5 ms·

I am under the impression that it's regulatory. Specifically, regulations adding time to get plants permitted and constructed. If you look at the graph of new n

I am under the impression that it's regulatory. Specifically, regulations adding time to get plants permitted and constructed. If you look at the graph of new nuclear power plants coming online, only look at the US, and squint just a little, it looks like the time of construction in the US starts growing right after Three Mile Island, and doesn't stop until any potential return is so far in the future that new plants stop being built. http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/annual-capacity-additions-and-construction-times.jpg http://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/annual...

neuland 7y ago
This is a cool chart. So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world, albeit fewer than in 70's and 80's. If it's regulatory, I'm surprised that more climate focused candidates don't campaign on streamlining regulations to make it possible for more plants to get built. It's essentially zero cost in comparison to other climate efforts that will cost billions / trillions in re-investment. I don't know a lot about renewables or energy production, but my understanding is that solar and wind are not good for base load unless there's a big improvement in storage technology (either batteries or some physical setup like the pair of lakes in West Virginia where they pump water around). So, nuclear is something we can do now that we know works. And since all these plants are at the end of their life, we can get a much more realistic picture of the total cost of ownership, instead of projections about what the produced power would cost.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world The map shows three currently under construction in the United States, which is more than any other country with under a billion people.
  - waiseristy 7y ago
    The chart is misleading, 1 of those bubbles was canceled in 2017 (SUMMER 2-3). The other started in the 80's, got canceled, and then picked up again a few years back. The third is brand new
- pjc50 7y ago
  Deregulation is free until something goes wrong. The estimated $187bn cleanup cost of Fukushima is certainly very far from free.
  - cronix 7y ago
    You don't even need to get to the point of a meltdown to be very expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - merpnderp 7y ago
    Deregulation? Is there an industry more heavily regulated in Japan than the nuclear industry?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The approximate cause of Fukushima was a once-in-a-generation tsunami that exceeded the design constraints that the plant was built under. Whatever did go wrong at Fukushima wasn't deregulation. That sort of mistake can creep through in even an extremely well regulated environment. Also, the cost of the cleanup from the Tohoku earthquake that was linked to the tsunami was something like 300 billon; so maybe the fact that they had a design flaw in their nuclear plant maybe doubled the cleanup depending on what the figures on Wikipedia already factor the Fukushima clean up costs in. Doubling the cost of something is significant, but for an event of that rarity not really a deregulation concern. If you told me that there was a risk of a city being leveled by a tsunami and there was a chance my taxes rising by, say, an unnecessary 10% for 12 months I might (depending on which city) squint at you in confusion about why the 10% was a problem. I've payed 1% disaster levies in my lifetime. A slight chance of a moderate-in-context one off cost due to a series of unlikely coincidences just doesn't really rate as a major regulatory risk to me. I'd trust the regulators to deal with it for next time as part of their normal process. We have literally had to scour the globe for a decade to find an example where it matters.
epistasis 7y ago
Your plot is missing one key thing: are projects plotted at their start or date. In either case, I think that it looks like the delays started pre-TMI. Other plots that I have seen show new additions slowing long before TMI. Each pre-TMI project was managed with a different level of skill, or with better rolls of the dice on timing, and those that completed quickly were profitable, and the those that had long delays had huge cost overruns due to massive capital outlays and interest payments without any revenue to back it. And another reason that I don't think we can blame regulation: look at Vogtle and Summer. You have to dig really really really far into backwaters of blogs before you can even find somebody saying "this regulatory process caused us to be delayed," and even those complaints are vague. It's not regulation, it's the industry. We can look elsewhere in different regulatory environments too: UK, France, Poland, all have the same huge difficulties we do when constructing nuclear. The places that seem to have fewer difficulties still have difficulties. China has long delays, that would still cause investors to lose money in the US. South Korea had been on a tear of seemingly good construction, but it turns out that the contracting process was rife with corruption and now there are worries that unqualified parts are stuck deep in reactors that are supposed to run for 60 years. If there is a regulatory delay on these projects, I'm not sure that there's any sort of appropriate regulatory structure that would make them work. And you can tell because the industry insiders that complain about regulation don't have any fixes in mind.
- cameldrv 7y ago
  It's complex construction projects in general. Regulation is a significant piece. We have a lot more worker safety, public safety, and environmental regulations. On the other hand, we also have loads more construction technology. One thing no one ever talks about is environmental lead exposure. Just like it appears to have caused a huge crime spike, by impairing executive function, I think it may have impaired society's ability to manage complex projects.
- stevetodd 7y ago
  They’ve been trying to get started on one in Utah, though it’s been hung up a few years in court with environmentalists fighting about the water usage. See “Public Reaction” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project

