Boy are they gonna look stupid when they realize that no one outside their little bubble has a use for AI.
It’s not even close to ready for launch and why are we wasting energy on it?
checks notes Shareholders?!
AI seems perfect for renewables load balancing. Got extra power to burn because it is windy at night? Train your models
Nuclear has never been profitable without massive government subsidies and guarantees, and
GoogleKairos too will either manage to collect those or lose money.It’s unclear how Google and Kairos set up the deal — whether the former is providing direct funding or if it just promised to buy the power that the latter generates when its reactors are up and running. Nevertheless, Kairos has already passed several milestones, making it one of the more promising startups in the field of nuclear energy.
I guarantee you, they are shouldering on none of the risk (like the Chinese and French at Hinkley Point), and this startup will be going down.
Yay, more ads to pay for Google’s reactors.
Lol, now just let AI manage the reactors, then give it access to manufacturing tech and we have every machine takeover scenario ever.
For some reason this doesn’t feel like good news.
Any nuclear adoption is good news. This WILL help destigmatize them and help reduce cost by production at scale. Overall, while it’s extremely questionable, depending on how many companies get on board it could be net positive
This WILL help destigmatize them and help reduce cost by production at scale.
I’m not saying this won’t have any benefits. I’m saying that I don’t trust Google or the AI craze much, let alone huge corporations in general.
So I’m worried that there might be unforeseen fuckups or “savings procedures” or other ways of squeezing out profit until something breaks.
And those fuckups can easily outweigh the benefits.
If we had good governments and reliable regulation, this would be absolutely thrilling. But we don’t, do we?
One step closer to the Fallout games becoming reality, which is at least potentially cool in some ways.
After they decide to abandon their AI project can we use them for something meaningful?
Probably not… It’s a pretty outdated energy source already.
The single most energy dense source of power we have that uses the least amount of land including mining and refining compared to everything else, and still preferred method by NASA for powering anything bigger than a camera… is outdated? Yeah okay.
While I agree with most of your statements, the RTGs that NASA uses (assuming that’s what you are referring to) don’t really have much of a connection at all to Nuclear power plants. They are very useful for small scale projects like rovers but really have no commercial uses for anything near people. Plus I think NASA generally prefers solar power whenever they can use it as it’s far cheaper and safer to get into orbit.
Not at all! Nuclear is an excellent compliment to renewables and as a companion source to support the grid they are actually really effective. They’re also really useful in situations where renewables just aren’t an option such as large scale shipping. Obviously we haven’t seen any nuclear container ships yet but that’s mostly around startup and infrastructure costs as well as outdated regulations.
With small nuclear reactors becoming commonplace I wouldn’t be supprised if we start to see nuclear shipping becoming a thing in industry in the next 20-50 years.
Its already been proven as a reliable, safe, and effective power source in a naval context. The main hangup people seem to have is with accidents at sea, however again, the militaries of the world have already proven nuclear reactors safe in a number of accidents where a nuclear vessel has been lost and the reactors shut down safely and did not cause release of nuclear material.
While! I love nuclear’s possibilities. I’ve seen commercial, shippings safety and maintenance records. I don’t think that would be a good idea
Eh, it’s honestly safer than you’d think. The size of the reactor plays a huge role in safety.
A reactor sized for a container ship would be literally incapable of melting down, because there just isn’t enough fuel to get to those temperatures. You could then limit the ship’s speed, and over build the reactor a bit, so that the reactor is never truly stressed during normal operation.
Then for refueling, you just remove the entire reactor and replace it with a new, fully fueled one every 10 years or so.
That’s where you want your controls.
Other than that, yeah it would be safer than oil. A crash just means your reactor casing gets wet.
The main worry is someone cutting into the reactor to take out the spicy rocks… and there are easier ways to get spicy rocks.
Nuclear is an excellent compliment to renewables and as a companion source to support the grid they are actually really effective.
No, it isn’t. The nuclear industry wants this to be true, but an overview of the benefits and problems with wind, solar, and nuclear put it to rest.
What nuclear is really good at is providing baseload power; it runs for 30+ years at the same output with relatively little maintenance and fuel costs. Wind is good at being cheap when the wind is blowing. Solar is good at being cheap when the sun is shining.
The problem with nuclear is it has incredibly high up front costs, which need to be amortized over its lifetime; you can ramp it down, but you’re cutting into your profits by doing so. The problem with wind is that the wind doesn’t always blow, and the problem with solar is that the sun doesn’t always shine.
Solar and wind are both incredibly cheap when they work. So cheap that we wouldn’t want to use anything else if we can avoid it. Meaning we’d need to ramp down what nuclear and anything else is doing. Except now we’re just making nuclear’s up front cost issue worse; we can’t amortize the cost as well when it’s ramped down. You could try adding storage capacity so you can run all three at once and use it later, but then we could just use that storage for wind and solar on their own.
What you can do is take historical data on wind and sun patterns for a given region. The wind is often blowing when the sun isn’t shining, and vice versa. We have lots of data on that, and we can calculate the maximum length of lull when neither will provide enough. So what you can do is put in enough storage capacity to handle that lull, and double it as a safety factor.
This ends up being a lot less storage than you might think. Getting to 95% renewables would be relatively cheap; Australia almost has enough storage capacity under construction right now to pull that off. That last 5% is harder, but even getting to 95% in industrialized nation states would be a big fucking deal.
Add in HVDC lines to this, and you’ve really got something. The longest one right now is in Brazil, and is 1300 miles long. That kind of distance in the US would mean solar panels in Arizona could power Chicago, and wind in Nebraska could power New York. At that point, the wind is always blowing somewhere, and sun is always shining somewhere else. You can also take advantage of existing hydro pumped storage anywhere you like–there may be enough of it right now that we wouldn’t need to build any other storage.
