3 ms·

Their webpage [0] has the construction cost at $3 billion for a ~700 MW reactor. This is about the same as the originally projected cost for the Flamanville EPR

Their webpage [0] has the construction cost at $3 billion for a ~700 MW reactor. This is about the same as the originally projected cost for the Flamanville EPR with 1600 MW, which now is expected to end up costing ~$10 Billion. Now even if we assume - and thats a big assumption - they really can build the reactor for $3 Billion, that still equals ~$7 Billion in construction costs for a Flamanville sized reactor. They do not put any number on their operating costs which makes it impossible to calculate the electricity price they need to break even. If there is any information out there it would be appreciated. [0] https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/cost-competitive https://www.nuscalepower.com/benefits/cost-competitive

rwcarlsen 7y ago
That $3 billion cost estimate is for first-of-kind of a reactor/plant that is intended to be replicated many times. The cost per plant is expected to drop significantly with total number of deployments. Also the plant is designed to have significantly lower operating costs, shorter construction time (which means shorter loan duration, lest capital wasted on interest). The Olkiluoto 3 (EPR) power station in Finland has been under construction for nearly 15 years! 15 years before you can even start paying off even 1 penny of the capital cost is a huge barrier overcome here with Nuscale.
- aurelwu 7y ago
  I know, but they said the same about the EPRs, so I remain sceptical that it will work that way. Solar,Wind,Batteries,Hydrogen Production,Synthetic Fuel Production is becoming cheaper year by year so Nuscale need not only to meet their initial targets and then decrease the cost for future reactors but they also need to end up beating the other technologies costwise & safety & safety perception wise. Their Design might be faster than requiring 15 years, but I doubt it is as fast to build as solar or wind.
bilbo0s 7y ago
>They do not put any number on their operating costs which makes it impossible to calculate the electricity price they need to break even... You can kind of get an idea though, if you know a little about the industry. So we know each one of their modules will need to be refueled every 2 years. That's one cost, and a major one, that we have a pretty good idea of. We know that the design, (again according to the salesman), does not require renewed water for cooling. That's a not so major cost that we don't need to worry about. Etc etc etc. But yeah, at 720 MWHe and refueling every two years, that's enough to tell you that it's obviously not cheap. It's more accurately characterized as cheap-er than current designs. My own guess, build price once they get the build process down will come in right around 6 Billion. The first one will end up costing way more, but I do believe the price will come down provided the "modularity" boast is at all true. (6 Billion sounds expensive, but it's a major upgrade from the, so far, 28 Billion that has been spent at Vogtie for instance.) Expenses related to refueling are going to kill you, but hey, it kills you for a normal reactor in any case. So yeah, obviously this thing won't be beating out wind any time soon. But it is wayyyy cheaper than nuclear is currently. If you're a poor area, Wind with some innovative pumped hydro storage designs seems like a better fit for your pocketbook. But if you're a area flush with a lot of cash, some of these may work out for you. They're definitely what you might call luxuries. They're future is, basically, to be used as ultra expensive storage solutions for wind. So over service lifetime, I'd suspect wind/pumped hydro to be much less expensive. (Plus, who knows what will happen with other storage tech development in the interim?) The great irony here is that the places flush with the most cash, Texas, Cali, New York, Minnesota, etc., are also the places least likely to use this. The places with little cash, your Iowas, your Wisconsins, aren't likely to use it either because obviously wind/pumped hydro is cheaper for them long term. (And wind/gas or coal is acceptable to them as a transition tech.) They wouldn't have had the money anyway though, so no real loss there. Upper middle class states not close to the Great Lakes might be your best bets? Georgia? Utah? Etc. It'll be a tough sell. But if they find the right marks, they can probably sell it.

rwcarlsen 7y ago

That $3 billion cost estimate is for first-of-kind of a reactor/plant that is intended to be replicated many times. The cost per plant is expected to drop significantly with total number of deployments. Also the plant is designed to have significantly lower operating costs, shorter construction time (which means shorter loan duration, lest capital wasted on interest). The Olkiluoto 3 (EPR) power station in Finland has been under construction for nearly 15 years! 15 years before you can even start paying off even 1 penny of the capital cost is a huge barrier overcome here with Nuscale.

aurelwu 7y ago
I know, but they said the same about the EPRs, so I remain sceptical that it will work that way. Solar,Wind,Batteries,Hydrogen Production,Synthetic Fuel Production is becoming cheaper year by year so Nuscale need not only to meet their initial targets and then decrease the cost for future reactors but they also need to end up beating the other technologies costwise & safety & safety perception wise. Their Design might be faster than requiring 15 years, but I doubt it is as fast to build as solar or wind.

bilbo0s 7y ago

>They do not put any number on their operating costs which makes it impossible to calculate the electricity price they need to break even... You can kind of get an idea though, if you know a little about the industry. So we know each one of their modules will need to be refueled every 2 years. That's one cost, and a major one, that we have a pretty good idea of. We know that the design, (again according to the salesman), does not require renewed water for cooling. That's a not so major cost that we don't need to worry about. Etc etc etc. But yeah, at 720 MWHe and refueling every two years, that's enough to tell you that it's obviously not cheap. It's more accurately characterized as cheap-er than current designs. My own guess, build price once they get the build process down will come in right around 6 Billion. The first one will end up costing way more, but I do believe the price will come down provided the "modularity" boast is at all true. (6 Billion sounds expensive, but it's a major upgrade from the, so far, 28 Billion that has been spent at Vogtie for instance.) Expenses related to refueling are going to kill you, but hey, it kills you for a normal reactor in any case. So yeah, obviously this thing won't be beating out wind any time soon. But it is wayyyy cheaper than nuclear is currently. If you're a poor area, Wind with some innovative pumped hydro storage designs seems like a better fit for your pocketbook. But if you're a area flush with a lot of cash, some of these may work out for you. They're definitely what you might call luxuries. They're future is, basically, to be used as ultra expensive storage solutions for wind. So over service lifetime, I'd suspect wind/pumped hydro to be much less expensive. (Plus, who knows what will happen with other storage tech development in the interim?) The great irony here is that the places flush with the most cash, Texas, Cali, New York, Minnesota, etc., are also the places least likely to use this. The places with little cash, your Iowas, your Wisconsins, aren't likely to use it either because obviously wind/pumped hydro is cheaper for them long term. (And wind/gas or coal is acceptable to them as a transition tech.) They wouldn't have had the money anyway though, so no real loss there. Upper middle class states not close to the Great Lakes might be your best bets? Georgia? Utah? Etc. It'll be a tough sell. But if they find the right marks, they can probably sell it.