We need to build 10s of thousands of reactors. We need SML reactors. Small, Medium & Large reactors! We know how to build large ones today, lets start building those large ones, and the small and medium ones will follow along when they're ready. In 10, 20, 30 years, we'll naturally land up with all sorts of funky reactors... As soon as we get a thriving nuclear industry and supply train up to speed. Climate change isn't gonna wait for us to deliberate. The sooner we've built enough reactors, the sooner we can actually turn off the coal, gas, oil power stations and industrial heat generators.
Nothing can compete with CCGTs One was built recently in the UK 2022 at a cost of $0.50 / KW and it has a very high efficiency of ~63% Vs the reactors under construction in the UK at ~$20/KW Thats 40 x cheaper And they need ~15x fewer staff Wind solar nuclear can't compete with that, so we either build CCGTs and accept the carbon emissions or subsiside and guarantee Wind/Solar or Nuclear There is no shame or failure in nuclear highlighting it needs state guarantee and support because wind and solar do too
There isn't much to debate about because this isn't an either-or question. We need more nuclear energy and need to get away from oil. Doesn't matter small or large just build, build, build.
Unless Canada develops the ability to enrich its own fuel, building an AP-1000 would be a terrible mistake. America is showing the world that they are an unreliable trading parent and cant be trusted, being dependent on them for fuel would be a stupid move.
How cheap is the renewable/storage competition going to be if the putative transition is extended? Nuclear has to be sprinting down an experience curve if it's going to have a chance.
Loved this conversation. Thanks to all three of you! IMO, nuclear plants don't need to worry about load following at all, just run all out all the time. Grids of the future won't be trying to match supply to load, instead, it's going to work the other way around. Loads will follow supply (eg VPPs managing EV charging, thermostats, and home batteries all to match available supply). My guess is within a decade or two, a large percentage of customer premises will have several hours of BTM battery installed. They'll charge when supply is plentiful and discharge when it's constrained. This change will fundamentally reshape how power grids are designed and operated.
1. Build out at the maximum possible rate. 2. Match capacity with resistive shunts. 3. Outlaw metering. Customers will figure out how to use the wasted power.
The old adage; "A bird in the hand beats two in the bush." You have only two options that have been built and are deployable today, CANDU 6 (Monarch is not ready) or the AP1000. Everything else will be a fight for regulatory approval, FOAK build, financing the a new FOAK, unproven Capacity Factors, etc.
I really like this podcast, I watched Vogtle episodes, SMRs episodes, uranium mining episodes and all of them are so interesting. Thanks for making this podcasts
The mission timespan directly leading to given quantity of iterations over some duration of time is a damn good argument. If anyone was winning it was Krellenstein although maybe Ted is right that everyone is underestimating the political question but i cant judge that. Unfortunately we've attacked and sued our reactor operators for decades. The damage of this may never be able to be undone and so a technological paradigm shift may be necessary for that reason even though ironically the technology gets possibly worse.
32:40 "The *_Loan Programs Office (LPO)_* provides loans and loan guarantees available to help deploy innovative clean energy, advanced transportation, and Tribal energy projects in the United States. Over the past decade, LPO has closed more than $30 billion of deals across a variety of energy sectors." (US Department of Energy)
We need to build new and established reactor design. Gen 2 gen 3 and Four. Both paths must be built out. We need more electricity and clean high temperature heat.
Only low-pressure/high-temperature nukes can compete with combined-cycle natural gas, and the NRC will never let that happen. So, let's stick with gas until we can replace the NRC with a regulator that places equal value on safety and affordability.
