News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by ... by pfdietz on Friday May 06, 2022 @07:24AM (#31283841)
> However, cutting the nuclear capital cost in half results in a grid that is completely nuclear.

With the 2020 assumptions? Do that with the 2030 numbers and renewables will still be on top. 2030 is probably what you want to use right now, since any nuclear plant started now isn't going to be in operation before about then.

Note that some assumptions for 2030 have already been superseded. For example, it assumes hydrogen electrolysers cost 600 EUR/kW; China is already selling them (domestically and for export) for half that.

The EPR numbers are rather optimistic. Flamanville 3 and Vogtle 3 and 4 are now costing around 11,000 EUR/kW, nearly twice what was assumed (and four times the capital cost after we halve that number.) Yes, things went wrong in those projects. That tends to happen with nuclear and cannot be ignored. Renewables usually come in within 10% of promised cost.

Also, remember this is for synthetic baseload, not a grid with variable demand. The latter will favor renewables since that means some of the energy from nuclear will now be going into storage, just like from renewables. The synthetic baseload case is the best case for nuclear.

Re:A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by ... by DennisP on Friday May 06, 2022 @01:38PM (#31287840)
I've been using the 2030 scenario throughout.

Can you provide a source for hydrogen electrolyzer cost? My quick google didn't show obvious results, though there's plenty to dig into.

Certainly nuclear looks bad if you use the worst costs available. My claim is that South Korea, for example, has achieved much lower costs in production, so our issues are more with mismanagement than the technology itself.

If I plug your hydrogen cost into the scenarios in my other new comment, it lowers the cost at which nuclear starts to appear on the US grid, but there's still a point within the range of the world's production nuclear costs where nuclear takes over.

Re:A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by ... by pfdietz on Friday May 06, 2022 @02:05PM (#31288132)
https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/will-us-and-e... (although there is some question about whether this is comparing apples to apples.)

South Korea's costs seem to have been related to corruption. That will work until the first accident, and as long as people aren't going to jail (as they did in S. Korea.)

Re:A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by ... by DennisP on Friday May 06, 2022 @02:29PM (#31288338)
Thanks.

South Korea isn't the only country with decent nuclear costs. See the study I linked.

US nuclear costs are related to the fact that we build reactors as occasional one-offs, throw in long political delays, and sometimes change regulations in the middle of construction. We're probably not going to change any of that, so it's good we do so well with wind and solar. But our situation is not the situation everywhere.

Re:A first for Canada: New type of nuclear plant opening by ... by pfdietz on Saturday May 14, 2022 @06:12AM (#31376495)
Most of the other ones in Figure 12 there are France. But now France can't replicate what it did before (the EPR cost overruns have been frightful) so the validity of those earlier points is called into question. As I understand it, the accounting of those cost of that earlier buildout is sketchy, with military nuclear rolled in in a way that can't be untangled.