Just for another angle on the problem: baseload generation (nuclear) is most efficient at its highest possible output, but it has to maintain that output 24/7; it can’t ramp up and down fast enough to match the demand curve, and it can’t be ramped up above the minimum overnight demand.
To increase its efficiency, utilities push large scale consumers like steel mills and aluminum smelters to overnight shifts. This artificially increases the over ight demand, allowing the baseload generators to ramp up their relatively efficient production, and reduce the need for peaker plants during the day.
That overnight demand can’t be met with solar, and wind generation tends to fall overnight as well.
What nuclear can do is help level out seasonal variation, between the short days of winter and long days of summer.
Pumped storage is also essential, but extraordinarily limited. We need to take a look at demand shaping rather than supply shaping. We need to shift load to times we can produce, rather than shift production to times of demand.
Sounds like demand shaping is already done, but not in a way that’s helpful to renewables.
At last, we’ll be seeing nuclear reactors being created using Agile! Fail early, fail often, hopefully don’t kill everyone!
Amazon has a space program with rockets, Google is acquiring the nuclear facilities, will Microsoft develop a weapons manufacturing facility?
Ah I see don’t know about Microsoft’s 22 billion dollar HaloLens contract with the Department of Defence.
https://www.techspot.com/news/94353-dod-oversight-agency-warns-22-billion-microsoft-hololens.html
Microsoft already acquired a nuclear plant.
They don’t need weapons to support genocide.
I am suprised to see all the negativity. I for one think this is awesome and would love to see SMRs become more mainstream.
Why? It just sounds nice bouncing around your head for a few seconds?
How wonderful would it be if the ultimate effect of the AI fad was to use the tech industry’s billions to install tons of carbon free power generation?
Are there no emissions during mining and at eol digging and maintaining a storage?
Of course there are, because mining and construction are powered by the old stuff. That doesn’t seem like a compelling downside to building things that generate clean power, since that’s a downside to building literally anything.
Are you implying there is a form of energy that doesn’t?
Do they store wind turbines after EOL? I thought they’d just get scrapped and recycled.
The turbine blades are made of carbon fiber. There is no process in effect to deal with them. Too big to crush, not worth scraping or recycling. They all go landfilla.
There currently are processes to deal with them, multiple companies are working on the problem.
Current solutions include shredding them and reconstituting into some sort of alternative building material, chemically separating the parts of the composite and creating recycled resin, and mechanically separating and sorting apart the different materials which are then recombined for alternative use.
This is a good place to look at recent american efforts, but there is more recent information available elsewhere: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-turbine-materials-recycling-prize
The emissions are negligible on the grand scheme of things, especially compared to fossil fuels. The manufacturing of solar panels isn’t the cleanest either.
What’s the grand scheme of things mean to you? If we average it out over 40 years? How does nuclear even fit in when solar and wind are cheaper? Nuclear plants don’t provide on demand energy to fill in the gaps, they provide energy constantly.
The only reason it works for microsoft is because they plan to use all that energy consistently. But besides that why should we trust a for-profit company to do anything safely in the first place? Do we have a long history of companies being regulated well or self-regulating well?
The nuclear industry is heavily regulated by the government via the NRC, but they impose even stricter regulations upon themselves. Solar and wind are cheaper, but they are less reliable. A grid comprised of a mix of solar and wind, bolstered by nuclear is the most effective and least environmentally harmful option that we currently have.
I think the negativity is more about it being used for AI than to solve any important problems with the world.
Expecting corporations to “solve important problems in the world” is foolish though. You should expect your government to tax them fairly so that they can work on people problems and maybe it takes corporations a few years longer to afford their own fleet of nuclear power stations.
Man imagine a world where that could have been what we were voting on next month.
Governments aren’t going to solve these problems either because they’re 100% for sale. Only we can solve them, through direct action.
I agree, and it is possibly the only good thing to come out of AI.
Like people asking “why do we need to go to the moon?!”.Fly-by-wire (ie pilot controls decoupled from physical actuators), so modern air travel.
Integrated circuits (IE multiple transistors - and other components - in the same silicon package). Basically miniaturisation and reduction in power consumption of computers.
GPS. The Apollo missions lead to the rocket tech/science for geosynchronous orbits require for GPS.
This time it is commercial.
I’d rather the power requirements were covered by non-carbon sources. However it proves the tech for future use.For a similar example, I have a strong dislike of Elon Musk. He has ruined the potential of Twitter and Tesla, but SpaceX has had some impressive accomplishments.
Google are a shitty company. I wish the nuclear power went towards shutting down carbon power.
But SOMEONE has to take the risk. I wish that someone was a government. But it’s Google. So… Kind of a win?I’d rather the power requirements were covered by non-carbon sources
Is nuclear not?
I forgot what I was trying to say there.
I think it’s along the lines of “I’d rather we didn’t need a ridiculous amount of new power, but at least it’s being covered by non-carbon sources”.
Crazy how quickly we’ve gone from “Nuclear is a dead technology, it can’t work and its simply too expensive to build more of. Y’all have to use fossil fuels instead” to “We’re building nuclear plants as quickly as our contractors can draft them, but only for doing experiments in high end algorithmic brute-forcing”.
Would be nice if some of that dirt-cheap, low-emission, industrial capacity electricity was available for the rest of us.
One of the things with AI is that it’s a largely constant load factor. Nuclear is really good for that.
However, I highly doubt any of these new nuclear plants are finished before the AI bubble bursts. SMRs haven’t even been proven in practice yet, and this is the first good news they’ve had in a while. Restarting Three Mile Island isn’t expected to work before 2028. The hype bubble could easily burst in the next year, and even if it doesn’t, keeping it going to 2028 is highly unlikely.
