal.
  b) lifetime of plant.
  c) land use.
  1. [deleted] · 1790853438 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. [deleted] · 1790854588 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. [deleted] · 1790927889 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  4. ViewTrick1002 · 1790927957 · focus · HN ↗
    That’s exactly why I prefer whole-system modelling over simple LCOE comparisons. Backup, seasonal balancing, transmission, lifetime and integration costs all need to be accounted for.
    What I find interesting is that the system studies I’ve been looking at, from Australia to Denmark and Finland, still don’t find new nuclear improving the least-cost outcome.
    And they’re not assuming another Vogtle, Flamanville or Hinkley. They generally give nuclear much more optimistic NOAK or adjusted future costs.
    So I’m curious: what system-cost study are you relying on that reaches the opposite conclusion?

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.