Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 10,648
- Reactions
- 8,332
I have invested in an unlisted Uranium startup, so desperate this gets up.
I have invested in an unlisted Uranium startup, so desperate this gets up.What I was saying is, the technology is already there and in use, what isn't there is the ability to build them in modular form and produce power with a cost benefit yet.
But wasn't that also the case for renewables 15 years ago, as the need increases and technology improves usually costs reduce, or is that only the case in socially acceptable technologies..
No doubt China or Japan will continue developing the concept and maybe the West will end up buying from them, as is usually the case.
There are many technologies, that started out from a very shaky beginning, to a viable industry. Ask Elon Musk, in reality the E.V didn't and on a lot of metrics still doesn't stack up, it is still a lot dearer than the equivalent ICE car, doesn't travel as far on the same volume of fuel and can't tow as well.
Maybe SMR's never will stack up, but IMO the story is far from being over and I wouldn't be calling an end to it yet.
In 2020, the Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion over 10 years for the plant, known as the Carbon Free Power Project, subject to congressional appropriations. The department has provided NuScale and others about $600 million since 2014 to support commercialization of small reactor technologies.
Hopkins said NuScale projects in Romania and South Korea continue to develop.
He also said a plan with service provider Standard Power to develop two gigawatts of nuclear power intended for data centers in Pennsylvania and Ohio was on track. A contract for that project would be completed "if not this week, next," Hopkins said.
NuScale was the first U.S. company to secure regulatory approval for its design of a small, modular reactor. Backers say such projects can be built in remote locations and can power heavy industries with emissions that have been traditionally difficult to abate.
NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant jumped 53% to $89 per megawatt hour, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.
Critics say small, modular reactors and other advanced reactor designs are too expensive to succeed.
"The termination of NuScale's contract signals the broader challenges of developing nuclear energy in the United States," said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Placing excessive reliance on untested technologies without adequate consideration of economic viability, practicality, and safety concerns is irresponsible and clearly won’t work."
It is like everything eventually logics prevail, everything has a cost, be it monetary, social, environmental, health, lack of availability, finite resource etc.I have invested in an unlisted Uranium startup, so desperate this gets up.
Just on the subject of anti nuclear, this article in the Guardian, highlights how narrative can be driven by emotion and agenda rather than common sense IMO.It's not about the anti nuclear lobby.
The big trouble with existing technology nuclear power stations is the huge build times and cost. Way longer than the political cycle.Just on the subject of anti nuclear, this article in the Guardian, highlights how narrative can be driven by emotion rather than common sense IMO.
I find the opening paragraph mind numbingly dumb, what residual value did the 2012 Olympics give the U.K?
Yet obviously that was money worth spending, only 10 years further on everyone is saying the Commonwealth games is a waste of money, seems justification for anything is fickle and down to who has the platform to voice their opinions.
Hinkley Point: the ‘dreadful deal’ behind the world’s most expensive power plant
The long read: Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?www.theguardian.com
Building Britain’s first new nuclear reactor since 1995 will cost twice as much as the 2012 Olympics – and by the time it is finished, nuclear power could be a thing of the past. How could the government strike such a bad deal?
London 2012: Olympics success hailed by politicians
Boris Johnson declares London 'capital of the world' while David Cameron says Games could kickstart economic recoverywww.theguardian.com
The whole technology already exists even in french or Russian submarines or aircraft carrier.What I was saying is, the technology is already there and in use, what isn't there is the ability to build them in modular form and produce power with a cost benefit yet.
But wasn't that also the case for renewables 15 years ago, as the need increases and technology improves usually costs reduce, or is that only the case in socially acceptable technologies..
No doubt China or Japan will continue developing the concept and maybe the West will end up buying from them, as is usually the case.
There are many technologies, that started out from a very shaky beginning, to a viable industry. Ask Elon Musk, in reality the E.V didn't and on a lot of metrics still doesn't stack up, it is still a lot dearer than the equivalent ICE car, doesn't travel as far on the same volume of fuel and can't tow as well.
Maybe SMR's never will stack up, but IMO the story is far from being over and I wouldn't be calling an end to it yet.
In 2020, the Department of Energy approved $1.35 billion over 10 years for the plant, known as the Carbon Free Power Project, subject to congressional appropriations. The department has provided NuScale and others about $600 million since 2014 to support commercialization of small reactor technologies.
Hopkins said NuScale projects in Romania and South Korea continue to develop.
He also said a plan with service provider Standard Power to develop two gigawatts of nuclear power intended for data centers in Pennsylvania and Ohio was on track. A contract for that project would be completed "if not this week, next," Hopkins said.
NuScale was the first U.S. company to secure regulatory approval for its design of a small, modular reactor. Backers say such projects can be built in remote locations and can power heavy industries with emissions that have been traditionally difficult to abate.
NuScale said in January the target price for power from the plant jumped 53% to $89 per megawatt hour, raising concerns about customers' willingness to pay.
Critics say small, modular reactors and other advanced reactor designs are too expensive to succeed.
"The termination of NuScale's contract signals the broader challenges of developing nuclear energy in the United States," said Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Placing excessive reliance on untested technologies without adequate consideration of economic viability, practicality, and safety concerns is irresponsible and clearly won’t work."
