Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#271

Post by Guvante » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:37 PM UTC

mch82 wrote: post #253

The cost of nuclear energy seems seriously understated. Nuclear waste storage costs the US $6B per year and we still don’t have a long-term storage plan. We’ll incur this cost for hundreds or thousands of years. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us... There’s also a cost to secure the nuclear infrastructure. https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/nuclear-generation... Can anyone find a cost…

It is complicated: $6B is supposedly related to nuclear waste from the weapons program which is likely hard to compare to power production sites for a huge number of reasons.

Technically there is a $40B fund paid for from taxes on nuclear production to deal with the long term storage problem by NIMBY has prevented that from going from a concept into a reality. As with many things "we need X but not here" makes getting things done hard.

So from a planning standpoint the long term problem is solved but in reality it isn't. How you boil that down into a cost I couldn't begin to solve.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#272

Post by sky-kedge0749 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:38 PM UTC

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'm just riffing here but this doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem if you're willing to spend. Open up a training school, put the old guard in as instructors, get some good students, pay everyone big money. Build a lab reactor for hands-on practice, and pay to put students as glorified interns into under-construction and operating plants across the world. A few years later, you've got your people.

I don't mean to say it would be trivial but it seems like you could do the whole thing for a couple billion USD a year.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#273

Post by trashtester » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #212

xienze wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't have to transition completely in decades. You can start today. Yes, I agree. If you start today, you’ll be done in decades. The boneheaded move is to start a green energy transition and immediately start decommissioning existing nuclear power plants and stonewall creating new ones by throwing up your hands and saying “well it’ll take forever to build them.” By the way, have you ever considered why it take…

I don't know why you're ignoring my reality example. Germany is part of a EU wide market and it just works. Also it's not like you put all your wind on one spot. There is always wind somewhere for example. The idea that it's an "political, environmental and special interest" problem while we're watching several nuclear plants being FAR over budget and over due being constructed in pro-nuclear countries proves that yo…

> There is always wind somewhere for example.

There is always wind somewhere. But grid capacity is not free, in fact it is quite expensive. Let's say, on a given day, the only place in Europe with reasonable winds would be west of Cadiz, transporting all that power through Spain, Portugal and France to cover the needs of all of Europe, would require immensive grid capacity expansion. And even with super-high-voltage, the losses before the power reaches Estonia would be huge.

Also, if this load causes a brownout in Spain, due to improper maintaince, for instance, all of Europe could go dark, cold and stop moving (in a time after fossil fuels).

(I can imagine seeing this from space during some cold winter night around 2045, all the lights in Western and Central Europe disappear at once. Only Norway and parts of Sweden can be seen, since they have their hydro power.)

In other words, while a better grid can mitigate _some_ of the variability of renewable supply, you still need massive expansion of storage capacity when you stop using natural gas, especially when you switch heating and transportation to use electricity too.

Seen from the outside, it surely looks like the German population has been seriously misled.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#274

Post by adastra22 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:40 PM UTC

mch82 wrote: post #253

The cost of nuclear energy seems seriously understated. Nuclear waste storage costs the US $6B per year and we still don’t have a long-term storage plan. We’ll incur this cost for hundreds or thousands of years. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us... There’s also a cost to secure the nuclear infrastructure. https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/nuclear-generation... Can anyone find a cost…

Nuclear waste is only a problem if you don’t allow breeder reactors. Otherwise it is a fuel resource and an asset, not a liability.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#275

Post by freemint » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:42 PM UTC

sofixa wrote: post #42

pydry wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Grid-scale storage is purely theoretical today bar pumped-up hydro, which is infeasible in most locations Viable locations arent in short supply at all: https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-spot-530-000-potenti...

They aren't in short supply, but aren't present everywhere - e.g. in Europe there's nothing north of Slovakia. If Denmark wants storage, they have to work with other countries and rely on transit. It's even worse for the Baltics.