So we’ll probably have some new nuclear around that isn’t going into AI, because those datacenters will be dead when the hype passes. Might as well use them, I guess.
However, I highly doubt any of these new nuclear plants are finished before the AI bubble bursts.
Given the military applications of the technology, I don’t think it is ever really going away. Consumer AI (those user facing image generators and chatbots, for instance) might lose funding. But Israel’s Lavender AI is going to become a permanent fixture in our lives, as it’s rolled out for the policing of more and more territory.
You don’t think there’s any chance that AI as it exists today might be just the start of a huge industry?
As it exists now, no. The models are reaching their limit, and they aren’t good enough. They can’t absorb any more information than they have, and more training iterations aren’t making them better. They’ll do some useful things; a recent find of the longest black hole jet ever found was done in part from AI classification of astronomy data. It’s going to get implemented into existing tools and that’s about it. It won’t be enough to justify the money that’s already been dumped in.
Historically, the field has been very bursty. Lots of money gets dumped into it, it makes some big improvements, and then hits a wall. Funding dries up because it’s not meeting goals anymore, and the whole thing goes into slumber for a decade or two. A new breakthrough eventually comes, and then money gets dumped in again. We’ve about maxed out what the last breakthrough can give us. I expect we’ll need at least one more cycle of this before AGI works out.
I still think it’s too expensive, and this contract doesn’t change my position. Google is committing to buying power from reactors, at certain prices, as those reactors are built.
Great, having a customer lined up makes it a lot easier to secure financing for a project. This is basically where NuScale failed last year in Idaho, being unable to line up customers who could agree to pay a sufficiently high price to be worth the development risk (even with government subsidies from the Department of Energy).
But now Google has committed and said “if you get it working, we’ll buy power from you.” That isn’t itself a strong endorsement that the project itself will be successful, or come in under budget. The risk/uncertainty is still there.
Well, once the AI hype calms down and people realize the current approach won’t lead to actual intelligence or “The Singularity”, there may be quite some nuclear plants left over. That or they will be used to mine shitcoins.
-
Tax them enough that they don’t have the cash to just up and build their own personal-use nuclear powered, nation spanning infrastructure.
-
Use those taxes to build a nation spanning nuclear infrastructure that everyone can use.
I’ve got so many ads so far for how adding new taxes is bad even if it pays for good things, and all of the issues they are arguing about aren’t even adding any taxes. Actually adding taxes seems like a great way to make political enemies, even though it’s often the best tool there is for a thing.
Eh, I would say investment into R&D should be encouraged and maybe allow tax write offs. Even of the end goal is a private power source. Once that R&D turns into workable, operable, sellable products, then tax the fuck out of them. Perhaps disallow making things that can be a boon to public infrastructure from being deem proprietary, so that it can be more easily adapted to public use.
I dunno, I’m typing from my couch after a few beers.
-
Fun Times! Because everyone pays for the waste and when something goes wrong. Privatizing Profits while Socializing Losses. The core motor of capitalism.
The cleanup for fossil fuels is an order of magnitude more expensive, and an order of magnitude more difficult. It also impacts so many things that its true cost is impossible to calculate.
I’m aware of the issues with nuclear, but for a lot of places it’s the only low/zero emission tech we can do until we have a serious improvement in batteries.
Very few countries can have a large stable base load of renewable energy. Not every country has the geography for dams (which have their own massive ecological and environmental impacts) or geothermal energy.
Seriously, we need to cut emissions now. So what’s the option that anti-nuclear people want? Continue to use fossil fuels and hope battery tech gets good enough, then expand renewables? That will take decades. Probably 30+ years at the minimum.
Nuclear should only be done by the state. Any commercial company doing nuclear HAS TO CARE FOR THE WASTE. It has to be in the calculation, but no on ecan guarantee 10000 years of anything. Same with fossils… execute the fossil fuel industry. They destroyed so much, they don’t deserve to earn a single cent.
That funky startup is producing waste. Imagine a startup selling Asbestos as the new hot shit in 2024.
We’re talking 11 years for 7 “small” reactors. The first decade just to establish a business, but no real difference in the overall picture. How many years, decades after that to make a noticeable difference?
Meanwhile we’re building out more power generation in renewables every year. Renewables are already well developed, can be deployed quickly, and are already scaling up, renewables make a difference NOW.
Renewables cannot provide a reliable base load. Not unless you can have your solar panels in space where the sun always shines, we figure out tidal power, or you’re lucky in terms of geography and either hydroelectric or geothermal work for you.
Solar power doesn’t produce energy at night, wind doesn’t always blow. You know the drill.
You completely sidestepped the entire crux of my comment.
We need a base load of energy to fill that gap, because batteries currently can’t, and likely won’t be for decades. Here are the options we have available:
-
nuclear power, which produces a waste that while trivial to store far away from people, will be radioactive for hundreds of years.
-
fossil fuels, which cause massive damage not only to the local environment, but to the planet, and cleanup is effectively impossible.
-
we put society on unpredictable energy curfews. At night the population can’t use much energy. When there’s a drop in wind or solar production, we cut people’s energy off. Both political parties must commit wholeheartedly to this in order to make it viable. Our lives would become worse, but we’d not have either of the above problems.
Of those 3 options, I’d rather go with nuclear. What’s your choice?
Don’t forget to add that nuclear waste created is absurdly small in volume.
More renewables.
We’re at the beginnings of having useful levels of storage and can keep building out renewables while we develop storage. At the current rates of adoption, we’ll need true grid storage in about ten years.
However, note that one option for “grid” storage is a battery in every home. Another is a battery in every vehicle. Neither is the best option but those are options we already know and just need to scale up
Ok, you’ve added more solar panels and wind turbines.
