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

101–110 of 298 posts

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

#101

Post by parineum »

bombcar wrote: post #77
aidenn0 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

California's power grid is not in great shape.

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

#102

Post by kragen »

BMc2020 wrote: post #97

Here's my response from 10 days ago to this same story. 0 points by BMc2020 10 days ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? ... I opened all three of these, but did not read any of them I did a Ctrl-F for "subsid" (to find subsidy or subsidies) 0 hits I did a Ctrl-F for "decomm" (to find decommission or decommissioning) 0 hits Having read many of these types of…

You can in theory decommission naval nuclear reactors by letting them sink to the bottom of the ocean in a terrible, sad accident from which fortunately all the sailors were safely rescued. I don't know that anybody has done this; often the sailors all died.

But it seems that even without taking decommissioning into account, naval nuclear reactors are not cost-competitive with other power sources. Looking for "subsidies" when we're talking about a military project doesn't make sense; the project is 100% taxpayer-funded unless some supplier is selling parts to the government at a loss. Far more likely, lamentably, is the opposite, the proverbial thousand-dollar toilet seats.

Maybe it's relevant to the cost question that the Navy can buy diesel engines from half a dozen naval diesel engine vendors but has to commission custom nuclear power plants.

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

#103

Post by tuatoru »

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.

Cost is indeed the issue for commercial power generation. So let's look at costs. Especially, let's look at cost trends.

My sources are: Lazard's 2022 levelized cost of energy estimates; NREL's Spring 2022 Solar Industry Update: the Global Wind Energy Council's Global Wind Report 2022 highlights; and especially the 2022 report in Cell (Cell's "Joule" sub-publication) called "Empirically Grounded Energy Forecasts and the Energy Transition".

On the basis of the trends in costs shown there, I conclude that 1) coal, nuclear, and large-scale hydro are obsolete for power generation; 2) combined-cycle gas, peaker gas, and on-shore wind generation are obsolescent. (Biomass thermal, concentrated solar thermal, and geothermal are essentially lab experiments. A few hundred MW or maybe 2 GW total globally each. Oil is of course obsolete too.)

Once current project pipelines are emptied (2035 maybe?), there won't be much of any of these built for commercial power generation, because they won't be able to compete except in obscure niches. Onshore wind comes closest to being competitive, but its costs are not dropping fast enough. The costs of the others are rising.

(According to NREL and the GWEC respectively, cumulative global solar PV installed capacity is 939 GWdc, most of it installed in 2018-2021, and cumulative global wind capacity installed is 837 GW, most installed 2012-2019. Onshore wind, while it has not yet peaked in terms of yearly increment, has peaked as a share of total generation, while PV is bottlenecked by permitting queues alone.)

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

#104

Post by epistasis »

towaway15463 wrote: post #93
epistasis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have exact numbers for any of these questions. However, we know that regardless of the inputs in materials or land, the ultimate dollar cost, all in, is cheaper than nuclear. Take the levelized cost of solar for the MWh coinciding with daylight hours, and the levelized cost of storage during the other hours, and nuclear is blown out of the water: https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...…

If small commercial solar operations are in fact cheap and have a high return then why am I not seeing startup solar power generation companies everywhere? Surely it would be a hot industry to get into if you can put it anywhere and make a profit?

I would suggest that those companies exist everywhere, you just don't see them. There's something like 1 TW of renewable projects that are being considered in US interconnection queues right now. Total US power draw is only 0.5TW. At and average of ~30% capacity factor, that's 60% of total US electricity demand replacement, with today's projects.

Now, only a fraction of these will get connected, because only the marginal best investment dollar gets the invested, but the scale is there.

Really the limit it current solar and wind production capacity, which is ever increasing at absolutely terrific speeds.

This is one of many reasons that I think a focus on nuclear is the wrong place. It's not going to be able to scale to catch up to these other technologies, even if after 60 years of development, nuclear finds a learning curve for the first time ever.

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

#105

Post by ncmncm »

crote wrote: post #74
virissimo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 teste…

All of the above is true enough, but it is not the full story on why US nukes cost like they do.

The ones attempted recently in South Carolina and Georgia cost so much because people in a position to block building them want it that way. Once a nuke project starts, a torrent of money starts flowing. Everybody with a stake expects a share, and none want it ever to end. Finishing a plant would plug that flow. If it looks like the flow will dry up regardless, they might deliver something at the end.

We see the same process with urban tunnels and big military procurements. It is all perfectly legal. It is probably not fixable.

Thus far, wind and solar projects have mostly avoided it, maybe in part because their legitimate costs are easy to estimate.

Existing nukes also cost more than renewables to operate, because they actually have operating costs. Big steam turbines, in particular, need regular overhauls. So, it is hard for anything with a steam turbine to compete with something that has none. Reactors need also operation, inspections, refueling, security, compliance monitoring... the list goes on.

Solar panels might need to be dusted off, or replaced. The worst that can happen to a wind turbine is to catch fire.

