Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 512 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#41

Post by Robotbeat »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #17
Georgelemental wrote: post #2

TL;DR rising labor costs and regulation

Note that the regulatory costs are only responsible for much of the increases of the 60s and 70s. They're the boogey man, but the increases of the last forty years can't be blamed on them. It's a general problem: HSR and subway stations have seen similar increases.

That’s also due to regulatory costs. Regulations now require “citizen voice” for large projects, whether infrastructure or just an apartment building. So NIMBYism is able to slow construction (which translates directly to increased costs), require additional measures or features. And NIMBY lawsuits after regulatory approval is given can further increase costs and schedule, even if the court rules in favor of the project. And then because of all these regulatory costs, the experience isn’t gained, so learning doesn’t occur, and if it does, it occurs only for a few firms. Additionally, large state sponsored projects often are treated as jobs programs, etc.

Another issue is that the difficulty of complying with the regulations is intentional. The paperwork is difficult as an intentional sort of time-tax on building anything new. We could actually automate and streamline everything to be approved immediately (while following the letter) without large paperwork costs, but that’s not actually what those who push for the regulations actually want. They WANT it to be hard.

It’s not just a boogeyman. It’s the real reason. Regulations are responsible for most of the cost of nuclear power.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#42

Post by sofixa »

pydry wrote: post #36
sofixa wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you can start a project with the existing, proven and expensive tech today . Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today (bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations). There's lots of hope, and money should be invested in the various alternatives, absolutely. But nobody can say when and if that tech would be ready.

>Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations Viable locations arent in short supply at all: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

They aren't in short supply, but aren't present everywhere - e.g. in Europe there's nothing north of Slovakia. If Denmark wants storage, they have to work with other countries and rely on transit. It's even worse for the Baltics.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#43

Post by bumby »

bsedlm wrote: post #25
lelag wrote: post #15

The article misses another important aspect: loss of nuclear competency. Between the 60s and 80s, there were many nuclear reactors projects which allowed an industry to develop and get better at it. But since the 80s, there was comparatively very few new reactors built for over 20-30 years. The workforce that had the skills and knowledge related to actually building nuclear plants had mostly retired and their replace…

I think there's a larger point around the general notion of "spread of competency". the competency is not allowed to spread. there's a thick shroud of secrecy around how all this sophisticated technology comes about. This is also why semiconductors are so difficult. Back in the early 20th century the nuclear stuff was secret so the nazis and then the russians would not get it. Now semiconductors are also closely rela…

>I have a sensation that in the 18-19th century it was the chemical sciences that were similarly shrouded in secrecy.

I'm not sure this is the case. Chemistry and geology were both popular with hobbyists (albeit, it seemed to often be aristocratic hobbyists) during that period.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#44

Post by balaji1 »

Might be nitpicking here: Referring to the pie charts under this section[1], I can't help but think images like this are intentionally meant to mislead: [1]https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-p...

I understand author picked it from some other source, Dawson 2017 or whatever.

These pie charts are not like for like, when it includes the renewables -- maybe the coal/gas/nuclear fine. So why put them next to one another. I can't tell if the costs of renewables are for entire "farms" (solar or wind farms). What about lifetime of plants/farms, total value derived, etc.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#45

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

comrh wrote: post #26
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVN-78s reactor according to Wikipedia: > It is estimated that the total thermal power output of the A1B will be around 700 MW CVN-78 has two of them.

I think the discrepancy is not all the thermal output is converted to electricity: > A1B reactors likely produce enough steam to generate 125 megawatts (168,000 hp) of electricity, plus 350,000 shaft horsepower (260 MW) to power the four propeller shafts.

Ah, yes. Most steam is not converted to electricity. Should have mentioned that.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#47

Post by alex_young »

ImHereToVote wrote: post #32
colinmhayes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is undoubtedly true, but south korea has now been building nuclear plants for decades, and their costs haven't really dropped at all.

According to the article they have

From the article:

  > The only country where the costs of nuclear plant construction seem to have steadily decreased is South Korea:

  > The fact that South Korea is the only country to exhibit this trend has led some experts to speculate that the cost data (which comes directly from the utility and hasn’t been independently audited) has been manipulated and we shouldn’t draw conclusions from it.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#48

Post by stewbrew »

xroche wrote: post #10

> Because nuclear plants are expensive, and they take a long time to build, financing their construction can also be a significant fraction of their cost, typically around 15-20% of the cost of the plant. For plants that have severe construction delays and/or have high financing costs (such as the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in Georgia), this can be 50% of the cost or more. This is why nuclear power plants should be state-…

The state better invests the money in cheaper technologies. Why should it waste the money on nuclear plants?

Edit: To the downvoters: Seriously, why should the state waste money on a technology that doesn't work and never has? More than half of France's nuclear power plants are currently offline and in maintainence mode. Maybe also because they could not produce electricity at market prices.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#49

Post by raphaelj »

sofixa wrote: post #42
pydry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations Viable locations arent in short supply at all: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

They aren't in short supply, but aren't present everywhere - e.g. in Europe there's nothing north of Slovakia. If Denmark wants storage, they have to work with other countries and rely on transit. It's even worse for the Baltics.

Well, that also applies if Denmark wants uranium, oil or gas.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#50

Post by jeffbee »

sofixa wrote: post #24
Krasnol wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should states invest it's taxpayer money into overpriced and slow technology when there are cheaper and fast improving alternatives?

Because you can start a project with the existing, proven and expensive tech today . Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today (bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations). There's lots of hope, and money should be invested in the various alternatives, absolutely. But nobody can say when and if that tech would be ready.

This is really not correct at all. Half of the utility-scale generating projects waiting for interconnect approval are combined solar and battery installation. Grid-scale storage is a solved problem, technically and economically. There were over 400GW of grid storage project proposed in the U.S. at the end of 2021.
Post reply on HN