9 ms·

Hinkley Point C nuclear plant to run £2.9bn over budget

34 points by kieranmaine 7y ago

garagemc2 7y ago
I wonder why large projects are never fully costed? Is it because the real cost would remove any initial appetite for the project?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- 7952 7y ago
  There is a really good podcast on why large projects fail.... https://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-wh... It talks about sources of bias in estimates, and why that bias is so prevelant.
- toinetoine 7y ago
  The larger the project the more possible variables there are that can affect it. It's impossible to predict all of them.
- bakuninsbart 7y ago
  For public projects, there are usually rules forcing agencies to contract the lowest bidder. So companies will bid unrealistically low, then after a while make new claims. Theoretically they are in breach of contract, and the agency could get out of the contract - but at that point finding another contractor would add even more cost and much more time to the project.
growlist 7y ago
I can't help thinking we'd be better off with lots of smaller projects. At least then the possibility for mega-overruns is limited. And I'm not sure the economies of scale argument holds water when the supposed savings almost always seem to miraculously evaporate to be replaced by cost overruns and extra profits for the contractors.
- petee 7y ago
  Arguably, lots of smaller projects means lots more contractors, duplicated work and parts -- every location needs a buffer zone, fencing, security, printer cartridges, and coffee, to name a few mundane costs I also wonder how that would affect the chances of an accident - instead of inspecting one cooling system, you're checking 20, and with 19 more parts to potentially fail
  - hobofan 7y ago
    > I also wonder how that would affect the chances of an accident - instead of inspecting one cooling system, you're checking 20, and with 19 more parts to potentially fail But each of those failures would be pretty unspectacular with little to no impact on the environment or the stability of the power grid. Which in turn allows you to use lower cost (automated) failure detection systems.
- etaty 7y ago
  Small modular reactor are already researched https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor
Brakenshire 7y ago
> Last week, prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour And I don’t think that £92.50 price includes these cost overruns. £92.50/MWh is the price the government was willing to guarantee, but which left the developer responsible for cost overruns. But for the next generation plants the developers want the government to take on the risk. The £40/MWh offshore wind bids are less than the cost just to run existing gas plants, mainly the fuel cost, which means you’re actually saving money by adding wind alongside a gas generator. Such a system will make it difficult to get above a certain percentage of renewables because of the need for gas backup, but maybe we should be spending money on developing new storage technology to facilitate wind and solar with predictable falling costs, rather than on deploying nuclear where the costs seem to be consistently high.
- LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
  92.50 GBP in 2012 pounds -- it's higher now.
- wjnc 7y ago
  Any investor / economist will tell you that making bets that fail is not the main point, knowing then to quit is. If these numbers are correct, any rational party to the deal should just walk away from these sunk cost. Any further incurred cost is a loss. Negotiate what you want to change the burden of the incurred cost, but walk away.
  - notideallla 7y ago
    Think about what the papers would print: "Nuclear plant construction abandoned after 10 billion spent on it. With this money we could have built 20 hospitals.". It would be a PR disaster way bigger than sending them a few billions more.
    - Brakenshire 7y ago
      Hinckley won't be renegotiated, it's more a question of whether we commission the other new nuclear plants. It’s possible that Hinckley could go bankrupt though, and then the government would have to decide what to do.
DrScientist 7y ago
Hinkley has long interesting history [1] - only 3 years ago the company building it (EDF) weren't sure about whether they should go ahead. While it seems odd that over 50 years ago we could build them quickly, I suspect one of the main drivers of cost is the need to make them bomb proof sic from a safety point of view. With the sums involved, you'd have to say wouldn't the money be better spent in research on alternatives? Either renewable/energy storage systems, or more money for nuclear fusion rather than 20 million here and there[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2] https://www.power-technology.com/news/uk-pledges-20m-nuclear-fusion-technologies-2018-budget/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/uk-pledges-20m-nuclear...
- LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
  EDF's latest non-EPR design in France took over 10 years to build, in the 1990's. The safety requirements to protect against nuclear releases and the inherent complexity are the key factors.
- redwood 7y ago
  Fair but the UK has a lot of dirty baseload power to replace too. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-24823641 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-24823641 Coal is being replaced by natural gas as with everywhere but a ways to go.
  - DrScientist 7y ago
    What's the point of a stop-gap that's too late? Yes the UK has a supply/demand issue - and nuclear is great for base load from a grid point of view - however given the delays will Hinkley actually be relevant by the time it's operational? Perhaps better to spend money on reduction of demand, other generation mechanisms and modernizing the grid to support more distributed generation and storage? One of the under discussed points about fission is the fuel is not renewable - it's dug out of the ground from potentially politically unstable sources.
    - 7y ago
epistasis 7y ago
Hey, not too bad, at least for nuclear. If you look back at the history of nuclear construction, at least in the US, late and massively over budget is the norm. Late and over budget are closely tied together, of course, as it's all about project management and that's not trivial at this scale. This sort of typical overrun is why US utilities stopped building more nuclear in the 80s.
- LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
  In the 70s.
- kryogen1c 7y ago
