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

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 298 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#71

Post by hunterb123 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #6
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #2

I am stunned by the "Navy has operated 5,000 years of reactors". But, I come back to my basic thesis on nuclear power. It's the A+ game or bust Yes the US fricking Navy can do it well, but the minute the Soviet's ran out of cash they just let it all rust. If we lean on nuclear in the carbon energy transition then when we run out of money, can we afford to let them rust.

Human nature is inherently a bit of a crapshoot and progress on that front is slippery, but "make a reactor robust to neglect and abuse" is an engineering problem and progress on that front is sticky. We've gotten much better at this particular engineering problem. For instance, Fukushima was designed in 1967, but if it had been designed in 1972 it would not have had its fatal flaw.

Fukushima was neglect. As you said we had known those types of tsunamis were possible since 1972, but no additional safety measures were put into place over the decades.

There were multiple studies and suggestions ignored a decade before the incident: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster#200...

It wasn't that there was a fundamental flaw with the design, just the sea walls needed to be higher.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#72

Post by layer8 »

orangecat wrote: post #9
ok_dad wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That only solves part of the problem, the civilian reactors are still too expensive to build. Nuclear is great, I went through the Naval Nuclear Power Program several decades ago myself, but it's not financially viable . Let me say that again to those engineers who weren't listening: Nuclear (fission) power is not, and will never be, financially viable for civilian powerplants. I'll eat a roll of toilet paper covered…

Ok, but France exists.

An important motivation for France to invest in nuclear technology is that they want to remain a nuclear weapons state.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#73

Post by jjk166 »

oliwary wrote: post #66
jjk166 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is not fundamentally expensive[0], and most nuclear power plants currently in operation were cheap when they were built. The high costs of building new powerplants is a result of going decades without building any, leading to a loss of experience. Even still, nuclear remains competitive with other traditional power generation technologies like coal. Only with recent advancements in fracking did natural gas su…

But the fact is that we did go years without building any, leading to nuclear power plants being more expensive. It is the path we chose (rightly or wrongly) and today solar and wind is cheaper in the western world. Even if continuing to invest in nuclear in the 1970s was the right choice, it may no longer be the case today that we have those. (see Path Dependence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence ) In m…

That's a perfectly sensible argument, my point was just that for most of its history, the anti-nuclear movement was not making that argument.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#74

Post by crote »

virissimo wrote: post #41
tomComb wrote: post #34

Yes, cost is the issue. Everyone assumes that anyone hesitant about Nuclear power is focussed on the environmental or safety concerns, but that is wrong. The costs (and cost overruns) of the construction and maintenance of Nuclear reactors have been enough reason on their own to be bearish on Nuclear. I'm hopeful that new technologies, such as small nuclear reactions that can be built in a factory, will address this.

Our nations were far less wealthy when the existing stock of nuclear power plants were built, the technology available for building them have improved since then, and the raw resources needed as their inputs aren't a constraint, so why have costs risen so much relative to what we are willing to spend on it? Environmental and safety regulations are supposed to be explanations for this rise in cost, not rival explanati…

- Nuclear power plants are rare enough that each project is basically unique.

- Nuclear power plants are very complex. They are more "engineered" than "constructed", with hundreds of kilometers of tubes and wires. Pouring the concrete is the easy part.

- Nuclear power plants deal with an incredibly dangerous environment: high pressures, high temperatures, radioactivity, hazardous chemicals. Everything has to be tested, re-tested, and certified. Many parts will be near impossible to replace once it enters production, and the plant is supposed to be operational for decades.

- Nuclear power plants are safety-critical. Contrary to many other structures of similar complexity, things can get way worse than a big explosion. They have the potential to contaminate the site (or even the surrounding country) for decades or centuries. Failure is simply not acceptable.

- Safety regulations have been getting stricter over the years, because supposedly "100% safe" plants keep having accidents and the population is not very happy about that.

The existing stock of nuclear power plants is an offshoot of several military programs. The most common design is pretty much a submarine power plant on steroids, which turned out to be less than ideal. Things like "safety" and "profit" were almost seen as a suggestion more so than a requirement.

Newly-built power plants are required to incorporate over 50 years of innovation, but it turns out almost nobody has the skills to actually build them. They have simply gotten too complex to construct!