You know that you can just pump all the water Denmark has. Build underground caverns full with air, let water in for energy and pump it out later.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#276

Post by trashtester » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:45 PM UTC

Krasnol wrote: post #84

BurningFrog wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

"Steve Holliday, CEO National Grid: “The idea of large power stations for baseload is outdated”" https://energypost.eu/interview-steve-holliday-ceo-national-...

This is a sales pitch from someone who makes a living from selling grid capacity.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#277

Post by freemint » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:47 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #108

It is interesting that personal costs was such huge part of the increase in construction. Construction seems like a field that automation has yet to really start to create waves, but I recall seeing news about small step forward like scaled up 3d printing with cement. Modular construction is an other concept I have not heard much for in the context of nuclear plants.

You can never 3d print pre stressed cement.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#278

Post by criley2 » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:50 PM UTC

throwaway23234 wrote: post #190

theptip wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

35x of a small problem is not necessarily a big problem. You need to quantify that objection. Nuclear waste can be reprocessed (see Fast Breeder reactors); the concern raised here is usually proliferation risk. Given a binary choice, I'd rather have to deal with some nuclear waste than climate change, and I don't even think that climate change is an existential risk for humanity (just likely to cause large and uneven…

> In practice perhaps a major push for solar/wind/geothermal would be a higher-ROI solution to our problems, but that's politically much harder to get consensus on. The most awesome thing you get from Solar is that it's going to move forward no matter what. It's just something you can do to lower your bill, or even disconnect from the grid altogether. Personally I am off grid with no propane. Almost unheard of in CA.…

Solar is a perfect solution for like 1/3 of the world for like 1/3 of the day.

Batteries though, current batteries are a horrible solution.

It's funny that this threads main objection to nuclear is waste/mining/etc but the solar battery revolution generates some far worse environmental effects getting all those rare earth minerals. Compared to the tiny amounts of fuel needed for reactors, the sheer amount of metal needed for worldwide grid solar batteries is astronomical.

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#279

Post by devoutsalsa » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:52 PM UTC

adastra22 wrote: post #274

mch82 wrote: post #253

The cost of nuclear energy seems seriously understated. Nuclear waste storage costs the US $6B per year and we still don’t have a long-term storage plan. We’ll incur this cost for hundreds or thousands of years. https://earth.stanford.edu/news/steep-costs-nuclear-waste-us... There’s also a cost to secure the nuclear infrastructure. https://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/nuclear-generation... Can anyone find a cost…

Nuclear waste is only a problem if you don’t allow breeder reactors. Otherwise it is a fuel resource and an asset, not a liability.

Nuclear waste isn't a problem if you drill a hole that's deep enough, encase the waste in a "dry cask", and drop it in the hole. Kyle Hill did a great video on this...

"We solved nuclear waste decades ago" => https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

Re: Why are nuclear power construction costs so high?

#280

Post by mandevil » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 9:56 PM UTC

spc476 wrote: post #257

mandevil wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, when it comes to nuclear Europe's (excluding Russia) basically in the same boat as the US. Consulting the current list of nuclear power plants under construction around the world by a pro-nuclear power group here: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... I see the following as the only ones still under construction in all of Europe (not counting Belarus and Russia): 1) Mochovce 3…

I also recall reading (somewhere) that France basically ended up with two nuclear power plan designs used repeatedly, unlike in the US where nearly every nuclear power plant is unique. That might account for the lower costs shown in the article.

That is true for the 1970's and 1980's boom of production in France, but is not true at present: the EPR they are building at Flamenville 3 and Hinkley Point C1+C2 are the sum total of those reactors currently under construction, and none are currently operational, so those three are likely to be the total number ever built.

It is true that the 34 CPY reactors, and the 20 P4 reactors, were produced in large enough numbers to create a skilled class of workers and engineers who were deeply experienced with building these reactors, but right now all of those workers are retired.

And honestly, from observation, it appears that rebuilding competence like this is a lot harder than building it in the first place: when you are building the first time everyone- the general public, the regulators, the workers themselves- are more forgiving. When you've lost that capacity and are trying to rebuild it you have expectations set for a mature industry, but the skills aren't there to deliver it.