  > This sort of typical overrun is why US utilities stopped building more nuclear in the 80s. Thats some revisionist history to fit the current zeitgeist, right there. What stopped nuclear construction in the United States was the complete overreaction to Three Mile Island and the disaster at Chernobyl
  - LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
    No new decisions to build nuclear 10 years prior to three mile island.
  - thrillgore 7y ago
    False. In 2007 construction on Watts Bar unit 2 resumed after years of waiting. Similar work began on Vogtle around the same time. Stop blaming Chernobyl when the truth is clear: the costs of retrofitting most reactor designs to absolve fault tolerance make them inherent unprofitable compared to wind, geothermal, and solar.
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    Nuclear had started running off the rails as early as 1968. TMI was just the cherry on top of the financial crap sundae. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2016/02/16/nuclear-plant-cost-escalation-a-look-back-and-ahead/ http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2016/02/16/nuclear-plant-cost-esca... The major regulatory hit that that first wave of US nuclear plants took wasn't specific to nuclear: the Calvert Cliffs decision held that the National Environmental Policy Act applied broadly, including to the regulatory process of the AEC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Coordinating_Committee,_Inc._v._Atomic_Energy_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Coordinating_Co...
segfaultbuserr 7y ago
I was pro-nuclear because I believe these systems are technically safe and sound, we need nuclear to reduce the dependence of fossil fuels, we need nuclear to balance the unstable power output from solar and wind, also that the Generation III+ reactors are promising, we need to widely deploy them and continue to advance the technology. Today, I still believe the technology, but I doubt about its practicality, both financially and politically. 1. If we do a cost-benefit analysis, we must realize that the political resistance of the nuclear power plant is parts of its cost, it doesn't matter whether the anti-nuclear politicians or activists are correct or not, in either way, it simply adds to the cost of the project. Sometimes the cost is serious - the complete halt of the project is not out of the possibilities, and it means billions of tax dollars are wasted on useless projects. 2. Also, the strong pressure and paranoia on its safety, both from the public, and from the engineers, is sometimes responsible for the escalating costs of the projects, as more and more safety upgrades are implemented over time. I'm not saying that safety is not important, but it means there are hidden costs. And because safety is paramount, you can't just ignore them, e.g. a safety risk is discovered in incident X, to avoid similar problems, all the XYZ reactors must be upgraded! e.g. the nuclear reactor Y has an minor anomaly Z, it's believed that the issue is not a big deal, but for safety, the reactors are switched off until the reason is determined! (6 months later) Engineers have determined the issue is a completely normal phenomenon within the design! (3 months later) The executive/legislative body finally allowed the reactors to be restarted... Just think about how much economic damage is done in this process... Worse, any such problems, even it was the direct result of being safety-minded, will be attacked by the anti-nuclear activists and politicians, further contributing to problem No.1, make the cost even greater. 3. In addition, a nuclear power plant requires highly competent personnels, companies and regulatory agencies to run and monitor. Mismanagement due to incompetency can make its safety risks much higher than the projected risks. It's not a big problem if it's operated with a good record of safety in some countries with a government that has a relatively good public image, but in other countries it's a big problem. I've once asked a networking engineer from Taiwan about the nuclear protests over the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant, he said he was against the project, not because he doesn't believe the technology (which is the most common reason in the anti-nuclear movement), but that he has no confidence that the miserable government is competent enough to operate it. 4. Furthermore, the political resistance of deep underground nuclear waste disposal repository is even higher. One should realize that currently there are already thousands buckets of nuclear waste waiting for proper disposal, and without a deep underground repository, by doing nothing, the risks for the environment is much more higher. Unfortunately, as long as the political resistance exists, it adds a huge cost to everything nuclear. Not to mention the environmental risks of continue producing more nuclear waste without a repository. 5. Finally, even in China - one of the biggest supporters of nuclear power - the ambitious construction projects are slowing down due to reason No.1 and No.2, despite that the political resistance is not a big problem in its authoritarian political system. Competition of cheap solar and wind is another reason. > China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news. > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... I'm really uncertain about everything now. What is your opinion regarding my observations?
redwood 7y ago
The costs of nuclear power have never appropriately included the costs of disposal and handling of wastes which will become a permanent long-running tax on all of society for thousands of years. It's similar to how the fossil fuels based externalities are also never included in the true cost.
- fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  Does the cost of wind and solar include the disposal of the panels? What about the cost of the rare mineral mining needed for the batteries that make solar and wind viable?
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Hinkley Point C is supposed to. Which is a significant part of why the price per MWh is so high. Though I bet there'll be significant overrun come decommissioning.
- xavieralexandre 7y ago
  > The costs of nuclear power have never appropriately included the costs of disposal and handling of wastes Of course, they do: - Hinkley Point: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Hinkley-Point-C-contract-terms-08101401.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Hinkley-Point-C-contrac... - France [French]: http://www.sfen.org/sites/default/files/public/atoms/files/note_-_les_couts_de_production_du_parc_nucleaire_francais_-_ppe_-_sfen.pdf http://www.sfen.org/sites/default/files/public/atoms/files/n... - Switzerland [French]: http://www.swissnuclear.ch/fr/couts-_content---1--1050.html http://www.swissnuclear.ch/fr/couts-_content---1--1050.html
