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

Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

constructionphysics.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 512 posts

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#21

Post by epistasis »

lelag wrote: post #15

The article misses another important aspect: loss of nuclear competency. Between the 60s and 80s, there were many nuclear reactors projects which allowed an industry to develop and get better at it. But since the 80s, there was comparatively very few new reactors built for over 20-30 years. The workforce that had the skills and knowledge related to actually building nuclear plants had mostly retired and their replace…

The recent US nuclear construction projects have been plagued with similar incompetence, such as trying to build plans that were unconstructable, and then having to get regulatory approval for the changes.

I would like to see comparisons to other large construction projects too. The US is really really bad at large construction projects, but European construction seems a lot better.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#22

Post by Tenoke »

xroche wrote: post #10

> Because nuclear plants are expensive, and they take a long time to build, financing their construction can also be a significant fraction of their cost, typically around 15-20% of the cost of the plant. For plants that have severe construction delays and/or have high financing costs (such as the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in Georgia), this can be 50% of the cost or more. This is why nuclear power plants should be state-…

If you think 50% cost overruns and overheads are uncommon for state sponsored projects.. you will be right but only because often the actual numbers are much higher.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#23

Post by sfe22 »

xroche wrote: post #10

> Because nuclear plants are expensive, and they take a long time to build, financing their construction can also be a significant fraction of their cost, typically around 15-20% of the cost of the plant. For plants that have severe construction delays and/or have high financing costs (such as the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in Georgia), this can be 50% of the cost or more. This is why nuclear power plants should be state-…

Zero percent or negative just means people involuntary pay by inflation. There is not free lunch (someone had to work to make it)

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#24

Post by sofixa »

Krasnol wrote: post #20
xroche wrote: post #10

> Because nuclear plants are expensive, and they take a long time to build, financing their construction can also be a significant fraction of their cost, typically around 15-20% of the cost of the plant. For plants that have severe construction delays and/or have high financing costs (such as the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in Georgia), this can be 50% of the cost or more. This is why nuclear power plants should be state-…

Why should states invest it's taxpayer money into overpriced and slow technology when there are cheaper and fast improving alternatives?

Because you can start a project with the existing, proven and expensive tech today. Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today (bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations). There's lots of hope, and money should be invested in the various alternatives, absolutely. But nobody can say when and if that tech would be ready.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#25

Post by bsedlm »

lelag wrote: post #15

The article misses another important aspect: loss of nuclear competency. Between the 60s and 80s, there were many nuclear reactors projects which allowed an industry to develop and get better at it. But since the 80s, there was comparatively very few new reactors built for over 20-30 years. The workforce that had the skills and knowledge related to actually building nuclear plants had mostly retired and their replace…

I think there's a larger point around the general notion of "spread of competency".

the competency is not allowed to spread. there's a thick shroud of secrecy around how all this sophisticated technology comes about.

This is also why semiconductors are so difficult.

Back in the early 20th century the nuclear stuff was secret so the nazis and then the russians would not get it.

Now semiconductors are also closely related to national security stuff (china and taiwan). I find it quite suggestive that most of the tech used to make the semiconductors is owned european companies.

Finally, I have a sensation that in the 18-19th century it was the chemical sciences that were similarly shrouded in secrecy of this sort.

There was a topic here on HN the other day about how there's so little popularization of chemistry... IMO, this is why, the legacy of secrecy so to guarantee competitive industrial advantages still casts its shadow.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#26

Post by comrh »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #16
colechristensen wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest nuclear vessel produces up to 160 MW, the smallest single nuclear reactor power plant about 500 MW (sites often have multiples), the largest nuclear reactor in the US is about 4 GW. An average wind turbine produces 2-3 MW.

CVN-78s reactor according to Wikipedia: > It is estimated that the total thermal power output of the A1B will be around 700 MW CVN-78 has two of them.

I think the discrepancy is not all the thermal output is converted to electricity:

> A1B reactors likely produce enough steam to generate 125 megawatts (168,000 hp) of electricity, plus 350,000 shaft horsepower (260 MW) to power the four propeller shafts.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#27

Post by BurningFrog »

Krasnol wrote: post #20
xroche wrote: post #10

> Because nuclear plants are expensive, and they take a long time to build, financing their construction can also be a significant fraction of their cost, typically around 15-20% of the cost of the plant. For plants that have severe construction delays and/or have high financing costs (such as the Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in Georgia), this can be 50% of the cost or more. This is why nuclear power plants should be state-…

Why should states invest it's taxpayer money into overpriced and slow technology when there are cheaper and fast improving alternatives?

Note that solar and wind power are NOT alternatives to the predictable base load of nuclear, hydro, or fuel burning power generation.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#28

Post by colinmhayes »

lelag wrote: post #15

The article misses another important aspect: loss of nuclear competency. Between the 60s and 80s, there were many nuclear reactors projects which allowed an industry to develop and get better at it. But since the 80s, there was comparatively very few new reactors built for over 20-30 years. The workforce that had the skills and knowledge related to actually building nuclear plants had mostly retired and their replace…

This is undoubtedly true, but south korea has now been building nuclear plants for decades, and their costs haven't really dropped at all.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#29

Post by pydry »

01100011 wrote: post #3

Totally unrelated question but does anyone know if nuclear powered US Navy vessels are able to feed power to the grid while in port? I know it's technically possible, just not sure if anyone has ever implemented such a thing.

Russia did it https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic-industry-and-energy...

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#30

Post by renewiltord »

sofixa wrote: post #24
Krasnol wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should states invest it's taxpayer money into overpriced and slow technology when there are cheaper and fast improving alternatives?

Because you can start a project with the existing, proven and expensive tech today . Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today (bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations). There's lots of hope, and money should be invested in the various alternatives, absolutely. But nobody can say when and if that tech would be ready.

According to this commenter, we can't build with the proven and expensive tech today because we don't have it any more

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31682876

Post reply on HN