Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#151

Post by rob_c » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:36 PM UTC

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…

yes, well said.

It's a shame the idiotic "green" movement after chernobyl is rather annoying that it has set energy production in developed nations back ~50 years and caused so much climate damage in the mean time... but hey 'radioactive waste is corporate greed maaannnn'.....

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#152

Post by danielmarkbruce » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

stingraycharles wrote: post #114

ak217 wrote: post #93

> Nuclear is sometimes praised for having lower fuel costs, but all else being equal (ie: assuming total production cost stays constant), it’s better to have a larger fraction of your electricity costs be variable, so that if demand drops then production cost drops as well. This is not obviously true. I could make an argument that base load generation capacity (nuclear and hydro in particular) should be state-owned o…

Yeah this statement makes me think that OP had very little actual knowledge about energy pricing. If there’s ever a complicated market of supply and demand it’s energy. Having a huge chunk of the supply be stable and controllable is absolutely desired, will help simplify operations a lot, make supply more predictable, and as a result deliver more stable prices. It’s not as if the population is suddenly getting cheape…

"all else equal" is in there.

He was trying to make a point - that flexibility is valuable. And it is valuable. All else equal you'd take more flexibility than less, especially since demand moves around a good amount.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#153

Post by orangeoxidation » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #116

ak217 wrote: post #93

> Nuclear is sometimes praised for having lower fuel costs, but all else being equal (ie: assuming total production cost stays constant), it’s better to have a larger fraction of your electricity costs be variable, so that if demand drops then production cost drops as well. This is not obviously true. I could make an argument that base load generation capacity (nuclear and hydro in particular) should be state-owned o…

> base load generation capacity What's the consensus on the meaning of 'base load generation capacity'? There are those who'd say it's an archaic term often used to defend power sources that can't ramp up and down to meet demand, and nuclear would be top of that list. If - for instance - there are times when it's windy and sunny, why should consumers have to pay more than the market rate to nuclear generators, just b…

Yup, that seems a strange argument. Power usage varies during the day, but it doesn't really go below some "base load".

Nuclear can run basically 24/7, but you cannot turn it on or off quick enough to to react to hourly changes in demand. So nuclear power is only good for base load.

We need peaker plants to get the rest. Gas plants are the popular (cheap) choice for this. Carbon free alternatives are pumped hydro or batteries.

With renewables the production capacity is variable as well.

To fill possible "holes" in it we don't need more base load. What renewables need are ... peaker plants. A role nuclear reactors are exceptionally unsuited to fill.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#154

Post by thraway11 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:37 PM UTC

"For instance, in the 1980s several nuclear power plants in Washington were canceled after the estimated construction costs increased from $4.1 billion to over $24 billion."

That's not even 10x. I would say hitting the correct order of magnitude is "on budget" for civil engineering projects.

Here is what out of budget looks like:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-13/how-the-c...

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#155

Post by necheffa » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

logifail wrote: post #116

ak217 wrote: post #93

> Nuclear is sometimes praised for having lower fuel costs, but all else being equal (ie: assuming total production cost stays constant), it’s better to have a larger fraction of your electricity costs be variable, so that if demand drops then production cost drops as well. This is not obviously true. I could make an argument that base load generation capacity (nuclear and hydro in particular) should be state-owned o…

> base load generation capacity What's the consensus on the meaning of 'base load generation capacity'? There are those who'd say it's an archaic term often used to defend power sources that can't ramp up and down to meet demand, and nuclear would be top of that list. If - for instance - there are times when it's windy and sunny, why should consumers have to pay more than the market rate to nuclear generators, just b…

The technology to do load follow at a nuclear plant exists.

If you think about it, "base load" has nothing to do with the power source. Given some period of time, say a day, you are always going to have a certain minimum demand for power generation in a geographic location. Congratulations, you have identified base load.

As the grid becomes more distributed and therefore less centralized, you are going to see base load hitting lower peaks because individual power generation stations will have less aggregate demand. But until society reaches a point where at least part of the day there is zero demand on the grid (fat chance) you will always have base load in some shape or form.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#156

Post by 7952 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

hutzlibu wrote: post #72

jason-phillips wrote: post #19

Last year I did a fair amount of consulting work for the GAIN initiative at Idaho National Lab [0]. They're doing so much good work with micro and modular reactors that can basically be "dropped in" decommissioned coal-burning sites because the infrastructure to tie into the electric grid already exists. It was expressed to me that selling this idea to the private-sector energy industry was an uphill battle and uptak…

