Live data from Hacker News

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

constructionphysics.substack.com

181–190 of 298 posts

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

#181
Just remember that a huge part of the current excess cost is in part:

(a) because nuclear power is the only energy technology for which the full lifecycle costs have to be fully accounted for upfront. No one is accounting for the disposal costs of solar panels in their initial capital expenditure, for example.

(b) The build costs in terms of energy of wind and solar are comparably high. They are raw material and energy hungry and have a much lower energy return on investment and require a much larger geographic footprint. Plus their use without adequate baseload generation will necessitate a large additional requirement for raw materials to create energy storage. Much if not all of wind and solar’s cost advantages will likely evaporate in an environment where they are no longer subsidized by very cheap fossil fuels.

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

#182
post #105
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…

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

Not being a lawyer and all that, would some of this holding of the hands-out not qualify as some sort of grift or worse? Are there not laws already in place for this stuff? Is it a case of it being too hard to prove so no prosecutions are brought?

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

#183
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jumbojets are hugely complex with hundreds of kilometers of pipes and wires and yet a thousand of them are in the air right this second. Complexity is a nothingburger.

Sounds like you have it under control. I suggest you take your business plan to YCombinator and make some serious money.

To be fair, complex is solvable compared to complicated. You just break each of the complex steps into components that are easier to solve individually. This is part and parcel for software peeps.

As stated does sound a bit pompous, but at the core, it's not inaccurate

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

#184
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.

Yes, the OP is the last in an entire trilogy of articles discussing this issue in detail.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar experience relentless experience effects, with cost dropping by about 20% for each doubling of cumulative production. Nuclear has not shown good experience effects.

Nuclear's learning rate is about the same magnitude! ...In the opposite direction, but about the same magnitude.

hmmm, I've never thought about magnitude being signed or unsigned. Is it little-endian or big-endian I'm now wondering

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

#186
post #116

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…

My best guess is what Freeman Dyson said in his autobiography Disturbing the Universe : he stopped working on nuclear reactors after TRIGA (01958) and Project Orion (01957 to 01961) because it stopped being fun. It became a question of bureaucracy and national security and empire-building and whatnot. So people like Dyson, who learned calculus by spending his Christmas vacation working his way through a textbok for f…

I'm so glad that you brought up TRIGA. For those who don't know, the story of TRIGA is quite fascinating from our perspective. The pitch was rather simple, "Build a reactor that a teenager could play with" (without supervision). And they succeeded.

The reactor was designed in the span of a few months. They started in the summer of 01956. The first one was commissioned and built in May of 01958. And it ran until 1997, steadily producing 250 MW with occasional "pulses" up to 1,000 MW, the entire time.

Let's take a minute to appreciate that. They went from design to implementation in less than 2 years, that's lightning fast even in startup terms. And their design has never malfunctioned, ever. AFAICT, there are 66 of these reactors out there in the world that have operated for nearly 7 decades with 0 incidents. Some of them are even true to form and are operated by teenagers!

And I suspect that's the real reason why nuclear power is so expensive. While regulatory burdens, subsidies, and general corruption do indeed explain the exponential cost increases for nuclear power, the truth is that these are proximate causes. The distal cause is simple; the reactors suck. We've been designing them wrong for decades now, and we need to make rethink them from the ground up.

Luckily, I'm not the only person who thinks that. Far more smarter people have been bringing the fun back to nuclear engineering, and we are finally getting a series look at concepts like pebble bed reactors.

I hope that someday we'll have forever batteries and power sources that are small, self-contained, and can be carted for use anywhere, including space.

Achieving this goal requires everything from the kinds of modular designs NuScale https://www.nuscalepower.com/ and Terrapower https://www.terrapower.com/ are working on to Zeno Power's radioisotope systems, https://www.zenopower.com/

I am excited for the future again.

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

#187
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are pragmatic solutions for the limited but long lasting deadly waste created. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...

Well the best strategy would be LFTR/MSRs that can breed and/or burn the waste to usable isotopes or as fuel. But it's always interesting how much pro-nuclear people are anti-MSR or anti-anything-but-huge-concrete-domes-and-solid-rods Because the lobbies underlying nuclear power in solid fuel rod processing is a lucrative government boondoggle. All the nuke proponents say "we are losing all the old guard!". I actuall…

This is ridiculous. Never in my life have I read someone say "Build nuclear, but not MSR!!" My problem with MSR is that I do not have a productive one I can point to and say "There! It works!". But by all means, let's build some!

And then, you nicely suggest that all pro-nuclear people somehow _must be shills_ (as if, uhh, nuclear people just love destroying the world, I guess?) that really is ridiculous and not a too charitable reading of the opponents.

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

#188
post #116

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…

My best guess is what Freeman Dyson said in his autobiography Disturbing the Universe : he stopped working on nuclear reactors after TRIGA (01958) and Project Orion (01957 to 01961) because it stopped being fun. It became a question of bureaucracy and national security and empire-building and whatnot. So people like Dyson, who learned calculus by spending his Christmas vacation working his way through a textbok for f…

Silly question: why do you use 5-digit years with a leading zero? I have never seen this format anywhere else...

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

#189

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…

I don't think this black and white thinking is really useful. There are inhabited places in the world where solar and wind face real challenges to practicality as the sole source of energy. I would be shocked if we're capable of building an amount of storage that will get the city I live in through the winter, for example. Certainly not for cheaper than a natural gas plant, which is the real competition.

Frankly, whenever this comes up the handwaving about storage just seems hopelessly optimistic even for places where it is practical, let alone places where you're lucky to get 4 hours of sunlight a day for a bunch of the year.

Nothing is ever that simple. If carbon zero is an imperative, then there will sometimes be need for something other than solar and wind, and it will inevitably be "impractically expensive" compared to the carbon emitting sources we're moving away from.

It's certainly important to improve the economies of scale of renewables, but doing so is not the goal. Saving money is not the goal. The survival of the human species is the goal, and we aren't going to get there by nickel and diming our way to it.

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

#190
post #77
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.

With the increase in EVs, AC, and heat pumps, I'd expect electricity demand to increase in the next decade.
Post reply on HN