4 ms·

An interesting factoid I ran across when researching this stuff a while back is that no one has ever built a new reactor in a deregulated electricity market. Pe

by beat 7y ago

An interesting factoid I ran across when researching this stuff a while back is that no one has ever built a new reactor in a deregulated electricity market. Period. The time frame of nuclear reactors is very long - like 50 years. So they're very sensitive to capital costs, and capital is sensitive to risk. Now, if you were doing the risk analysis on financing for a multibillion-dollar nuclear project, and you just saw the cost of a major competitor (solar) drop 80% in a decade... well, how would that factor into your risk analysis? How much would your interest rates increase? The only safe way to finance a reactor is government-based guarantees for price regulation - the nation will consume X megawatts for Y dollars, no matter what the market thinks the price should be. And do it in such a way that some government two generations down the road can't just throw it all out and screw you.

Recurecur 7y ago
And that's one of the major arguments for mass produced small modular reactors. No one-off construction, flexible siting due to no water cooling, underground for security, and meltdown proof. Just walkaway safe electricity at five cents a KWH or less. :-) terrapower.com thorcon.com x-energy.com
- beat 7y ago
  And maybe someday, they'll be an actual alternative that actual power companies can by on an actual market. But they aren't, not today, and they won't be for at least a decade. I don't want to wait, and even if I did, the market definitely will not.
imtringued 7y ago
The complexity of reactors needs to go down and they need to be smaller. Big reactors can only be cooled if they are near the ocean, otherwise they have to be shutdown when the flow rate of the river is too low, this usually happens during heatwaves. It's easier to achieve economies of scale with 16 identical small scale reactors instead of designing a custom reactor for each plant and then building only 2. I don't see this happening. Relying on new reactor designs to save nuclear power isn't going to solve the problem in time. Right now governments are busy with massive power plant designs that suffer from multi billion cost overruns. After that experience they will probably stop building more power plants and funding for new reactor designs will be reduced.
- ryacko 7y ago
  A nuclear plant in Arizona uses treated sewage for cooling. In theory, any nuclear plant near any sufficiently large city would have access to enough water for cooling, unless the city was unusually water efficient.
- beat 7y ago
  Yeah. A lot of my attitude about pricing turns into pro-nuclear advocates treating me as Treehugging Enemy of Progress, and one of the things they point to is the always-in-the-future dream of small, simple thorium molten salt reactors. But the best I've seen on that is a company that promises 30 cent megawatts in 2030, but doesn't really have a working prototype yet. And it would take, what, two decades past that to really get that going at scale? We can't wait 30 years to do something about greenhouse gasses just because we really really really want to do it with nuclear.
Gibbon1 7y ago
Problem I see with nuclear, and gas and oil pipelines is the real risk of a complete default on it's bonds. Plant will either not get built or the plant may get shutdown[1] before paying off it's bonds. I think San Onofre was shutdown because it's brand new replacement steam generators showed excessive wear. And new nuclear plants seems to be costing more over time not less. Vs solar or wind farms where default is much more likely to be 'soft'. Maybe the plant defaults on it bonds, but it still produces power. Which is preferable to both defaulting and shutting down.
perl4ever 7y ago
"The time frame of nuclear reactors is very long - like 50 years. So they're very sensitive to capital costs, and capital is sensitive to risk" 50 years doesn't sound like all that long a timeframe when people are talking about 100 year bonds, and the idea that capital is scarce and expensive doesn't quite seem to apply when $15 trillion in global debt pays negative yields.

by beat 7y ago

Recurecur 7y ago

And that's one of the major arguments for mass produced small modular reactors. No one-off construction, flexible siting due to no water cooling, underground for security, and meltdown proof. Just walkaway safe electricity at five cents a KWH or less. :-) terrapower.com thorcon.com x-energy.com

beat 7y ago
And maybe someday, they'll be an actual alternative that actual power companies can by on an actual market. But they aren't, not today, and they won't be for at least a decade. I don't want to wait, and even if I did, the market definitely will not.

imtringued 7y ago

The complexity of reactors needs to go down and they need to be smaller. Big reactors can only be cooled if they are near the ocean, otherwise they have to be shutdown when the flow rate of the river is too low, this usually happens during heatwaves. It's easier to achieve economies of scale with 16 identical small scale reactors instead of designing a custom reactor for each plant and then building only 2. I don't see this happening. Relying on new reactor designs to save nuclear power isn't going to solve the problem in time. Right now governments are busy with massive power plant designs that suffer from multi billion cost overruns. After that experience they will probably stop building more power plants and funding for new reactor designs will be reduced.

ryacko 7y ago
A nuclear plant in Arizona uses treated sewage for cooling. In theory, any nuclear plant near any sufficiently large city would have access to enough water for cooling, unless the city was unusually water efficient.
beat 7y ago
Yeah. A lot of my attitude about pricing turns into pro-nuclear advocates treating me as Treehugging Enemy of Progress, and one of the things they point to is the always-in-the-future dream of small, simple thorium molten salt reactors. But the best I've seen on that is a company that promises 30 cent megawatts in 2030, but doesn't really have a working prototype yet. And it would take, what, two decades past that to really get that going at scale? We can't wait 30 years to do something about greenhouse gasses just because we really really really want to do it with nuclear.

Gibbon1 7y ago

Problem I see with nuclear, and gas and oil pipelines is the real risk of a complete default on it's bonds. Plant will either not get built or the plant may get shutdown[1] before paying off it's bonds. I think San Onofre was shutdown because it's brand new replacement steam generators showed excessive wear. And new nuclear plants seems to be costing more over time not less. Vs solar or wind farms where default is much more likely to be 'soft'. Maybe the plant defaults on it bonds, but it still produces power. Which is preferable to both defaulting and shutting down.

perl4ever 7y ago

"The time frame of nuclear reactors is very long - like 50 years. So they're very sensitive to capital costs, and capital is sensitive to risk" 50 years doesn't sound like all that long a timeframe when people are talking about 100 year bonds, and the idea that capital is scarce and expensive doesn't quite seem to apply when $15 trillion in global debt pays negative yields.