News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.. Parent comment

Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by whimsicalism on Friday November 20, 2020 @12:33PM (#25162737)
You still need base load, ie. an option that can displace natgas in the way that natgas displaced coal.

There's a reason why even though solar is now cheaper than coal it didn't displace it like natgas has.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by pydry on Friday November 20, 2020 @12:38PM (#25162784)
The reason is more about capex, the financial necessity of aging out existing plants and the time it takes to shift from one dominant source of power generation to another.

It wouldn't have been possible to shift to nuclear power overnight either.

Since natgas is 100% dispatchable and is 35% of power generation in the US it's not like nuclear's 20% is really contributing that much stability to the grid right now and natgas can be gradually dialed down as solar/wind/variability tech is dialed up.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by whimsicalism on Friday November 20, 2020 @12:41PM (#25162816)
> the financial necessity of aging out existing plants and the time it takes to shift from one dominant source of power generation to another.

Yes... but we just undertook the capex to do this with coal -> natgas in the last decade or so. So the barrier is not just the financial cost of overhauling.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by pydry on Friday November 20, 2020 @12:54PM (#25162965)
and in the last 5 years we went from about 5% to 18% renewables.

The renewables industry in the US wasn't given any special dispensation so it had to compete pretty much without subsidy with natgas and coal which it could only really start to do about 5 years ago (it's cost competitive with coal only this year).

In fact, arguably the US subsidies oil and gas more than renewables.

Nuclear would require massive subsidies to grow beyond 20%. Renewables won't.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by patmorgan23 on Friday November 20, 2020 @01:26PM (#25163291)
The green industry is subsidized in the US at both the state and federal levels.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by pydry on Friday November 20, 2020 @02:12PM (#25163786)
Some. Dirt cheap solar panels from China also had tariffs slapped on them by Obama which offset much of that and killed the solar boom a few years ago.

The oil and gas industry is also subsidized at federal and state level, of course.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by SV_BubbleTime on Friday November 20, 2020 @01:24PM (#25163267)
Last I checked we still use a lot of coal.

Solar hasn’t replaced natural gas, because they are entirely different things. It’s exceptionally easy to transport natural gas, it has a ridiculously good energy density and burns well, the logistics of natural gas require no technology in the lines that run between natural gas devices are a half pound of pressure meaning any idiot can hookup/install/modify.

There is a case to be made for hydrogen displacing natural gas, but in my opinion not until we have small local fusion reactors, and in that event you’re probably looking a battery anyway. Hydrogen has great potential for aviation, but home consumer use natural gas will be king for some time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost o... by whimsicalism on Friday November 20, 2020 @01:34PM (#25163366)
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/28/climate/how-e...

Rapidly declining, actually.

> they are entirely different things.

Uh, sure - but many of the reasons you're giving seem to be missing that I'm talking about for electricity generation, whereas you seem to be imagining in home usage?

Natural gas power plants can have 1000 psi or more in their lines.

> it has a ridiculously good energy density and burns well

Yes, good energy density - that does sound like something that might be important.

[ Parent | on HN ]