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

121–130 of 298 posts

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

#121

Post by xupybd »

ncmncm wrote: post #115
xupybd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Storage is not, in fact, hard. Its efficiency is not important beyond a few hours' worth, because it is rarely needed. For those few hours, battery efficiency is very good.

If it was rarely needed and only needed for a few hours we wouldn't need all the fossil fuel based generation to fill the gaps.

I'm not aware of any significant battery based storage system deployed at scale that solves this problem. There are some large battery banks but none even close to the scale required. It's a hard problem as it would require a huge increase in global manufacturing.

I'd like to be wrong here. I'd love it if it was possible to build an affordable grid based on 100% renewable generation. It will be possible one day. I look forward to that day.

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

#122

Post by robmsmt »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #7

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

Thanks for the link, what are your thoughts on the position that France is in with a number of reactors out of action and requiring repairs? From an outsiders perspective, I am curious if it is really as simple as the French not keeping up with maintenance and it catching them at a bad time or are there issues with the reactor type or other influencing factors.

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

#123

Post by BonoboIO »

jjk166 wrote: post #65
BonoboIO wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building it maybe can get cheaper ... destruction and disposal will be even more expensive. Look at Germany. They are the first to really destruct the first power plant and it will take 20 to 25 years. Everything has to be checked.

The cost of decommissioning is included

Sorry, but nope. Nowhere near.

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

#124

Post by thatfrenchguy »

ncmncm wrote: post #115
xupybd wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Storage is not, in fact, hard. Its efficiency is not important beyond a few hours' worth, because it is rarely needed. For those few hours, battery efficiency is very good.

Storage emits a lot more co2/kwh though, and that's a big problem. Even when you remove cost from the equation.

There's also no grid in the world that runs on wind/solar+storage, it's obvious from looking at California that it would take 20+ years to arrive there.

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

#125

Post by BonoboIO »

Galaxeblaffer wrote: post #98
BonoboIO wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building it maybe can get cheaper ... destruction and disposal will be even more expensive. Look at Germany. They are the first to really destruct the first power plant and it will take 20 to 25 years. Everything has to be checked.

Which is mind bendingly stupid.. why would you switch from nuclear to coal in the middle of an energy crisis. Germany is the epitome of failed, stupid and corrupt energy planning and are now pulling the whole of Europe down with them.

In fact France is pulling Europe down. France was 80% nuclear energy, but half their power plants are down or failing so they have to import power from Germany (which is produced with natural gas). France was a net exporter, now they need massively import power.

Germany could handle their power load, but not theirs + france.

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

#126

Post by daniel-cussen »

poorlyknit wrote: post #84
daniel-cussen wrote: post #76

Quoted post unavailable.

Out of curiosity, how is this relevant to the posted article? I don't really see the connection but I'd be delighted to hear your train of thought.

[flagged]

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

#127

Post by pclmulqdq »

ncmncm wrote: post #105
crote wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- 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 loo…

Wind turbines also need regular maintenance, but a lot less than big turbines.

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

#128

Post by kragen »

BMc2020 wrote: post #106
kragen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You might want to leave a blank line between your paragraphs for less of a TIME CUBE vibe. You're still in the editing window, it isn't too late.

No, I haven't read parts I and II yet. They look interesting, maybe I will. That still puts me ahead of you since evidently you haven't read any of the three!

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

#129

Post by pclmulqdq »

tuatoru wrote: post #103
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…

So what is supposed to replace all of these obsolete technologies that currently account for the vast majority of energy generation? Lithium batteries, solar power, and offshore wind power?

There are so many problems with this scheme, not least of which is that you have pretty much no base load and batteries can't be manufactured at anywhere near enough scale to successfully do this "transition" for at least the next 20 years.

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

#130

Post by coryrc »

epistasis wrote: post #42
stormbrew wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government makes a steady stream of trillions of dollars appear in order to, among other things, build single use missiles for millions of dollars each and jets that have never seen real combat for billions each. The idea that any durable public work is somehow "too expensive" in the face of that is comically absurd.

Putting aside the wisdom of such massive defense spending, the question is what is the alternate good that could perform the job? If we spend $12B on a 1GW reactor, we have far far better alternatives. A 1GW nuclear reactor has a 90% capacity factor of undispatchable, hard to throttle electricity. At today's prices, thay $12B could instead buy 6GW of solar at 20% capacity factor, and 24GWh of batteries. This combined…

> At today's prices, thay $12B could instead buy 6GW of solar at 20% capacity factor, and 24GWh of batteries.

I don't think that can actually be done. The world's largest battery installation is less than 1 GWh AFAICT. OTOH we're not doing great at nuclear either.

Post reply on HN