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

#106

Post by BMc2020 »

kragen wrote: post #102
BMc2020 wrote: post #97

Here's my response from 10 days ago to this same story. 0 points by BMc2020 10 days ago | parent | context | prev | next [–] | on: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? ... I opened all three of these, but did not read any of them I did a Ctrl-F for "subsid" (to find subsidy or subsidies) 0 hits I did a Ctrl-F for "decomm" (to find decommission or decommissioning) 0 hits Having read many of these types of…

You can in theory decommission naval nuclear reactors by letting them sink to the bottom of the ocean in a terrible, sad accident from which fortunately all the sailors were safely rescued. I don't know that anybody has done this; often the sailors all died. But it seems that even without taking decommissioning into account, naval nuclear reactors are not cost-competitive with other power sources. Looking for "subsid…

You didn't read parts 1 and 2? You've had many chances since this propoganda is re-posted so frequently:

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy (constructionphysics.substack.com) 104 points by gmays 5 hours ago | flag | past | 100 comments Why did we wait so long for wind power? Part I (constructionphysics.substack.com) 26 points by jseliger 9 days ago | flag | past | 4 comments Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy (constructionphysics.substack.com) 4 points by bilsbie 10 days ago | flag | past | 1 comment Why did we wait so long for wind power? (constructionphysics.substack.com) 2 points by gok 10 days ago | flag | past | discuss Why aren't there economies of scale in building size? (constructionphysics.substack.com) 2 points by rwmj 21 days ago | past Where do economies of scale come from? Part II (constructionphysics.substack.com) 66 points by jseliger 23 days ago | past | 4 comments Where Economies of Scale Come From (constructionphysics.substack.com) 10 points by vwoolf 28 days ago | past How the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Works (constructionphysics.substack.com) 44 points by jseliger 34 days ago | past | 15 comments Why are there so few economies of scale in construction? Part I (constructionphysics.substack.com) 95 points by danboarder 34 days ago | past | 84 comments Why are there so few economies of scale in construction? (constructionphysics.substack.com) 5 points by h2odragon 35 days ago | past | 2 comments How NEPA Works (constructionphysics.substack.com) 3 points by burlesona 41 days ago | past | 1 comment How the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Works (constructionphysics.substack.com) 2 points by jseliger 42 days ago | past The Rise and Fall of the Manufactured Home – Part I (constructionphysics.substack.com) 158 points by samclemens 76 days ago | past | 174 comments The Rise and Fall of the Manufactured Home – Part I (constructionphysics.substack.com) 3 points by jseliger 77 days ago | past Nuclear reactor costs – US Navy Edition (constructionphysics.substack.com) 4 points by uncertainrhymes 88 days ago | past Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part III – the nuclear navy (constructionphysics.substack.com) 3 points by jseliger 3 months ago | past Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part II (constructionphysics.substack.com) 34 points by jseliger 3 months ago | past | 14 comments Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Part II (constructionphysics.substack.com) 3 points by jseliger 3 months ago | past | 1 comment

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

#107

Post by labcomputer »

towaway15463 wrote: post #92
ok_dad wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, part of the bonus of solar+storage vs. large nuclear is that when you spread out your generation into smaller grid sections, then you can reduce the need for large transmission infrastructure that requires maintenance[1]. Distributed software is good, so why not distributed energy generation? Answer: distributed energy generation is great! [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/05/california-finds-pge-equipm…

Even so, when people say that we’ll just spread out this energy generation infrastructure everywhere I still want to know the actual numbers. Are there enough rooftops and vacant lots in LA to provide all the necessary power? What about lower density areas? What about northern climates with lots of snow and rain? There is still maintenance involved, installation costs are likely increased by doing this piecemeal rath…

So, like, why don't you try to calculate this for yourself? As a pedagogical exercise, I think you'll get much more out of it if you compute the numbers for yourself and play through a bunch of "what if" scenarios.

Just to get you started with some ballpark numbers: The solar irradiance at ground level on a sunny day is greater than 1kW/m^2 for about 6 hours per day (google for "AM1.5"). Typical commercial panels have a conversion efficiency of 21-22%.

You seem very confident that solar is impossible, so why don't you make some reasonable assumptions and prove it to all of us?

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

#108

Post by ryan93 »

ok_dad wrote: post #5
Spivak wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why don’t we have the US fricking navy actually run and manage the reactors? It’s not as if they only exist at sea. And if the reactors are actually wholly military operated we might get the added benefit of being able to use the Navy’s 20ish year lead on civilian nuclear. Amazing what you can learn when you have a navy nuclear engineer a few beers in and trying to impress you.

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…

Expensive compared to the increase in national debt over last ten years?

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

#109

Post by poorlyknit »

godelski wrote: post #94
poorlyknit wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know acidburn but I'd argue that having a PhD in nuclear engineering and having worked in the field is likely to increase your bias towards nuclear (being a "nuclear bro") rather than equalize it. PLT PhDs will tell you Haskell is the best programming language and environmental science PhDs will tell you solar is the best energy source.

This is an odd argument. You're basically saying that being more knowledgeable about something makes your opinion less useful. Everyone knows there's bias but if you're arguing that we shouldn't value someone's opinion because they're an expert then we're not going to progress very far in society. I'm not saying you have to take his word as divine truth but dismissing experts is extremely naive.

Sibling comment is basically what I meant and my general opinion about the linked website as well.

> You're basically saying that being more knowledgeable about something makes your opinion less useful.

In certain contexts I definitely think this. Imagine you're a CEO that has to decide how to distribute profits among departments. Obviously you'll listen to the head/experts of every department to weigh your options, but you can't really trust them to be unbiased (Obviously not the best analogy but I hope it helps get my point across (: ).

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

#110

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

mkoubaa wrote: post #100
whearyou wrote: post #44

Until fail-safe fission technology is ready (unlike fail deadly technology which all current and planned systems currently are) nuclear power seems to me a sophisticated example of cutting off your nose to spite your face

Burning coal instead of nuclear seems to be a rather unsophisticated example of cutting off your nose to spite your face

Or, to snark on the other half of that post: Instead of building power plants that are deadly when they fail, we'll just build power plants which are deadly all the time.
Post reply on HN