At what battery prices will solar and batteries enable an affordable load following profile? So AP1000 is 1.1GW and roughly 8.8TWh annually What would be the cost of a solar farm that can output 1.1 GW for 14h a day followed by ~0.8 GW for 10h a day. This would be better than baseload Somehting like 1.1 Grid connection 4 Gw solar 12 GWh batteries Would allow solar load following power station Worst months Dec/Jan would be ~60% capacity factor (at the grid interface) And then 8-10 months it can do the ideal load following of 1.1gW for 14h followed bt 0.8GW for 10h If this load following solar plant can be built cjeaper than Ap1000s then all sunny regions will do the above This is also super modular Can build it 1000x smaller than an ap1000 1.1MW grid connections 4MW solar panel 12MWh battery No good for non sunny locations but probably future for sunny regions
what a useless yapfest. How many times is the bald guy going to say that nuclear has a 92% capacity factor, even when computer programmers work during the day and solar works during the day. There was nothing resolved here, just a bunch of yapping, no facts, no figures, The guy who likes big nukes didn't explain how they would be cheaper, and the little nukes didn't explain how it would be cheaper. Maybe we should just admit that the future is Natural Gas. Since you started this podcast, the entire world has buillt a natural gas and refridge and defridge terminal, and we sent both natural gas and other liquid fuels around the world.
We need to build 10s of thousands of reactors.
We need SML reactors.
Small, Medium & Large reactors!
We know how to build large ones today, lets start building those large ones, and the small and medium ones will follow along when they're ready. In 10, 20, 30 years, we'll naturally land up with all sorts of funky reactors... As soon as we get a thriving nuclear industry and supply train up to speed.
Climate change isn't gonna wait for us to deliberate.
The sooner we've built enough reactors, the sooner we can actually turn off the coal, gas, oil power stations and industrial heat generators.
You know this man needs a speech coach.
Nothing can compete with CCGTs
One was built recently in the UK 2022 at a cost of $0.50 / KW and it has a very high efficiency of ~63%
Vs the reactors under construction in the UK at ~$20/KW
Thats 40 x cheaper
And they need ~15x fewer staff
Wind solar nuclear can't compete with that, so we either build CCGTs and accept the carbon emissions or subsiside and guarantee Wind/Solar or Nuclear
There is no shame or failure in nuclear highlighting it needs state guarantee and support because wind and solar do too
There isn't much to debate about because this isn't an either-or question. We need more nuclear energy and need to get away from oil. Doesn't matter small or large just build, build, build.
Unless Canada develops the ability to enrich its own fuel, building an AP-1000 would be a terrible mistake. America is showing the world that they are an unreliable trading parent and cant be trusted, being dependent on them for fuel would be a stupid move.
Do not forget about Greenland comments.
If you remove the false assumption that the transition to nuclear needs to be rapid, then the solution is obvious.
How cheap is the renewable/storage competition going to be if the putative transition is extended? Nuclear has to be sprinting down an experience curve if it's going to have a chance.
@@pauldietz1325 Renewable/storage is a fantasy. It doesn't exist.
The competition is low-pressure/high-temperature nuclear.
@@pauldietz1325 It is a short time preference which requires justification by the answer to that question, not a long one.
How can you remove that assumption when we are sprinting toward an extinction event…?
@@moqo There is no extinction event, I know that's disappointing for most Doomers, but you'll get over it.
Loved this conversation. Thanks to all three of you!
IMO, nuclear plants don't need to worry about load following at all, just run all out all the time. Grids of the future won't be trying to match supply to load, instead, it's going to work the other way around. Loads will follow supply (eg VPPs managing EV charging, thermostats, and home batteries all to match available supply).
My guess is within a decade or two, a large percentage of customer premises will have several hours of BTM battery installed. They'll charge when supply is plentiful and discharge when it's constrained. This change will fundamentally reshape how power grids are designed and operated.
1. Build out at the maximum possible rate.
2. Match capacity with resistive shunts.
3. Outlaw metering.
Customers will figure out how to use the wasted power.
The old adage; "A bird in the hand beats two in the bush." You have only two options that have been built and are deployable today, CANDU 6 (Monarch is not ready) or the AP1000. Everything else will be a fight for regulatory approval, FOAK build, financing the a new FOAK, unproven Capacity Factors, etc.
I really like this podcast, I watched Vogtle episodes, SMRs episodes, uranium mining episodes and all of them are so interesting. Thanks for making this podcasts
"Right" vs "Y'know"
I'm not sure if I know
The mission timespan directly leading to given quantity of iterations over some duration of time is a damn good argument. If anyone was winning it was Krellenstein although maybe Ted is right that everyone is underestimating the political question but i cant judge that. Unfortunately we've attacked and sued our reactor operators for decades. The damage of this may never be able to be undone and so a technological paradigm shift may be necessary for that reason even though ironically the technology gets possibly worse.