The smaller the scale the higher the % of waste vs energy produced....waste issue is not only spent rods but also every bit and pieces of steel concrete etc near the reactor etc which has to be embedded in a special molden glass then put in a giant swimming pool of ultra pure water and refrigerated for the next thousand of years..so for as long as the pyramids existed..just to put things in scale.The big trouble with existing technology nuclear power stations is the huge build times and cost. Way longer than the political cycle.
Hence few politicians have the guts.
Once they are built though, the power is essentially free as France knows.
I was hoping that the use of smaller modular reactors that don't create the high level waste, could be made quicker and then just dropped into position would be a game changer.
If they can't make them cheap enough though, it is irrelevant - unless they get an advantage due to their lack of producing greenhouse gases e.g. carbon tax at production level, (not at consumer level).
But we just saw at the last conference how strong the fossil fuel lobby is and how they control the opinion agenda and they are willing to spend big bucks to get media and scientific influencers onside, so don't believe it can happen.
Once they are built though, the power is essentially free as France knows.
And the real cost is not in building but dismantling after 30 to 50y...Don't think so.
What about fuel mining, processing and disposal costs ?
Certainly minute compared to construction costs but still significant.
Compared to basically no cost when it comes to hydro, but there are probably very few suitable hydro sites in the UK.
The big problem is we've built our entire society around the pinnacle of energy resources, easily accessible onshore oil, and things not far below it - near surface coal, natural gas, offshore oil in shallow water, easily accessible on river hydro sites, etc.everything has a cost, be it monetary, social, environmental, health, lack of availability, finite resource etc.
And from memory, dismantling a nuclear power station is so scary/expensive that hardly any has been completed,I think only one or two have ever been completed..if we do not count Tchernobyl or Fukoshima lol..And the real cost is not in building but dismantling after 30 to 50y...
Sooner if you are German
Yep, eventually the options become fewer and fewer, with it so do the choices, it will be self resolving so to speak.The big problem is we've built our entire society around the pinnacle of energy resources, easily accessible onshore oil, and things not far below it - near surface coal, natural gas, offshore oil in shallow water, easily accessible on river hydro sites, etc.
Nothing we've come up with since has truly replaced those. The alternatives all come with some sort of downside be it economic, technical, environmental or all of the above.
Likewise the conventional resources also have that basic problem. As the most easily extracted oil is used up the cost rises, same ultimately happens with the others. Even with hydro it's generally the case that the cheapest resources are developed first in any given area such that a point comes where the cost of further development escalates.
Ultimately though there's no choice other than to change at some point. Oil and gas aren't going to last, in terms of cheap resources, forever indeed we're already heading down the slope that's readily observable.
Don't hold your breath, the 'hidden' costs won't go away.Can't wait for the costs of batteries to come down and be able to cut the cord from Energy companies.
Here is this months usage (so far - another week to go)
Have solar (7.2kw system - Enphase IQ7 inverters and LONGi 450w panels)
Energy provider: AGL
Location: Brisbane
Fed back to the grid almost double my usage, still will get charged about $60 - $90 (hidden costs)
Have used ducted this month on/off, as needed
Hopefully it will be like mobile phones and when Telecom (Telstra) had a monopoly, then mobile phones came out and totally changed the market.
Fingers crossed.....
Indeed db08,Don't hold your breath, the 'hidden' costs won't go away.
Interesting concept for those who can't afford their own system, we will have to watch how it unfolds.Came across this intriguing free solar panel/battery option. Seems clever and if the operators have done their sums right all parties come out ahead.
Free home solar and battery rollout begins with Diamond partnership – here’s how NRN’s value model works
Australian startup NRN is rolling out its proposition to fit households with solar and batteries at no cost to consumers. Announcing its partnership with retailer Diamond Energy and the completion of a $13.5 million (USD 9.18 million) capital raise, the company believes it’s found the trick to successfully deploying free household renewables by focussing on retailer value. Pv magazine Australia spoke to NRN and experts about how exactly the model works and where the value comes from.
December 22, 2023 Bella Peacock
View attachment 168458
Image: NRN
Share
View attachment 168459 View attachment 168460 View attachment 168461 View attachment 168462 View attachment 168463
Australian startup the National Renewable Network (NRN) says it has found a model to fit Australian households with no-cost rooftop solar and home battery systems. The systems in its program are not owned by the households, with full control handed over to the energy retailers.
The approach hinges on the value aggregated household fleets can provide to these retailers, which NRN says is substantial enough for retailers to then pass on discounted energy rates to the households, incentivising installation.
On average, NRN says its model saves households over $750 annually. For investors, NRN founder and Chief Executive Officer Alan Hunter tells pv magazine Australia there is a “double digit internal rate of return.”
NRN has today announced its formal partnership with Diamond Energy, which has been in the works for some time now.
“By working with NRN we’ve been able to help deliver a no upfront cost solar and battery solution. Our unique solution helps make the solar and battery even more affordable to our customers with the benefits delivered through our electricity bill,” Diamond Energy’s Mark Bertoncello said.
Free home solar and battery rollout begins with Diamond partnership – here’s how NRN’s value model works
Australian startup NRN is rolling out its proposition to fit households with solar and batteries at no cost to consumers. Announcing its partnership with retailer Diamond Energy and the completion of a $13.5 million (USD 9.18 million) capital raise, the company believes it’s found the trick to...www.pv-magazine-australia.com
So they need to be able to recoup the investment cost..I assume that they have to reduce the costs for the owners vs their electricity providers..Interesting concept for those who can't afford their own system, we will have to watch how it unfolds.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?