It’s nighttime. There isn’t much wind. An extremely common thing to happen I’m sure you’ll agree.
There now isn’t enough power, places have constant blackouts, electricity prices skyrocket because demand far outstrips supply.
Grid storage large enough to replace fossil fuels + nuclear is far, far, far, far further than 10 years off.
I’ll ask again:
-
Nuclear base load that assists renewables
-
Continued fossil fuels for multiple decades that assists renewables, and hope that we can reverse some of the damage done in the meantime through some kind of carbon capture tech (unfortunately we can’t fix respiratory issues, strokes, and dead/extinct animals and plants after the fact).
-
Regular blackouts, energy rationing, but 100% renewable
What do you choose? Saying that you’ll magic up some batteries in a capacity that currently isn’t possible isn’t an answer.
I want 100% renewables too. Anybody with any sanity would. But it’s currently not feasible. Our choice is between having a fossil fuel base load or a nuclear base load. Other options aren’t available yet.
And here’s the magic choice …… “time of use metering”. As we electrify everything and add “smart” controls, we can be much more dynamic with time of use metering to adjust the load.
When the sun doesn’t shine at night, already has much lower electrical load than daytime. Early analog efforts at time of use metering tried to shift more load to the night so “base load” wouldn’t have to adjust, and max load wouldn’t be as high
Now we can develop smart time of use metering to shift more load to “when the sun shines”. I’m not aware of anything to quantify this so let me just make shit up: if the load “when the sun doesn’t shine” is half what it is when solar is producing, that’s a crap load of grid storage or base load that magically never has to exist
-
-
Right but how about actually addressing the question?
What about base load then. It’s all well and good building shit tons of solar panels and wind farms but sometimes you need energy and the sun isn’t shining and it isn’t windy. What do you do then?
That’s why we need base load and I’d rather the base load came from nuclear than from fossil fuels, as I’m sure you would too, but you seem to be anti-nuclear as well, so what do you want?
I’m so sick of you eco warrior types with absolutely no understanding of the problem. It’s not as if the internet doesn’t exist it’s not as if you couldn’t educate yourself if you wanted to. People are out here trying to educate you all about it, and you cope by ignoring them.
Base load? Oh you mean the kind of power only the industry needs but wouldn’t be able to pay for if it wouldn’t be shifted towards the public? Don’t try to fool people by just not talking about this little fact.
Solar and small scale power buffering could easily be decentralized for the publics overall power need, including charging and utilizing cars as buffers. A private person isn’t “the base load”… but we all pay for “the base load”.
Base load err… educate yourself nuclear boy.
Apart from that: Your arguments didn’t change, they are still wrong, that’s why “we” stopped listening. You reproduce Industry talking points without checking. (e.g. “bAsE loAD”) like an angry little LLM.
Who needs the power needs to pay for it. Including the waste. I don’t see why I should clean up Google’s micro nuclear waste.
This reply is both unintelligible, and unhinged. You also seem to be berating someone for not knowing what baseload is, while simultaneously showing (I think, it’s hard to tell honestly) that you have no idea what it means.
I don’t berate. He is right, but again I don’t see how the containment of nuclear waste, Google is producing for LLM training for their profits, should be a public concern. Even on a global scale, “base load” is the continuous need of power … so mostly industries. You don’t need Nuclear Power Plants to run street lights and Hospitals, you need them to run steel mills and manufacturing plants.
My point is exactly: Why should the industrial need for reliable power be priced on our bill without a fair share on the profits for society? And this isn’t even touching the impossibility of putting a price tag on something that has to be stored for 1000ns of years.
Unhinged? I just replied in the same tone. He didn’t even reply to any of my points. Come clear, what’s your point?
You need to be on pills.
Base load is the amount of charge that you need in the system to deal with just basic usage. This includes powering your computer so you can post incoherent rents on the internet. Something I assume you think is very important.
Without base load when it’s night and not windy all the power goes out, I assume you would think that was inconvenient even though you are not a mega corporation.
Now rather than trying to deflect answer the question how do we supply fundamental power when the sources are renewable are not operating and don’t say we can store it in batteries because we can’t not at that capacity.
That’s not completely wrong but in parts. I can easily buffer solar energy to cover 80% of my energy needs. You have to understand that most of the base load isn’t “our” power consumption. It’s mostly commercial.
And again. Google training LLMs is not Base-Load and nether deflection. It’s the subject of the Article!
You are totally ignoring their arguments. Not every place can do wind or solar or hydro. Like it’s simply not an option.
Time doesn’t care. Neither does the rate of climate change.
Everyone pays for not using nuclear too, a thousand fold more so.
It’s almost like the brand spanking new tech to make small nuclear reactors are extremely cost prohibitive and risky, and to lower the cost someone needs to spend money to increase supply.
If only that was the government that invested in the R&D and tech to make it happen.
Gaining funds from taxes (meaningful taxes), and investing that money in making their country better.Hopefully this decision is because carbon taxes that will make consumer products representative of the actual cost of the item (not the exploitative cost). >
No no, let the free market decide.
Fucking AI threatening to replace basic jobs (when it’s more suited to replace the C-Suite) gobling up energy and money, too-big-to-fail bailouts and loophole tax rules bullshit.So yeh, someone needs to spend the money and that should be the government.
Because they should realise that carbon fuel sources are a death sentence.I’m glad you don’t make the decisions because I don’t want my taxes, that I work hard for and pay money into, to be spent by the government on highly-likely dogshit experimental brand new nuke tech that may eventually cost more money later on to maintain, and I prefer they spend it renovating existing infrastructure or building tried/true legacy nuke plant designs.
Your taxes already go towards this.
That’s how governments leverage capitalism to placate the people. Grants for green energy initiatives.