neuland 7y ago

This is a cool chart. So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world, albeit fewer than in 70's and 80's. If it's regulatory, I'm surprised that more climate focused candidates don't campaign on streamlining regulations to make it possible for more plants to get built. It's essentially zero cost in comparison to other climate efforts that will cost billions / trillions in re-investment. I don't know a lot about renewables or energy production, but my understanding is that solar and wind are not good for base load unless there's a big improvement in storage technology (either batteries or some physical setup like the pair of lakes in West Virginia where they pump water around). So, nuclear is something we can do now that we know works. And since all these plants are at the end of their life, we can get a much more realistic picture of the total cost of ownership, instead of projections about what the produced power would cost.

reaperducer 7y ago
So, there are still reactors getting built in other parts of the world The map shows three currently under construction in the United States, which is more than any other country with under a billion people.
- waiseristy 7y ago
  The chart is misleading, 1 of those bubbles was canceled in 2017 (SUMMER 2-3). The other started in the 80's, got canceled, and then picked up again a few years back. The third is brand new
pjc50 7y ago
Deregulation is free until something goes wrong. The estimated $187bn cleanup cost of Fukushima is certainly very far from free.
- cronix 7y ago
  You don't even need to get to the point of a meltdown to be very expensive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- merpnderp 7y ago
  Deregulation? Is there an industry more heavily regulated in Japan than the nuclear industry?
- roenxi 7y ago
  The approximate cause of Fukushima was a once-in-a-generation tsunami that exceeded the design constraints that the plant was built under. Whatever did go wrong at Fukushima wasn't deregulation. That sort of mistake can creep through in even an extremely well regulated environment. Also, the cost of the cleanup from the Tohoku earthquake that was linked to the tsunami was something like 300 billon; so maybe the fact that they had a design flaw in their nuclear plant maybe doubled the cleanup depending on what the figures on Wikipedia already factor the Fukushima clean up costs in. Doubling the cost of something is significant, but for an event of that rarity not really a deregulation concern. If you told me that there was a risk of a city being leveled by a tsunami and there was a chance my taxes rising by, say, an unnecessary 10% for 12 months I might (depending on which city) squint at you in confusion about why the 10% was a problem. I've payed 1% disaster levies in my lifetime. A slight chance of a moderate-in-context one off cost due to a series of unlikely coincidences just doesn't really rate as a major regulatory risk to me. I'd trust the regulators to deal with it for next time as part of their normal process. We have literally had to scour the globe for a decade to find an example where it matters.

epistasis 7y ago

Your plot is missing one key thing: are projects plotted at their start or date. In either case, I think that it looks like the delays started pre-TMI. Other plots that I have seen show new additions slowing long before TMI. Each pre-TMI project was managed with a different level of skill, or with better rolls of the dice on timing, and those that completed quickly were profitable, and the those that had long delays had huge cost overruns due to massive capital outlays and interest payments without any revenue to back it. And another reason that I don't think we can blame regulation: look at Vogtle and Summer. You have to dig really really really far into backwaters of blogs before you can even find somebody saying "this regulatory process caused us to be delayed," and even those complaints are vague. It's not regulation, it's the industry. We can look elsewhere in different regulatory environments too: UK, France, Poland, all have the same huge difficulties we do when constructing nuclear. The places that seem to have fewer difficulties still have difficulties. China has long delays, that would still cause investors to lose money in the US. South Korea had been on a tear of seemingly good construction, but it turns out that the contracting process was rife with corruption and now there are worries that unqualified parts are stuck deep in reactors that are supposed to run for 60 years. If there is a regulatory delay on these projects, I'm not sure that there's any sort of appropriate regulatory structure that would make them work. And you can tell because the industry insiders that complain about regulation don't have any fixes in mind.

cameldrv 7y ago
It's complex construction projects in general. Regulation is a significant piece. We have a lot more worker safety, public safety, and environmental regulations. On the other hand, we also have loads more construction technology. One thing no one ever talks about is environmental lead exposure. Just like it appears to have caused a huge crime spike, by impairing executive function, I think it may have impaired society's ability to manage complex projects.
stevetodd 7y ago
They’ve been trying to get started on one in Utah, though it’s been hung up a few years in court with environmentalists fighting about the water usage. See “Public Reaction” in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Castle_Project