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

How to get new nuclear built faster

samdumitriu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 52 posts

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#11

Post by sofixa »

aredox wrote: post #5
sofixa wrote: post #2

Okay, I didn't know that: > One major driver of Hinkley Point C’s costs is that EDF were effectively forced to build a first-of-its-kind reactor design by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. To win regulatory approval in the UK, EDF had to make roughly 7,000 design changes from the reactor design they use in France. Not only do the design changes mean that 25% more concrete and 35% more steel is needed during construc…

Before you say it's absurd, have you read the rationale behind the changes requested? Chesterton's fence applies.

I haven't but I'm going to go on a limb and say that if a reactor design is fine for north France, southeastern Finland, south China... it's probably fine for south England.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#13

Post by aaron695 »

aredox wrote: post #5
sofixa wrote: post #2

Okay, I didn't know that: > One major driver of Hinkley Point C’s costs is that EDF were effectively forced to build a first-of-its-kind reactor design by the Office for Nuclear Regulation. To win regulatory approval in the UK, EDF had to make roughly 7,000 design changes from the reactor design they use in France. Not only do the design changes mean that 25% more concrete and 35% more steel is needed during construc…

Before you say it's absurd, have you read the rationale behind the changes requested? Chesterton's fence applies.

[dead]

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#15

Post by nocoiner »

sofixa wrote: post #4
ok_dad wrote: post #3

I love all the nuclear articles here, it’s great to see the scary nuke plants become more mainstream. However, wake me up when they’re financially viable. I don’t expect that’ll be until we’re really in dire straits with the climate.

> However, wake me up when they’re financially viable. I don’t expect that’ll be until we’re really in dire straits with the climate. That's the thing though. Even absurdly expensive as they currently are, the damage they don't cause through the emissions they will save over their lifetime is probably worth it. And considering all the lessons EDF have learned on EPRs, it's highly probable that the next generation wil…

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity.

Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even modern, over budget, uneconomical nuclear is not all that much more expensive than massive scale renewables. And the capacity factor can’t be beat.

If the west could build even a handful of additional plants after Flamanville, Vogtle and the handful of others, is there any reason to think that the next tranche of plants is just hopelessly uneconomical with renewables?

To me it seems like even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#16

Post by toomuchtodo »

sofixa wrote: post #11
aredox wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before you say it's absurd, have you read the rationale behind the changes requested? Chesterton's fence applies.

I haven't but I'm going to go on a limb and say that if a reactor design is fine for north France, southeastern Finland, south China... it's probably fine for south England.

Just build it in Northern France then and add capacity to the UK interconnector, versus building it in the UK. Ship the electrons if you can't ship the tech.

https://www.nationalgrid.com/national-grid-ventures/intercon...

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#17

Post by marssaxman »

nocoiner wrote: post #15
sofixa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, wake me up when they’re financially viable. I don’t expect that’ll be until we’re really in dire straits with the climate. That's the thing though. Even absurdly expensive as they currently are, the damage they don't cause through the emissions they will save over their lifetime is probably worth it. And considering all the lessons EDF have learned on EPRs, it's highly probable that the next generation wil…

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity. Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even mo…

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix.

Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables offer substantially lower risk and quicker timelines than nuclear, so that's where the money seems likely to go. If we as a society want someone to build nuclear plants in the near term, for grid-stability reasons, we're probably going to have to subsidize the project.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#18

Post by iknowstuff »

nocoiner wrote: post #15
sofixa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, wake me up when they’re financially viable. I don’t expect that’ll be until we’re really in dire straits with the climate. That's the thing though. Even absurdly expensive as they currently are, the damage they don't cause through the emissions they will save over their lifetime is probably worth it. And considering all the lessons EDF have learned on EPRs, it's highly probable that the next generation wil…

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity. Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even mo…

Huh? The newest AP1000s in Georgia cost 34B (and counting) for 2237MWe. That’s like 4x the cost per GW in the numbers you quotes for the solar installation.

But wait, there’s more! horrible ROI and massive cost overruns:

> During the construction of Vogtle's first two units, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[7] ($18.3 billion in 2022 dollars[8])

> Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[12] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[13] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] In 2023 costs had increased to $34 billion, with work still to be completed on Vogtle 4.[15]

So why bother? Because base load? I mean damn, why not just toss in a couple Moss Landing type tesla megapack installations instead?

At 2.2GW, even if u wanted to store power for 12h, thats 26GWh. Moss Landing is 2.8GWh and it cost $560 million.

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#19

Post by iknowstuff »

The newest AP1000s in Georgia cost 34B (and counting) for 2.2GWe.

As usual, horrible ROI and massive cost overruns:

> During the construction of Vogtle's first two units, capital investment required jumped from an estimated $660 million to $8.87 billion.[7] ($18.3 billion in 2022 dollars[8])

> Two additional units utilizing Westinghouse AP1000 reactors were under construction since 2009, with Unit 3 being completed in July 2023.[9][10][11] This last report blames the latest increase in costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[12] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[13] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] In 2023 costs had increased to $34 billion, with work still to be completed on Vogtle 4.[15]

So why bother? Because base load? I mean damn, why not just toss in a couple Moss Landing type tesla Megapack installations instead?

At 2.2GW, even if u wanted to store power for 12h, thats 26GWh. Moss Landing is 2.8GWh and it cost $560 million. Ten of these is 5B, so an entire solar+megapack installation still ends up at half the cost of nuclear.

And you don’t need to store 12h of solar. And the rapid response of Megapacks is incredibly helpful for grid stability. And they can be spread out making the grid more resilient to natural disasters, attacks etc

Re: How to get new nuclear built faster

#20

Post by sofixa »

marssaxman wrote: post #17
nocoiner wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing that really struck me recently was an article about the commencement of a massive solar and transmission project in the American Southwest. Total cost for the panels and the transmission lines to deliver the power was something like $11 billion for (I think) around 3 GW of nameplate capacity. Assuming you could site a new nuclear plant somewhat closer to an interconnection point, it seems to me like even mo…

> even if nuclear is twice as expensive than renewables plus transmission, that’s a reasonable price to pay for the base load generation capabilities and diversification of the overall energy mix. Who is going around investing in the overall energy mix, though? People with $10 billion to invest aren't thinking "how can I optimize the grid", they're thinking "how can I get the best return on my capital"; renewables of…

Maybe critical infrastructure shouldn't be managed by people looking into short term ROI but long term and big scale planning.
Post reply on HN