Private companies get free money for taking some amount of risk because they are likely to profit massively from it.
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/nuclear/google-agrees-to-multi-reactor-power-deal-with-nuclear-startup-kairos
Kairos is getting free money (grants & tax breaks) and profits from this. Google is extremely likely (can’t find a source) to be getting free money for thisCompanies EXIST to extract profit.
Of one of the worlds most successful companies is doing this, it’s because “line goes up”.I’d prefer this happend so that “humans survive”.
But “humans don’t die faster” is fine for now.(I guess “humans” means “poor humans”. As in anyone that doesn’t outright own 2 homes.)
The day I lost all respect for my father was when he told me in all seriousness that the fundamental purpose of capitalism was to make people happy.
At first I wanted to reply about how one can HOPE that capitalism’s never ending extraction of value from labor might build a better future and enable more happiness.
But there’s a deeper assumption in that statement, and in my limited personal experience it affects conservatives the most. That is thinking that happiness is caused by external factors: money, toys, status, power, etc.
His thinking was that you can never sell anything unless you have something they want, so the fundamental idea of capitalism was that it tries to give people what they want.
To be fair here, no one’s certain this will be cost-effective either. The new techs make it worth trying though.
no one’s certain this will be cost-effective either
One of the great sins of nuclear energy programs implemented during the 50s, 60s, and 70s was that it was too cost effective. Very difficult to turn a profit on electricity when you’re practically giving it away. Nuclear energy functions great as a kind-of loss-leader, a spur to your economy in the form of ultra-low-cost utilities that can incentivize high-energy consumption activities (like steel manufacturing and bulk shipping and commercial grade city-wide climate control). But its miserable as a profit center, because you can’t easily regulate the rate of power generation to gouge the market during periods of relatively high demand. Nuclear has enormous up-front costs and a long payoff window. It can take over a decade to break even on operation, assuming you’re operating at market rates.
By contrast, natural gas generators are perfect for profit-maximzing. Turning the electric generation on or off is not much more difficult than operating a gas stove. You can form a cartel with your friends, then wait for electric price-demand to peak, and command thousands of dollars a MWh to fill the sudden acute need for electricity. Natural gas plants can pay for themselves in a matter of months, under ideal conditions.
So I wouldn’t say the problem is that we don’t know their cost-efficiency. I’d say the problem is that we do know. And for consumer electricity, nuclear doesn’t make investment sense. But for internally consumed electricity on the scale of industrial data centers, it is exactly what a profit-motivated power consumer wants.
One of the great sins of nuclear energy programs implemented during the 50s, 60s, and 70s was that it was too cost effective.
I don’t see how any of this has any bearing on financial feasibility of power plants.
For what it’s worth, before the late 90’s there was no such thing as market pricing for electricity, as prices were set by tariff, approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC opened the door to market pricing with its Order 888 (hugely controversial, heavily litigated). And there were growing pains there: California experienced rolling blackouts, Enron was able to hide immense accounting fraud, etc. By the end of the 2000’s decade, pretty much every major generator and distributor in the market managed to offload the risk of price volatility on willing speculators, by negotiating long term power purchase agreements that actually stabilize long term prices regardless of short term fluctuations on the spot markets.
So now nuclear needs to survive in an environment that actually isn’t functionally all that different from the 1960’s: they need to project costs to see if they can turn a profit on the electricity market, even while paying interest on loans for their immense up front costs, through guaranteed pricing. It’s just that they have to persuade buyers to pay those guaranteed prices, rather than persuading FERC to approve the tariff.
As a matter of business model, it’s the same result, just through a different path. A nuclear plant can’t get financing without a path to profit, and that path to profit needs to come from long term commitments.
It can take over a decade to break even on operation, assuming you’re operating at market rates.
Shit, it can take over a decade to start operations, and several decades after that to break even. Vogtle reactors 3 and 4 in Georgia took something like 20 years between planning and actual operational status.
Now maybe small modular reactors will be faster and cheaper to build. But in this particular case, this is cutting edge technology that will probably have some hurdles to clear, both anticipated and unanticipated. Molten fluoride salt cooling and pebble bed design are exciting because of the novelty, but that swings both ways.
I don’t see how any of this has any bearing on financial feasibility of power plants
If you don’t get a high ROI, you’re not going to have lots of investors offering up their cash at low interest rates.
That was true in the 70’s, too. You always needed a way to show that people would pay the long term prices necessary to cover the cost of construction.
The big changes since the 70’s has been that competing sources of power are much cheaper and that the construction costs of large projects (not just nuclear reactors, but even highways and bridges and tall buildings) have skyrocketed.
There’s less room to make money because nuclear is expensive, and cheaper stuff has come along.
You always needed a way to show that people would pay the long term prices necessary to cover the cost of construction.
Not when the federal government was just building them to generate fissile material and giving the electricity away after that.
There’s less room to make money because nuclear is expensive
Upfront costs are expensive. But operational and fuel costs are very low, per MWh. Long term, nuclear is cheaper.
Plus time. My perspective was that building a new nuclear power industry and any significant number of reactors would take too long: we need to have fixed climate change in less time.
So seven “small” reactors over the next eleven years …… faster than I expected but still takes decades to make a noticeable difference.
So seven “small” reactors over the next eleven years ……
Is more than we’ve built in the last 40. And, assuming energy demands continue to accelerate, I doubt they’ll be the last seven reactors these companies construct.
deleted by creator
I don’t think they’re even building many. The article uses the word “adopt” because they’re kinda reviving old power plants. Three Mile Island being one of them.
I don’t think they’re even building many.
You might want to read the article.
CorpoNations.
We’re living in a cyberpunk nightmare
Not yet we’re not!
Still plenty of nature to kill before humanity cannot survive in any capacity without corpo supply chains.
