Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by UltraSane 210 days ago
Nuclear power is reliable 24/7 while wind and solar are not and handling this costs money. Microsoft has said that they have more GPUs than electricity to run them so even at $110/MWh it makes sense for them.
2 comments

Is new nuclear cheaper than new batteries for 24/7 power?
If built by South Korea or China then yes. If built by the US then probably not. But three mile island is already built.
China's building a lot more solar than nuclear. You'd think if nuclear was cheaper it would be the other way around.
They are still building lots of nuclear reactors including liquid salt thorium reactors. They aren't irrationally scared of nuclear energy.
Yes but they're building more solar. Which they wouldn't do if, as you claimed, nuclear was cheaper.
I don't know where this '24/7' stuff comes from; they have maintenance outages like anything else. Refueling takes months every couple years, so you're going to have to "handle this" even with nuclear.
"they have maintenance outages like anything else"

not often and most importantly they are PREDICTABLE. You do understand why being able to control when a power plant is operating is a very important thing, right?

The point here being that every single datacenter that's running off nuclear also has a natural gas pipeline running to it or else a massive propane infrastructure because nuclear alone can't get the job done. If your 'clean energy' solution requires a gas pipe, you're misrepresenting its ability to drive the datacenter.
i thought the conversation was regarding utilization of capital, in which case 80% is 80%, predictability doesnt change the fact you have to let GPUs sit idle 20% of the time.

I guess if I knew there would be two months with less power I might design my data center to fit into 40 foot containers so I could deploy wherever power and latency are cheapest

80% is much much higher than what solar and wind can get.
France’s nuclear fleet has an average capacity factor of ~75%… so less “24/7” and more like 18/7 or 24/5.25 or something..
The US fleet was at 93% capacity factor in 2023.

https://www.nei.org/resources/statistics/us-nuclear-generati...

As for France's capacity factor, that has a lot to do with the presence of intermittents on the continental grid, combined with the EU's Renewable Energy Directive making France liable to pay fines if they use nuclear power in preference to wind/solar.

And had half their fleet offline at the peak of the energy crisis caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...

In Sweden this year we’ve had 2 separate instances of 50% of the fleet being offline. With one reactor having a 7 month unscheduled outage.

I just don’t get where this ”100% reliable!!!!” is coming from.

That is just plain incompetence. These are recent US nuclear capacity factors

2023: 93.0%

2022: 92.1%

2021: 92.7%

2020: 92.5%

Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable and secure power more than 92% of the time in 2024. That’s nearly twice as much as a coal (42.36%) or natural gas (59.9%) plant that are used more flexibly to meet changing grid demands and almost 3 times more often than wind (34.3%) and solar (23.4%) plants

Nuclear power plants had a 8% share of the total U.S. generation capacity in 2023 but actually produced 18% of the country’s electricity due to its high capacity factor.

I think you are missing the forest for the trees.

You can have a 93% capacity factor and still have short time periods with 45% of the fleet offline simultaneously.

Another example is when half the French nuclear fleet was offline at the height of the energy crisis.

Are you saying that a grid collapse is acceptable if outages correlate for nuclear plants?

"You can have a 93% capacity factor and still have short time periods with 45% of the fleet offline simultaneously."

Only if you have a tiny fleet with very bad management.