Live data from Hacker News

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

constructionphysics.substack.com

301–310 of 512 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#301
post #253

The cost of nuclear energy seems seriously understated. Nuclear waste storage costs the US $6B per year and we still don’t have a long-term storage plan. We’ll incur this cost for hundreds or thousands of years. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us... There’s also a cost to secure the nuclear infrastructure. https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/nuclear-generation... Can anyone find a cost…

Waste management is by far the smallest of all the problems with nukes.

Overwhelmingly the biggest problem is wholly legal corruption, as cost and schedule are allowed to balloon without limit. For everyone involved, the gravy train stops when a plant is delivered, which no one actually involved wants ever to happen. (If it must end anyway, there is some incentive to actually deliver, as happened at Olkiluoto, but not at Vogtle.) No one has offered any plausible suggestion for how to contain corruption costs for nuke construction, at least in the US, never mind who should apply such containment.

No such dynamic is apparent in solar and wind projects, where expected cost is easy to estimate as a multiple of generating units -- panels and turbines.

We may expect that SMRs will not find traction specifically because they do not seem to offer the conduit for graft that bespoke nuke construction guarantees.

After corruption costs, we have numerous operating costs, some noted above, plus steam turbine maintenance, which each individually exceed the sum of operating costs of renewables. So capex is radically more and opex is radically more than for current cost of renewables, with no reasonable prospect for any reductions, never mind matching exponential decline of renewables costs.

There is also decommissioning cost, always omitted from reported capex. And, disaster insurance, always 100% subsidized by taxpayers, so omitted from reported opex.

As renewable generating capacity approaches and exceeds fossil generation, we will need to begin building out storage to provide base load. Cost for storage, in numerous forms, is falling even faster than for renewable generation. By the time we need any -- after we have enough renewable capacity to charge it -- storage will be very cheap indeed. Only a tiny fraction of it will be batteries, mostly for load smoothing (as now), as batteries will remain more expensive than alternatives.

Cheap storage will cost per W added or extracted, not per Wh stored, like batteries. Synthetic fuel -- ammonia and hydrogen, while costlier than others, have the advantage that surplus may be exported for direct revenue.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar is great in deserts, where the sun always shines and were the main use of electricity is air conditioning during the hottest parts of the day. Solar is near-useless in colder areas, where you want to use the power for heating in the winter. If you include the storage + grid expansion needed to compensate for the intermittent nature of most renewables (especially if you don't want to rely on fossil fuels when th…

Awesome then that on-shore wind is even cheaper than solar, and exists at night. Then for some more, still less than 1/3 to 1/4 of nuclear you get off-shore wind with higher capacity factors.

When the wind is not blowing, the cost of wind per kwh is infinite.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#303

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…

Here's an idea: offer one of these micro/modular reactors for free to a developer of a new residential division, and indemnify them by offering to remove it after at least N years in operation and up to M years after that. I would consider living in a division that has extra low-cost electricity. It couldn't be zero cost because nuclear could only provide base load power, unless one of these micro/modular reactor typ…

> Here's an idea: offer one of these micro/modular reactors for free to a developer of a new residential division...

One word: Epcot

It's something Disney and Florida could probably agree on, would be a wholesome PR story about investing in Walt's futurism dreams, and would be easier to negotiate than with a less-planned development.

And finally, what better showcase than "If it's safe enough for Disney"?

Our Friend the Atom, indeed https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QRzl1wHc43I

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#304
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why you say you can't throttle nuclear up and down. All thermal plants have inertia, but nuclear is if anything easier to throttle than fossil fuels. There's a lot of numbers, and comments from nuclear plant operators, in this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/NuclearPower/comments/m0rwso/how_fa...

> I don't know why you say you can't throttle nuclear up and down. All thermal plants have inertia, but nuclear is if anything easier to throttle than fossil fuels. In that case why don't we let the market build nuclear plants without any state guarantees or insurance and they can simply "throttle up" when they're required. No need to fix a strike price for decades before investors are interested. I'm sure it makes f…

That's quite the non-sequitor. An exploration of how broken "the market" is would be an entirely separate discussion. If you wanted to have that discussion, we could start by analyzing the massive subsidies enjoyed by fossil fuels, not to mention the complete lack of accounting for its toxic byproducts which are dumped into the atmosphere (while nuclear power is legally required to track and safely store every molecule).