If you’re breathing free air, drinking real water, and actual food can grow out of the ground we’re comparably in cyber paradise given how much worse AI spycraft and corporate ownership will worsen everything exponentially for the non-connected over the next decades
Still plenty of nature to kill before humanity cannot survive
I think there may be debate on this point. Climate change may be self perpetuating soon (if it isn’t already) due to thawing meant reserves, etc.
I’m not sure if anyone in the scientific mainstream thinks that’ll push the climate to a point where we can’t survive, but that probably depends on our behaviour over the next few decades.
I think by the end of this century we might hit a point of no return because the oil and gas have enough money to keep themselves from going under due to climate change.
by the end of this
centurydecade
But without the cool neon aesthetic. ☹️
Elon Musk is working on the cars though. They look like they’ll handle like the 2077 cars as well.
I’m still waiting for the cyberpunk part to happen
Could NOT get the nuclear power plant in Georgia off the ground for how long?
Did it ever get finished?
But when corporate wants it just fucking happens 🤡
Let me preface this that I’m not a huge fan of nuclear, but I do like factual information.
Could NOT get the nuclear power plant in Georgia off the ground for how long?
If you’re talking about Vogtle, it took about 13 years and 14 years. (two reactors)
Did it ever get finished?
Yes. If you want to be specific the original two reactors were finished in 2008. The new work was for the other two reactors. That’s what took 14 years. Of the two new reactors, one started providing commercial power for the first time in June of 2023. The second new reactor only started providing commercial power in Feb of 2024.
But when corporate wants it just fucking happens 🤡
Different type of power plants between what is being discussed for Google and what was put in at Vogtle in Georgia.
Vogtle was completing construction of an existing older design. Think of this like a bespoke tailored suit. It is crazy expensive, and only fits you.
What most of these tech companies are going for is called Small Modular Reactors (SMR). Think of this as like buying a ready-to-wear suit off the rack. Its not nearly as fancy or as impressive (usually much smaller power generation), but its not custom made so its much cheaper.
Corporations > people
Legal people are just better!
Shiti Organics are easily replaceable ;)
Businesses generating their own power is not anything new. The big auto manufacturers used to do it back in the day, and if you scale down the concept, every windmill (the grain grinding kind) and waterwheel built and operated for profit is the same thing. I’m just happy that Google is seemingly having their own built, instead of getting taxpayers to build it for them.
Yeah, if this is what it takes to get new design nuclear facilities in the US, then I’m counting it a win, but I won’t count it either way until the watts come out. Who knows: if they run ok, an actual power company might even try one.
We have a city to burn?
Give it time and the mega corps will do it for you.
Cyberpunk dystopias weren’t supposed to be guidelines dammit
So not replacing current energy, but adding onto it. Just like how we didn’t replace fossil fuels with the solar and wind unprecedented advancements the last 30 years but only added more energy consumption on top of that…cool
The other side of the coin is that AI currently uses more power than is produced by all renewables across the globe annually. So at least they’ll be offsetting that, which would be a net positive.
And it seems like Google’s funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs, which is another win that could lead to replacing coal plants in many countries with small scale reactors that don’t run on uranium.
And it seems like Google’s funding will help advance safer and more modern nuclear plant designs
Hopefully.
But the cynic in me is always concerned when shareholder owned companies are operating something that has the potential to go very wrong very quickly if/when they cut too many corners in the pursuit of that extra 0.5% of profit.
For what it’s worth, many, maybe most (sorry, can’t be bothered to look up the stats right now) nuclear plants in the US are already owned by some publicly traded company beholden to its shareholders who expect it to turn an ever increasing profit for them.
Not that it gives me the warm-fuzzies that that’s the case, but it’s not quite as big of a departure from the current situation as you’re making it out to be.
Yes it’s obviously better than using fossil fuels, nobody’s arguing that. What I’m talking about is the direction the global economy and the people making the decisions are taking.
No matter how much nuclear energy you use, you are still putting a lot of additional strain on the environment. It’s not just the CO2 emissions that matter, that’s just one of the problems. It’s the increase in extracted materials for data centers, reactors and nuclear fuel, which causes the destruction of multiple ecosystems and the contamination of waters and soil from the pollutants produced(even radioactive waste in the uranium case).
It’s also that Google could have been taxed more(I’m sure they can take it) and the money the government gained could be directed to investments on nuclear plants that would actually replace fossil fuels instead of adding energy demands on top of them. Because the fact of the matter is that in 2024 we categorically cannot be talking about not increasing fossil fuel consumption, we have to be talking about how to reduce emissions drastically every single year and why we are already tragically behind on that regard.
It’s almost like our population has continued to increase for the last 30 years
It’s almost like you have no clue what you are talking about lol. The global population growth for the last 30 years is 50%, while the global GDP growth is 500%. Not only that but the wealth inequality in the world has been steadily rising for the last 60 years. In the US alone (that we have data on) the wealth of the bottom 80% has been roughly stagnant since the 1990s while that of the top 1% has skyrocketed - it’s basically them that have absorbed this economic growth profit.
So yeah, you got a lot of confidence in things you clearly don’t know about.
You weren’t talking about wealth, you said that our energy consumption continued to rise.
You have to understand that GDP and energy demands are intrinsically tied. That’s a fact, both theoretically and empirically verified with historical data. When the GDP rises, energy demands rise. And the reason why energy demands rise is not to meet people’s needs but because the 1% seek to increase GDP (through individual corporation stock values) which in turn increases their profits, since like I said they absorb all of it. That is why it is relevant, because it’s a matter of wealth accumulation by the 1%, not because people need more energy. That is backed both by the fact that the common people don’t get anything out of the increase in economic production(the bottom 80% like I’ve said have had a stagnant wealth since the 1990s in the US, although the global GDP has risen 5-fold, even though the population has risen and hence the people in that 80% has risen as well) and by the fact that the population increase has been just 50% and the increase in wealth ten times that.
