Ask HN: Isn't Nuclear Too Expensive?
3 comments
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.
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.
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
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...
[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/global...
[2] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?locat...
Electricity storage is only one of the six elements I mentioned... When it comes to storage, thermal storage is cheaper and have a huge potential (and heat and cold represent about half of the US electricity consumption)
Then batteries is only one technology out of several to "store electricity". Pumped hydro and Hydrogen are probably the 2 biggest alternatives, with mature technology and innovation. There are also more niche technologies like flywheels, compressed air, thermal to electricity storage...
Then lithium-ion battery (your figures are for lithium-ion battery) is only one type of battery - the most used, and the one with price decreasing the most. For example there are different types metal air or flow batteries that are interesting.
Then when batteries are needed (e.g. when energy efficiency + diversified energy mix + overproduction + demand response + thermal storage were not enough), they are needed only for a part of the electricity need at the given time in the grid.
Keep also in mind that 5500 GwH of battery can inject it the grid (or in cars:) 5500 GwH every cycle (oversimplification: everyday) if needed.
You conclude by "there's no fundamental obstacle in the way except money"... well that was the very point of my initial post. While managing intermittence has a cost currently nuclear Kwh are 3 to 10 times more expensive than utility wind and solar kwh. And the gap between nuclear and wind & and solar keep widening...
Then batteries is only one technology out of several to "store electricity". Pumped hydro and Hydrogen are probably the 2 biggest alternatives, with mature technology and innovation. There are also more niche technologies like flywheels, compressed air, thermal to electricity storage...
Then lithium-ion battery (your figures are for lithium-ion battery) is only one type of battery - the most used, and the one with price decreasing the most. For example there are different types metal air or flow batteries that are interesting.
Then when batteries are needed (e.g. when energy efficiency + diversified energy mix + overproduction + demand response + thermal storage were not enough), they are needed only for a part of the electricity need at the given time in the grid.
Keep also in mind that 5500 GwH of battery can inject it the grid (or in cars:) 5500 GwH every cycle (oversimplification: everyday) if needed.
You conclude by "there's no fundamental obstacle in the way except money"... well that was the very point of my initial post. While managing intermittence has a cost currently nuclear Kwh are 3 to 10 times more expensive than utility wind and solar kwh. And the gap between nuclear and wind & and solar keep widening...
I feel sad when I see replies like yours, because honestly I don't think you understood my point at all. If you combine all the other things you mention here, all of them together, right now, are incapable of addressing even 1% of our energy use, let alone be the backbone of a grid to manage intermittence. The cost analysis you describe is imaginary, because again, those technologies simply don't exist at scale. There is not a single country in the world that operates with any of your strategies, but most developed economies regularly use nuclear in their mix.
We could address climate change with nuclear today, or we could wait until these technologies are mature and cheap, which may come too late.
We could address climate change with nuclear today, or we could wait until these technologies are mature and cheap, which may come too late.
5500 GwH seems to be the yearly batteries manufacturing capacities projected in 2030. That is what will be produced every year, not the total installed capacity of batteries. And as mentioned earlier those batteries could technically inject 5500 GwH (+ 5000 GwH of 2029, 4500 GwH of 2028...) in the grid every day...
My energy usage estimate is also based on daily use. And even if we extrapolate it to a 10x increase, 55000 GwH, and it could be available now, we would not even achieve the same levels that nuclear already does just in the US, today. Every discussion we have on debating batteries as alternative to nuclear must tackle this obvious issue.
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/
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/
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
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
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...
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...
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?
Given that, doesn't research and development into making fission safer and more affordable make sense?
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.
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.
Isn't nuclear too expensive?
* https://www.lazard.com/media/451905/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-150-vf.pdf