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

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#201

Post by rndmind » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:48 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…

Consider how new the industry is, this comment is an hilarious load of logical fallacies

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#202

Post by logifail » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #189

orangeoxidation wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> but you cannot turn it on or off quick enough to to react to hourly changes in demand To be precise, it cannot stop consuming fuel quick enough that there's any important savings, and so nuclear power plants always want to run at full capacity because otherwise they are wasting fuel. But more than that, fuel consumption is simply not a very big part of the running cost of a nuclear power plant, most is fixed cost s…

> To be precise, it cannot stop consuming fuel quick enough that there's any important savings, and so nuclear power plants always want to run at full capacity because otherwise they are wasting fuel. But more than that, fuel consumption is simply not a very big part of the running cost of a nuclear power plant, most is fixed cost so that even if they could change the fuel consumption quickly there's just not enough savings to really bother with it

(Sorry) but that sounds like a slightly long-winded way of saying that nuclear just isn't economically viable.

"the costs of renewables continue to fall due to incremental manufacturing and installation improvements while nuclear, despite over half a century of industrial experience, continues to see costs rising"[0]

[0] https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/09/24/nuclear-power-is-now-...

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#203

Post by theptip » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

bipson wrote: post #176

theptip wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35x of a small problem is not necessarily a big problem. You need to quantify that objection. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); the concern raised here is usually proliferation risk. Given a binary choice, I'd rather have to deal with some nuclear waste than climate change, and I don't even think that climate change is an existential risk for humanity (just likely to cause large and uneven…

The whole problem with the whole argument is: It isn't a binary choice.

I was using that phrasing to illustrate my ranking of preference between those two options, I wasn't claiming that we have a binary choice.

To be clear, I am explicitly advocating for a proper cost/benefit analysis that keeps all options on the table, rather than getting caught up on single factors ("we can't do micro-nuclear because it produces more nuclear waste"). As I mentioned later in the post, a major push to renewables is another option (I also don't see these as mutually exclusive).

I know that the most popular plan here is "push hard for renewables". I like that plan; I think a Green New Deal is an excellent idea. But empirically, how is that plan going? If that's your plan A, do you think it's going well enough to reject a plan B that you deem to be worse, but still dramatically better than climate change? I think the stakes are high enough that we should be hedging our bets.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#204

Post by larsrc » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #92

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.

You make it sound like it's some SciFi tech where in reality Germany has replaced half of it's whole production with true green energy in the last two decades. Replacing nuclear years ago.

That's inaccurate. Germany has replaced half of its _electricity_ production with renewables (modulo dispatchability), but electricity only accounts for a quarter of the energy usage. We frequently have to import electricity from France now, where it's largely made by nuclear, and electricity in France is a lot cheaper than here. Closing the German nuclear plants was grand scale stupid.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#205

Post by SoftTalker » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:50 PM UTC

samstave wrote: post #109

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…

That sounds like a brilliant idea. However, the tooling and staffing requirements of a Coal Plant arent going to suffice for a nuke. How do they propose training for existing employees of a coal plant. We think of Coal folks as "dirty stupid miners from kentucky" and we think of people that work at nuke sites as "white lab coat wearing scientists" The only dirty stupid person from Kentucky is Mitch.

I think there is a good amount of overlap.

Operating the reactor is of course specialized. But once you have the steam, the rest of the power plant is conventional. Steam turbines, generators, and all the grid tie-in would be mostly the same as a coal plant.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#206

Post by logifail » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:51 PM UTC

orangeoxidation wrote: post #153

logifail wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> you cannot turn it on or off quick enough to to react to hourly changes in demand

Surely you'd want actually want suppliers to react to changes in spot price, not just demand? If it's windy and sunny, it might not matter if demand is high! If it's calm and cloudy, you have a problem.

If the spot electricity price is high, you want providers to jump in and supply electricity. If it's low, or indeed goes negative[0], you want them to shut down.

Nuclear just doesn't fit this model, since investors appear to want the strike price guaranteed for several decades before they'll even start pouring concrete for their plant.

[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266679242...

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#207

Post by belorn » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:53 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #192

mellavora wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh. I'd argue that they should be state-sponsored because that is what the state is for-- investing in long-term infrastructure where the value is widely diffused and thus hard to capture via market mechanisms, i.e. investments which are foundational to the more focused investments which business is so well suited to maximize. similar to things like interstate highways or internets or public schooling. I'd add "heal…

Indeed, US large-construction has reached a point of fundamental/terminal corruption through the process of private contracting and especially through the bid-based system. You can see this with the disastrous failure of public transit construction and planning in the country and if nuclear became an option, it seems very likely that the same corrupt mouths that eat up transit spend would also eat nuclear spending. S…

One of the largest problem is the concept of cost-plus contracts, where the construction doesn't have a fixed cost from the beginning. Government could in theory avoid this problem by doing the design first and then have companies bid on the construction without a cost-plus contract. This assumes that the regulations remain constant from start to finish, as well as the contractual obligations.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#208

Post by theptip » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:54 PM UTC

throwaway23234 wrote: post #190

theptip wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35x of a small problem is not necessarily a big problem. You need to quantify that objection. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); the concern raised here is usually proliferation risk. Given a binary choice, I'd rather have to deal with some nuclear waste than climate change, and I don't even think that climate change is an existential risk for humanity (just likely to cause large and uneven…

> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA.…

I agree with the trend here. It's inevitable that solar will displace fossil fuels eventually (especially when you consider that fossil fuels will gradually increase in price as the cost to extract goes up).

The problem is that moving to solar solely by riding out the market-led transition won't happen fast enough. We would need to subsidize a lot more to avert the worst outcomes of climate change.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#209

Post by logifail » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:55 PM UTC

necheffa wrote: post #155

logifail wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lo…

> you are always going to have a certain minimum demand for power generation in a geographic location. Congratulations, you have identified base load.

If it's - say - sunny and windy, your renewables are always going to undercut all other generators. So when they undercut nuclear, basic market forces should mean nuclear doesn't get to supply a single MW, and if that means investors lose out, well, tough.

Base load should always be supplied by the cheapest supplier. Not the least flexible and/or the ones with the highest fixed costs.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#210

Post by larsrc » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:58 PM UTC

jokoon wrote: post #131

I'm not an expert but I'm a bit skeptical about small nuclear reactor designs. I want to believe they would be cost effective, but... It doesn't seem there is a prototype that is cheap?

Prototypes are never cheap. Prototypes are where all the research and design costs go. Once you have a design that works and doesn't have to be customised for each instance, you can get economics of scale because now you're just producing the same items over and over.