- segfaultbuserr 7y ago
  One big problem is the political resistance of deep underground nuclear waste disposal repository. One should realize that currently there are already thousands buckets of nuclear waste waiting for proper disposal, and without a deep underground repository, by doing nothing and leaving them in temporary storage, the risks for the environment is much more higher. Unfortunately, I think it's stupid, but as long as the political resistance exists, it adds a huge cost to everything nuclear. Not to mention the environmental risks of continue producing more nuclear waste without a repository. As long as there's no solution, it only makes the existing problem even greater. There is almost no "real" deep underground disposal repository currently in operation at large scale anywhere in the world (!!!), the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the U.S. is the most active one, but it's still more of an experimental site and cannot replace a real one. The ones in Finland and Sweden are small. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...
Merrill 7y ago
There appear to be 48 nuclear plants under construction. Most are in Eastern Europe and Asia. In North America and Western Europe the main activity is life extension and uprate projects. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...
ekingr 7y ago
Just to put it in perspective, the same model of EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) being build at Flamanville in France is 10 years late (x3 vs 5 years initial estimate) and €8bn over budget (x3.5 vs €3bn initial budget). The Finnish one is also massively struggling. Fortunately the Chinese ones in Taishan were delivered quite on time & budget this year. It's sad to see all these issues with execution, doing a bad press for nuclear - while we really need more of it to decarbonize our electricity (at least in the mid-term).
- gridlockd 7y ago
  My theory is that companies in the west don't have much of an incentive to actually build plants to completion, so they don't. In this political climate, it is unlikely that another reactor will ever be commissioned, operating a plant is an ongoing risk that can be avoided by never even going online. Might as well keep the paychecks for everyone coming for a while, then sail smoothly into inevitable bankruptcy.
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    “In this political climate, it is unlikely that another reactor will ever be commissioned” That’s nonsense, the UK is right in the middle of commissioning 5-10 new nuclear reactors, if Areva/EDF could demonstrate an ability to build these plants on budget there’s a huge market opportunity.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > That’s nonsense, the UK is right in the middle of commissioning 5-10 new nuclear reactors, ... I'm not talking about the reactors that already have been or will be commissioned soon. I'm talking about the situation in 10 years when these reactors are supposed to be finished. Let's see what the situation is like today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_nuclear_power_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_nuclear_power_station... Hinkley B - under construction, way over budget already Oldbury and Wylfa Newydd - shelved Moorside - failed Bradwell B - Chinese venture That leaves Sizewell C, to be completed in 2031. That's just a not a good trend for western companies. > ...if Areva/EDF could demonstrate an ability to build these plants on budget there’s a huge market opportunity. If private companies need to be dragged in with tons of incentives just to get involved, that doesn't sound like a great opportunity at all.
Knufen 7y ago
I Will try to formulate my argument very carefully. There is quite a lot of discussion about the price of nuclear. And tho it might be more expensive than wind and solar it also extremely environmentally clean when done right (waste is honestly not that big of a problem). So it is great option for giving relatively cheap energy but more importantly it gives us a very stable baseload which a lot of people underestimate.
sunkenvicar 7y ago
Hinkley and Vogtle are the first Gen 3 reactors. It would be surprising if construction was fast and easy. When we build more reactors our processes will improve. Just like Korea, Japan, and France.
hanoz 7y ago
2.9 billion. Not great... not terrible.
woodandsteel 7y ago
It seems to me much of the problem is that the nuclear energy industry was build up in the old days of fossil fuel electric utilities, and so is modeled to fit into that. It just isn't structured right for the new world of global climate change, renewable energy, and electricity storage. Maybe one of the new nuclear technologies that is being worked on will turn out to be a help in the new world. But I am not going to wait.
nickik 7y ago
If you build nuclear power-plants as bespoke one time builds, they will never be cost competitive. This is the problem with the approche taken in the Western world for nuclear. A few were built a long time ago, then the industry mostly went in decline and then in the modern day a few individual projects were greenlit. Nuclear was always only cost effective when you build many of them. As in the early expention of US nuclear, or in France. Nuclear in an effect produce to much power, a country like Switzerland (where I am from) would only need to build one every 10-20 years for all the electicity needs and that will never be cost effective. Even worse, each country historically has its own designs that they want to push. Today you could probebly be cost competitve if you let China or South Korea bill some reactors, but that will not happen in the West. France, Britain, US, Russia, Germany all want or wanted their own reactors. The nuclear industry will not be saved by these mega projects, but if its safed at all, it will be newer reactors that can be build smaller. The pure size, complexity and regulatory requirments, plus the interest rate absolutly kill anybody that is trying to build a Gen III reactor. I love nuclear and had envoirmental movement focused on pushed for them we would have had a viable solution for climate change back then. We see this in France, they had green power for almost as long as the debate existed and provided a clear model that somehow nobody else adopted rather talking about wind and solar for decades. Wind and Solar are still very questionable while nuclear was ready 30 years ago. Now it is slowly changing but we lost lots of time.