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#75

Post by oliwary »

jjk166 wrote: post #73
oliwary wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the fact is that we did go years without building any, leading to nuclear power plants being more expensive. It is the path we chose (rightly or wrongly) and today solar and wind is cheaper in the western world. Even if continuing to invest in nuclear in the 1970s was the right choice, it may no longer be the case today that we have those. (see Path Dependence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence ) In m…

That's a perfectly sensible argument, my point was just that for most of its history, the anti-nuclear movement was not making that argument.

That is fair! I do wonder where we would be had we never stopped investing in nuclear. Probably much better from a global warming perspective - alas, here we are.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#77

Post by bombcar »

aidenn0 wrote: post #68
acidburnNSA wrote: post #7

I wrote a similar take here on the topic: https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html

One comment on your sustainability argument, now that I know you are the author: Calculating "years of energy" based off of current usage seems silly to me given that global energy usage has been rising exponentially for centuries. For example, if you assume a 3% per-year increase in global energy usage, 12 billion years becomes a bit less than 1000 years.

Meanwhile California has increased population and kept their energy production relatively stable. We may have reached a peak.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#78

Post by nine_k »

virissimo wrote: post #41
tomComb wrote: post #34

Yes, cost is the issue. Everyone assumes that anyone hesitant about Nuclear power is focussed on the environmental or safety concerns, but that is wrong. The costs (and cost overruns) of the construction and maintenance of Nuclear reactors have been enough reason on their own to be bearish on Nuclear. I'm hopeful that new technologies, such as small nuclear reactions that can be built in a factory, will address this.

Our nations were far less wealthy when the existing stock of nuclear power plants were built, the technology available for building them have improved since then, and the raw resources needed as their inputs aren't a constraint, so why have costs risen so much relative to what we are willing to spend on it? Environmental and safety regulations are supposed to be explanations for this rise in cost, not rival explanati…

* Technology makes machines cheaper, and makes human work more expensive in comparison. Nuclear projects involve a lot of highly qualified human work.

* Technology makes repetitive operations cheaper. You build a factory for hundred million dollars, make a billion gadgets on it, and every gadget costs you ten cents to make. Nuclear projects lack the economy of scale: even the Navy is going to order reactors by a dozen, and civil power plant reactors may see even fewer installations per model. Thus the huge costs of the R&D and the factory are amortized over but a few reactors, making each of them very expensive.

* Due to small production scale, various custom materials needed for nuclear reactors, like special steels, are much more expensive than more widely used materials.

Nuclear is now in a position similar to solar cells 15 years ago: a promising technology which is too expensive due to small scale and bespoke nature of their production. It took a decade of betting on them, pouring money into them, and giving various discounts to the customers to get where we are now, with solar panels which are efficient, affordable, and available. I suppose nuclear tech would need the same to become cost-efficient. France did / does something along these lines; the US does not.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#79

Post by stjohnswarts »

tomComb wrote: post #34

Yes, cost is the issue. Everyone assumes that anyone hesitant about Nuclear power is focussed on the environmental or safety concerns, but that is wrong. The costs (and cost overruns) of the construction and maintenance of Nuclear reactors have been enough reason on their own to be bearish on Nuclear. I'm hopeful that new technologies, such as small nuclear reactions that can be built in a factory, will address this.

We'll all be bearish when it's 110 outside on the regular in the NE USA

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy

#80

Post by xupybd »

oliwary wrote: post #66
jjk166 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is not fundamentally expensive[0], and most nuclear power plants currently in operation were cheap when they were built. The high costs of building new powerplants is a result of going decades without building any, leading to a loss of experience. Even still, nuclear remains competitive with other traditional power generation technologies like coal. Only with recent advancements in fracking did natural gas su…

But the fact is that we did go years without building any, leading to nuclear power plants being more expensive. It is the path we chose (rightly or wrongly) and today solar and wind is cheaper in the western world. Even if continuing to invest in nuclear in the 1970s was the right choice, it may no longer be the case today that we have those. (see Path Dependence, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_dependence ) In m…

Nuclear runs constantly. Solar and wind don't. This is a significant problem. Storage is hard and inefficient.

We don't currently have a viable complete renewable solution. Nuclear is much better for the planet than fossil fuels and is the only option to bridge the gap required to operate the current renewables.

Post reply on HN