Or we could just keep building gas peaker plants and ignore the mass die-offs, because "the market" can't possibly be wrong, right? /s

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anything this seems to support the position that the only way to reduce costs is to increase volume. A classic economies of scale example. Instead the experts want to disregard the data for vague reasons.

The cost of flying has come down by 50% since 1980, and while an airplane is a simpler machine than a nuclear plant, the two industries also have a lot in common (such as the perception of risk not being in their favour). By doing international standardization and coordination in ways similar to the aircraft industry, the same should be possible for the nuclear power industry. It should be possible to consolidate mos…

By the way, this blog (Construction Physics) is about why construction in general (not nuclear power construction in particular) is expensive. One big part is that construction is done on site, and site-to-site variation hurts standardization and economies of scale.

Finished airplanes can transport itself by flying. This advantage is particular to aircraft industry and probably can't be copied by other industries. Finished buildings can't transport itself.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can’t you just dump radioactive uranium into the bottom of the ocean? Can’t imagine it would do much damage with all of the water around it.

No https://theecologist.org/2009/mar/01/somalia-used-toxic-dump...

That doesn't really show anything because it's such a huge mixture and the vast majority is random toxic chemicals, not plain old spent fuel.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#307
post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are talking about the US and not like places like northern Europe, then they have a lot of existing capacity for fossil fuel production. The cheapest way to produce energy would be to just add more renewables and use that fossil fuel whenever that weather isn't optimal. Batteries might be competitive to fossil fuel in places such situation as highlighted by the financial advisor, ie when they can discharge full…

The batteries can often be cheaper than fossil fuels, especially when colocated with existing solar. Most solar designs currently under size the inverters compared to maximum solar power output, to get the cost optimal balance. Batteries on-site allow storage of that extra DC energy, and then reuse of the same inverters outside normal solar generation hours to discharge the batteries. This means that hitting the cost…

> and then reuse of the same inverters outside normal solar generation hours to discharge the batteries.

Yes, if we are talking about hours of capacity then batteries can be very cost competitive to fossil fuels. That is exactly what the financial advisor stated in their report.

In areas where solar + batteries can reliable handle all year round demands for energy, those technologies should just replace fossil fuels. There will likely be some natural gas plants that get subsidies to exist as reserve in case there is a sudden weather change, but nuclear wouldn't be a great option in such places.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying I think dumping nuclear waste in the ocean is a good idea (though I am also curious if there's been specific impact studies done on it, if we're talking about very very deep ocean) but I'm pretty sure somalia isn't in the ocean.

They were dumping waste off the coast of Somalia, in the ocean

"Bottom of the ocean" here doesn't mean on the continental shelf.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way to interpret that sentence is “it’s better not to spend too much on construction, and it can be better to spend on fuel if it means spending less on construction.” Building things you don’t need is waste of labor and resources, regardless of the economic system you use or who paid for it. This should be accounted for somehow.

What is needed changes over time. It is better to spend more on capital than operational costs if one actually wants the world to change not just ideal along. The best cost control is in large part doing lots of cookie-cutter work, hence the focus on small modular reactors. It is better to do those, and then ramp up the "small" part over time. Likewise, we should construct lots of rail simultaneously with ramp up to…

I agree that we are going to need more power generation as electricity replaces other forms of energy.

But for any given level of electricity generation, doing it in a cheaper way is still better than doing it in a more expensive way. For one thing, it allows capacity to be increased for the same cost.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#310
post #253

The cost of nuclear energy seems seriously understated. Nuclear waste storage costs the US $6B per year and we still don’t have a long-term storage plan. We’ll incur this cost for hundreds or thousands of years. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us... There’s also a cost to secure the nuclear infrastructure. https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/nuclear-generation... Can anyone find a cost…

> The cost of nuclear energy seems seriously understated. Nuclear waste storage costs the US $6B per year and we still don’t have a long-term storage plan. We’ll incur this cost for hundreds or thousands of years.

Wait til you hear about the costs of fossil fuel waste storage!

Post reply on HN