So our population has increased by 50% and you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease? All countries have increased energy production, including China, I’m not sure why you’re making this sound like a US centric problem.
What in the world do you mean “you expect our energy demands to stay the same or decrease?”. What does expect mean??? I don’t expect anything, I’m stating what needs to be done if we want our planet to remain habitable…have you heard about climate change or…? Also how do you keep ignoring the fact that our wealth has increased by 500% in the last 30 years and the 1% gets all the profit? We don’t need to increase our economic activities for all the people to be able to live comfortably, we need distribute wealth fairly and when we get to a point where everyone can live well, (in the West we are way past that point) then we need to scale down unnecessary economic activities, if we want to meet the scientific guidelines to avoid the 3 degrees by the end of the century, which would spell absolute irreversible disaster.
I never said it’s a US problem, and I didn’t make it sound like so, I was only using some data from the US for convenience. It’s a worldwide problem, but the US dictates the trajectory and policies of a very big part of the world including Europe, Canada, Australia and the gulf countries, all of which are essentially controlled by them. Also the US has by far the most CO2 emissions historically, making that country the single biggest contributor to climate change, again, by far. So it bears the biggest responsibility of any country. But you are right, it’s a worldwide problem.
The article mentions Kairos Power but doesn’t mention that their reactors in development are molten-salt cooled. While they’ll still use Uranium, its a great step in the right direction for safer nuclear power.
If development continues on this path with thorium molten-salt fueled and cooled reactors, we could see safe and commercially viable nuclear (thorium) energy within our lifetimes.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-06/china-building-thorium-nuclear-power-station-gobi/104304468
To my layman’s knowledge, using thorium molten-salt instead of uranium means the reactor can be designed in a way where it can’t melt down like Chernobyl or Fukushima.
Edit: The other implication of not using uranium is that the leftover material is harder to make in to bombs, so the technology around molten-salt thorium reactors could be spread to current non-nuclear states to meet their energy needs and reduce reliance on coal plants around the planet.
The meltdown that happened in Chernobyl happened because of mismanagement. Yes, there were design flaws in the system, but lots of rules had to be broken before the design flaws were triggered.
Nah, mismagement happened yes, but any other nuclear plant wouldn’t have exploded, they used a old technology even for that age, for cust cutting or faster to build idk that’s why it exploded
A safer design is insurance against bad management long after all of us are dead.
We fixed the glitch.
If development continues on this path
If we continue down the path of wasting energy and polluting to produce useless shit humanity is screwed.
There is a whole universe of resources and our needs for them will never be fully satisfied. Every step towards cleaner, more sustainable energy is a good one.
I’ll be amazed if this ever comes to fruition.
Generally speaking renewables + storage are the cheapest way of generating non-polluting power. After that there’s nuclear power and it’s much, much more expensive:
After that, and even more expensive are SMRs. Also, they don’t actually exist yet as a means of generating power.
From the article, “For example, it has already received the green light from the U.S. Nuclear Registry Commission (the first one to do so) to build its Hermes non-powered demonstrator reactor in Tennessee. Although it still doesn’t have nuclear fuel on-site, this is a major step in its design process, allowing the company to see its system in real life and learn more about its deployment and operation.”
Generally speaking renewables + storage are the cheapest way of generating non-polluting power.
At variable scale, based on time of year and weather. Nuclear is much better for base-load, particularly at the scale of GWs. You know exactly how much electricity you’re going to get 24/7, and the fuel costs aren’t exposed to a market that can vary by 150-300% annually.
See my comment here:
The high price of nuclear power comes from it being a stagnant and obsolete technology for 30 years.
As well as being choked to death in red tape.
As well as being choked to death in red tape.
I hear this a lot. Can you give an example of a regulation that could safely be removed that would lead to a significant reduction on the cost of new nuclear?
No, red tape is death by a thousand cut. Each one sensible and modestly priced.
Well one easy one, in my country it is that nuclear plants need to emit zero radiation from their core, like nothing. This is incredibly expensive to achieve, a more sensible value would have been similar or less than normal background radiation.
Nuclear has a lot of advantages that are really low hanging fruit of producing safe clean energy that is perfect for a grids baseload.
Interesting, can you provide more info? Which country? Link?
Wouldn’t emitting radiation, even at background levels, lead to an increase in radiation as it’s in addition to background stuff?
Also, there are strong arguments that we no longer need baseload generation and in fact it’s detrimental:
"No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States….
Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.
“I think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism,” he said. “Baseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind’s going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you’ll dispatch that first.”…
“What you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it,” he added. “And if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity available for you for all your loads.
“So if you can shape your renewables, you don’t need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running all the time in your system are an impediment because they’re very inflexible. You can’t ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism.”"
https://energycentral.com/c/ec/there-really-any-need-baseload-power
South Africa, you can read up on us if you want to learn about a country that really fucked up its energy supply, but that is a different story.
You do need a baseload, this is not something an argument of saying we do not really need a baseload can wish away, industries that run 24/7 like a smelting operation where if you cannot shutdown, or hospitals or traffic lights, there is a certain percentage of baseload that has to be generated.
Solar and wind are amazing and I really wish to see these systems play a major role in power generation, but you say the nuclear and coal plants are very inflexible. I do not know who this guy is but Nuclear and coal can very easily ramp up their power generation, both these are basically steam engines, both nuclear and coal can very quickly heat up and generate a lot more steam that powers generators, like an car engine but more accurately a steam train that you give more power to go faster. Solar and wind cannot ramp up on their own, cannot ask the wind to blow harder or the sun to shine brighter suddenly when the system requires it, they need costly backup systems like methane peaker plants or energy storage, be it batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen electrolysis the list goes on. These things added to solar and wind plants are usually not allocated to the cost of generation, a total cost of generation including these additional backup systems are a better indicator of solar and wind systems cost.
