4 ms·

In the USA, I recently met a random nuclear power plant worker at a bar. They claimed that many currently operational nuclear plants have trouble remaining com

In the USA, I recently met a random nuclear power plant worker at a bar. They claimed that many currently operational nuclear plants have trouble remaining competitive in today's market. Apparently expanding or refurbishing an operational plant to extend it's useful life also requires a cost prohibitive retrofit to make it comply with current nuclear codes. For example, a plant opened in 1972 might still be running on 45 year old building codes that mandate the ability to withstand a 5.2 magnitude earthquake, and current building codes mandate withstanding a 7.something quake (guessing what old and new regulation might be). Can someone comment on whether the above claim sounds true? Is it common for the true price of a nuclear plant to significantly exceed the costs of initial constructon plus normal operational costs? If yes, what are thoses costs and how do they compare to the estimated total cost?

philipkglass 10y ago
Yes, the claims about economic weakness are correct. Mature American reactors looked like they would be amazing money-printing machines when natural gas prices were high and rising; then the shale revolution happened. Nuclear power has higher fixed O&M costs than any other large scale electricity source: http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurepower-plant-om-how-does-the-industry-stack-up-on-cost-4417756/ http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurepower-plant-... That's a major handicap when competitors have cheap fuel (natural gas) or don't buy fuel at all (renewables). It's partially offset by very high nuclear capacity factors, but not enough. I suspect that much of that high O&M cost is going to wages; a nuclear plant employs something like 4x the number of full time workers per MWh generated as a well-sited large solar plant, and I would expect equal-or-better wages for the nuclear workers.

philipkglass 10y ago

Yes, the claims about economic weakness are correct. Mature American reactors looked like they would be amazing money-printing machines when natural gas prices were high and rising; then the shale revolution happened. Nuclear power has higher fixed O&M costs than any other large scale electricity source: http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurepower-plant-om-how-does-the-industry-stack-up-on-cost-4417756/ http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurepower-plant-... That's a major handicap when competitors have cheap fuel (natural gas) or don't buy fuel at all (renewables). It's partially offset by very high nuclear capacity factors, but not enough. I suspect that much of that high O&M cost is going to wages; a nuclear plant employs something like 4x the number of full time workers per MWh generated as a well-sited large solar plant, and I would expect equal-or-better wages for the nuclear workers.