32:40 "The *_Loan Programs Office (LPO)_* provides loans and loan guarantees available to help deploy innovative clean energy, advanced transportation, and Tribal energy projects in the United States. Over the past decade, LPO has closed more than $30 billion of deals across a variety of energy sectors." (US Department of Energy)
After what Ted Nordhaus asked, I wonder. Do you guys know ?
The great debate continues. I just want to put my cards on the table and say I fully agree with both sides.
“This was great.” AMEN
Y'know.
So many y'knows.
Chris I know I could just Google this, but comments grow your channel. So could you tell me how much water does a Candu reactor use?
Approximately 80,000 liters of heavy water (D2O) for a CANDU 6 reactor.
canteach.candu.org/content%20library/candu6_technicalsummary-s.pdf
Ask an AI, make that dc work harder. Another billion from the tech bros :)
Water isn't *consumed* in any reactor
I understand that, but the water for cooling the spent fuel.
@@marblackCanada No water is consumed for the spent fuel. The spent fuel is kept under water for a period of time. Then in dry casket
15:21 I mean no harm... While at this point started to count amount of "You know" used... We know.😅
We need to build new and established reactor design. Gen 2 gen 3 and Four. Both paths must be built out. We need more electricity and clean high temperature heat.
Oops. Clean industrial process heat will require 2-3 times more energy generation, and high temperatures reactors will be the only scalable source.
Electricity is a simpler way to provide process heat.
If decarbonization is the goal, then industrial
Wow great show
Is there a map that shows which regions provide the required demand for nuclear power generation?
The demand comes after they are built. Provide the high-quality, reliable, cheap power-service first.
Only low-pressure/high-temperature nukes can compete with combined-cycle natural gas, and the NRC will never let that happen. So, let's stick with gas until we can replace the NRC with a regulator that places equal value on safety and affordability.
1% per second above 60% is some pretty insane numbers
58:16 58:26 58:28
Never X! Xitter, maybe? 🤣
At what battery prices will solar and batteries enable an affordable load following profile?
So AP1000 is 1.1GW and roughly 8.8TWh annually
What would be the cost of a solar farm that can output 1.1 GW for 14h a day followed by ~0.8 GW for 10h a day. This would be better than baseload
Somehting like
1.1 Grid connection
4 Gw solar
12 GWh batteries
Would allow solar load following power station
Worst months Dec/Jan would be ~60% capacity factor (at the grid interface)
And then 8-10 months it can do the ideal load following of 1.1gW for 14h followed bt 0.8GW for 10h
If this load following solar plant can be built cjeaper than Ap1000s then all sunny regions will do the above
This is also super modular
Can build it 1000x smaller than an ap1000
1.1MW grid connections
4MW solar panel
12MWh battery
No good for non sunny locations but probably future for sunny regions
No. All sunny regions will install coal-fired and natural-gas-fired power plants, which is what they are doing now.
Y'know, um, ya know, there's too many you knows in this video ... I literally can't watch it any further.
Was just about to make the same comment.
what a useless yapfest. How many times is the bald guy going to say that nuclear has a 92% capacity factor, even when computer programmers work during the day and solar works during the day. There was nothing resolved here, just a bunch of yapping, no facts, no figures, The guy who likes big nukes didn't explain how they would be cheaper, and the little nukes didn't explain how it would be cheaper. Maybe we should just admit that the future is Natural Gas. Since you started this podcast, the entire world has buillt a natural gas and refridge and defridge terminal, and we sent both natural gas and other liquid fuels around the world.
Data-centers don't sleep.
The AP1000 will be the death of nuclear if that's the "best" option.
Why .. it's the most used
The first two AP-1000 units in China had a cost per kWe of $3154.
@@Fuad_ So, you're going to build them in the US at Chinese wage rates?
It might cost a little more in the USA but I dont think it will be anywhere near $16000/kWe
@@Fuad_ The wage ratio between China and the US is about 3.5, so ballpark it would be $10000/kWe.