Now what about waste. I agree coal is messy and is causing global warming and needs to be phased out. But nuclear waste is a solved problem, it has been for decades, the spent fuel is usually stored deep underground where it will never interact with the world again. Solar on the other hand, if it costs about $20-$30 to recycle a panel but like $1-$3 to send it to a waste dumps, what do you think will happen to the solar panels. https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power Harvard business did an article about how solar recycling has really been a point of weakness, where nuclear we have set guidelines on how to environmentally and safely dispose of nuclear waste currently. I am willing to bet you the environmental impact from pollution from nuclear, including all the disasters will be negligible compared to the waste impact from solar panels and batteries currently.
So my point is not to dismiss solar or wind, really where wind and sunshine are naturally plentiful it will be a waste not to harvest these resources, just like where geothermal resources are available it will be wasteful not to utilise it.
But nuclear, even with its high initial capital cost and long build time, still does provide energy cheaply and will last for a lot longer than solar panels and wind turbines, nuclear can be easily and quickly ramped up or down depending on the load required.
You do need a baseload,
Did you read the link in my post that you’re replying to? It’s from a former Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner.
Here’s another article on the subject:
“The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids.”
https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210
I’ll skip over the rest of your comment as it’s not really relevant.
But nuclear, even with its high initial capital cost and long build time, still does provide energy cheaply
It literally doesn’t. See the graph I posted.
and will last for a lot longer than solar panels and wind turbines,
Nobody is arguing that. We’re talking about cost and base load.
nuclear can be easily and quickly ramped up or down depending on the load required.
This is absolutely not true. It’s also worth noting that nuclear needs to operate as close to 24/7/365 to be economically viable. It’s a source of base load power, it’s not dispatchable and can’t be used as a peaker plant.
Wouldn’t emitting radiation, even at background levels, lead to an increase in radiation as it’s in addition to background stuff?
Yes. But a single flight across the US exposes people around 4 times ground level background radiation.
Sure, it’s a negligible amount but OP was saying that nuclear would be competitive on cost if only red tape wouldn’t keep pushing the price up. Their contention was that less shielding would substantially lower the price of new nuclear but so far I’ve not seen anything to support this argument.
Will energy prices become negative when the AI bubble bursts?
No, EVs alone require 10 times the current installed energy production. We’re not even close. Expect energy rates to quadruple. The price will increase until people can’t afford the commute with their entire day’s paycheck.
EVs alone require 10 times the current installed energy production.
No they don’t.
The UK national grid estimates there needs to be a 4-5% increase each year, for roughly 15 years. That’s achievable.
The US won’t be too different.
Expect energy rates to quadruple
Why quadruple. Where are you getting this from?
The price will increase until people can’t afford the commute with their entire day’s paycheck.
They obviously won’t.
Fossil fuel power plants don’t count. EVs running of fossil fuel make no sense. Remove them from the equation and my prediction becomes extremely optimistic.
In what world don’t they count?
They can power EVs. And running an EV on fossil fuel electricity is still far less polluting than running a petrol or diesel car.
One large generator at its most efficient setting is far more efficient than tens of thousands of small ones starting from cold multiple times per day, that aren’t necessarily maintained well, and are constantly going through their rev range.
Where are your sources for any of what you’re saying?
No , if you run EVs off a grid fossil fuel generator, that’s the difference between 33% and 40% efficient. It’s not enough to move the needle. It doesn’t even pay for itself in terms of emissions.
The energy source absolutely has to be ZERO emissions as well. If not then it’s just climate cope.
What the hell are you talking about? That’s not how people charge EVs.
EVs on their own are typically 90%+ efficient. Although some are as low as ~85%.
Even running on a generator, though, they’d still be more efficient than any ICE engine found in a car, aside from a Formula 1 engine.
EVs are far cleaner, even if ran on a fossil fuel energy grid.
fossil fuel power plant are tops 40% efficient while ice powered cars are around 33%.
If you power you EV off a fossil fuel power plant, then that difference, minus the grid losses, the charging losses and then the inverter and motor losses, is how much co2 emissions you are saving.
Of course that’s assuming your driving habits don’t change, with that high upfront investment and relatively lower per mile costs compared to using gasoline.
And that’s not to mention the one time emission from the production of that EV amortised on its 15 year hoped-for lifetime.
Beside capturing government subsidies and the arbitrage saving from using temporarily cheaper electricity as fuel, I don’t see EVs making much sense either from an economic or a saving the planet standpoint.
Without a zero emission energy production as the source, EVs don’t make sense beyond hype and cope.
All fossil fuel electrical generation, and that includes natural gas, has to be shutdown. Or else it will not make a lick of difference.
EVs are currently running partially on fossil fuel just fine and generating less pollution than ICEs because power plant efficiency is still better than combustion engine efficiency.
That is nowhere near enough. It’s 33% versus 40% difference between co2/kWh . we need zero co2/kWh or else it’s all a waste of time.
It’s only acceptable if we are transitioning to zero emission grid. If we stay on natural gas then it won’t even move the needle.
We are transitioning towards it, but in the meantime, switching to EVs still reduces CO2 output and because the grid is getting cleaner, that means EVs get cleaner even after being manufactured and sold, whereas ICEs can only get cleaner through R&D and only get worse over time as they age (once they start burning oil, etc)
A few percentage points reduction in co2 emission isn’t going to move the needle. The whole grid has to shutdown fossil fuel energy production for this transition to make sense.