"selling this idea to the private-sector energy industry was an uphill battle" Could you elaborate on the why? I would asume, because of risk. A solar plant, you can more or less just put anywhere, but a nuclear power plant, even a small one, needs state permission, has to meet extensive regulation, etc. It would need some convincing for me, too, that a nuclear reactor can be just a drop in replacement for coal. I wo…

Not the parent but have some experience with this on the UK. Typically energy companies will start with the technology they want to develop and then find a site that will suit it. Starting with the plot of land is the wrong way around. And existing decomissioned sites are just an asset like any other. They may be sold for a distribution centre or a data centre. And the grid connection may be used by a new power station built on a neighboring plot or to connect an offshore wind farm.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#157

Post by pmyteh » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

ImHereToVote wrote: post #39

pmyteh wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, probably. This can bring its own problems, though. In Britain, for example, the Treasury is extremely reluctant to approve new public capital projects, even at negative real interest rates. Investment is effectively rationed by requiring a benefit/cost ratio of above 2 (at net present value, after making heavy optimism bias adjustments) before it will approve funding. New nuclear won't get close to that on any c…

This is because of "not corruption"

It's mostly because the ability of the economy to produce positive economic (but not direct financial) returns on very cheap credit is basically infinite, and borrowing money to invest in all of these things would need a huge amount of extra tax revenue to pay off the loans, which is hard. (Even in principle it's not straightforward for government to capture the consumer surplus of infrastructure investment. And in practice tax increases are politically problematic). So it's rationed, instead.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#158

Post by db65edfc7996 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:39 PM UTC

jandrese wrote: post #73

loeg wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they do while in port in Hawaii. Hawaiian electricity is largely diesel (other than nuclear coming from Navy ships).

Isn't Hawaii also transitioning a significant fraction of its generation to solar? Diesel can be ramped up and down easily to account for varying production from solar.

The Hawaii government page [0] list a goal of getting to 100% renewables by 2045. If I am reading the report correctly, the 2020 number was already at 36% renewables.

[0]: https://energy.hawaii.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/HSEO_20... ( pdf warning )

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#159

Post by sveme » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:42 PM UTC

curiousllama wrote: post #150

jacquesm wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it disconcerting that a defective critical piece ended up being used anyway, regardless of the economies involved. That might mean you have no reactor, but you can't just go an substitute broken or out of spec parts for good ones.

I mean depends how it's broken, right? Broken could just mean anything from "will blow up momentarily" to "more inefficient than spec, but totally safe"

But with that position any spec is useless.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#160

Post by mandevil » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:43 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #21

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…

The recent US nuclear construction projects have been plagued with similar incompetence, such as trying to build plans that were unconstructable, and then having to get regulatory approval for the changes. I would like to see comparisons to other large construction projects too. The US is really really bad at large construction projects, but European construction seems a lot better.

Unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear Europe's (excluding Russia) basically in the same boat as the US.

Consulting the current list of nuclear power plants under construction around the world by a pro-nuclear power group here: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

I see the following as the only ones still under construction in all of Europe (not counting Belarus and Russia): 1) Mochovce 3 in Slovakia. Construction started November 2008, originally scheduled to complete in 2012, now hopefully complete later this year, so 15 years total, 10 years late. 2) Flamenville 3 in France. Construction started in 2007, originally scheduled to complete in 2012. Hopefully complete in 2023, so 16 years later, 11 years late. 3) Mochovce 4 in Slovakia. Construction started November 2008, original scheduled to complete in 2013, now hopefully complete in 2023, so 16 years total, 10 years late. 4,5) Hinkley Point C1 and C2 in the UK. Construction started in roughly 2008, originally expected to be online 2022 or so ("early 2020s" is the best I can find with Google now, and that's for both C1 and C2 to be online). Now C1 is expected to be complete in 2027, and C2 in 2028. So 19-20 years total, 6 years late.

(The US has two reactors on the list, Vogtle 3 and 4, started in 2009, originally expected to finish in 2016 and 2017, now expected to finish in 2023.)

I suspect that Europe's success in building rapid transit, compared to America, is due to the fact that they were continuously building such systems, whereas the US largely hasn't, so there is no cohort of engineers and workers who learned-by-doing and get better over time. But in nuclear, those workers seem to have gone in Europe as well- you can see from this 2020 chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...) that France built almost all of their reactors in a giant lump between 1970 and 1983, built a few reactors later in the 1980s (presumably late career work from the people who had built so many earlier), and has found building a new reactor to be really hard, e.g. Flamenville 3 is just as big a disaster as Vogtle.