34 points by kieranmaine 7y ago

I wonder why large projects are never fully costed? Is it because the real cost would remove any initial appetite for the project?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
7952 7y ago
There is a really good podcast on why large projects fail.... https://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-what-to-do-about-it/ https://omegataupodcast.net/181-why-megaprojects-fail-and-wh... It talks about sources of bias in estimates, and why that bias is so prevelant.
toinetoine 7y ago
The larger the project the more possible variables there are that can affect it. It's impossible to predict all of them.
bakuninsbart 7y ago
For public projects, there are usually rules forcing agencies to contract the lowest bidder. So companies will bid unrealistically low, then after a while make new claims. Theoretically they are in breach of contract, and the agency could get out of the contract - but at that point finding another contractor would add even more cost and much more time to the project.

growlist 7y ago

I can't help thinking we'd be better off with lots of smaller projects. At least then the possibility for mega-overruns is limited. And I'm not sure the economies of scale argument holds water when the supposed savings almost always seem to miraculously evaporate to be replaced by cost overruns and extra profits for the contractors.

petee 7y ago
Arguably, lots of smaller projects means lots more contractors, duplicated work and parts -- every location needs a buffer zone, fencing, security, printer cartridges, and coffee, to name a few mundane costs I also wonder how that would affect the chances of an accident - instead of inspecting one cooling system, you're checking 20, and with 19 more parts to potentially fail
- hobofan 7y ago
  > I also wonder how that would affect the chances of an accident - instead of inspecting one cooling system, you're checking 20, and with 19 more parts to potentially fail But each of those failures would be pretty unspectacular with little to no impact on the environment or the stability of the power grid. Which in turn allows you to use lower cost (automated) failure detection systems.
etaty 7y ago
Small modular reactor are already researched https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_modular_reactor

Brakenshire 7y ago

> Last week, prices for new wind power delivered by 2025 were set at prices as low as £40 per megawatt hour. By comparison, power from Hinkley Point C is expected to cost £92.50 per megawatt hour And I don’t think that £92.50 price includes these cost overruns. £92.50/MWh is the price the government was willing to guarantee, but which left the developer responsible for cost overruns. But for the next generation plants the developers want the government to take on the risk. The £40/MWh offshore wind bids are less than the cost just to run existing gas plants, mainly the fuel cost, which means you’re actually saving money by adding wind alongside a gas generator. Such a system will make it difficult to get above a certain percentage of renewables because of the need for gas backup, but maybe we should be spending money on developing new storage technology to facilitate wind and solar with predictable falling costs, rather than on deploying nuclear where the costs seem to be consistently high.

LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
92.50 GBP in 2012 pounds -- it's higher now.
wjnc 7y ago
Any investor / economist will tell you that making bets that fail is not the main point, knowing then to quit is. If these numbers are correct, any rational party to the deal should just walk away from these sunk cost. Any further incurred cost is a loss. Negotiate what you want to change the burden of the incurred cost, but walk away.
- notideallla 7y ago
  Think about what the papers would print: "Nuclear plant construction abandoned after 10 billion spent on it. With this money we could have built 20 hospitals.". It would be a PR disaster way bigger than sending them a few billions more.
  - Brakenshire 7y ago
    Hinckley won't be renegotiated, it's more a question of whether we commission the other new nuclear plants. It’s possible that Hinckley could go bankrupt though, and then the government would have to decide what to do.

DrScientist 7y ago

Hinkley has long interesting history [1] - only 3 years ago the company building it (EDF) weren't sure about whether they should go ahead. While it seems odd that over 50 years ago we could build them quickly, I suspect one of the main drivers of cost is the need to make them bomb proof sic from a safety point of view. With the sums involved, you'd have to say wouldn't the money be better spent in research on alternatives? Either renewable/energy storage systems, or more money for nuclear fusion rather than 20 million here and there[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [2] https://www.power-technology.com/news/uk-pledges-20m-nuclear-fusion-technologies-2018-budget/ https://www.power-technology.com/news/uk-pledges-20m-nuclear...

LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
EDF's latest non-EPR design in France took over 10 years to build, in the 1990's. The safety requirements to protect against nuclear releases and the inherent complexity are the key factors.
redwood 7y ago
Fair but the UK has a lot of dirty baseload power to replace too. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-24823641 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-24823641 Coal is being replaced by natural gas as with everywhere but a ways to go.
- DrScientist 7y ago
  What's the point of a stop-gap that's too late? Yes the UK has a supply/demand issue - and nuclear is great for base load from a grid point of view - however given the delays will Hinkley actually be relevant by the time it's operational? Perhaps better to spend money on reduction of demand, other generation mechanisms and modernizing the grid to support more distributed generation and storage? One of the under discussed points about fission is the fuel is not renewable - it's dug out of the ground from potentially politically unstable sources.
  - 7y ago

epistasis 7y ago

Hey, not too bad, at least for nuclear. If you look back at the history of nuclear construction, at least in the US, late and massively over budget is the norm. Late and over budget are closely tied together, of course, as it's all about project management and that's not trivial at this scale. This sort of typical overrun is why US utilities stopped building more nuclear in the 80s.

LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
In the 70s.
kryogen1c 7y ago
> This sort of typical overrun is why US utilities stopped building more nuclear in the 80s. Thats some revisionist history to fit the current zeitgeist, right there. What stopped nuclear construction in the United States was the complete overreaction to Three Mile Island and the disaster at Chernobyl
- LiamMcCalloway 7y ago
  No new decisions to build nuclear 10 years prior to three mile island.
- thrillgore 7y ago
  False. In 2007 construction on Watts Bar unit 2 resumed after years of waiting. Similar work began on Vogtle around the same time. Stop blaming Chernobyl when the truth is clear: the costs of retrofitting most reactor designs to absolve fault tolerance make them inherent unprofitable compared to wind, geothermal, and solar.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  Nuclear had started running off the rails as early as 1968. TMI was just the cherry on top of the financial crap sundae. http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2016/02/16/nuclear-plant-cost-escalation-a-look-back-and-ahead/ http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2016/02/16/nuclear-plant-cost-esca... The major regulatory hit that that first wave of US nuclear plants took wasn't specific to nuclear: the Calvert Cliffs decision held that the National Environmental Policy Act applied broadly, including to the regulatory process of the AEC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Coordinating_Committee,_Inc._v._Atomic_Energy_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvert_Cliffs_Coordinating_Co...

segfaultbuserr 7y ago

I was pro-nuclear because I believe these systems are technically safe and sound, we need nuclear to reduce the dependence of fossil fuels, we need nuclear to balance the unstable power output from solar and wind, also that the Generation III+ reactors are promising, we need to widely deploy them and continue to advance the technology. Today, I still believe the technology, but I doubt about its practicality, both financially and politically. 1. If we do a cost-benefit analysis, we must realize that the political resistance of the nuclear power plant is parts of its cost, it doesn't matter whether the anti-nuclear politicians or activists are correct or not, in either way, it simply adds to the cost of the project. Sometimes the cost is serious - the complete halt of the project is not out of the possibilities, and it means billions of tax dollars are wasted on useless projects. 2. Also, the strong pressure and paranoia on its safety, both from the public, and from the engineers, is sometimes responsible for the escalating costs of the projects, as more and more safety upgrades are implemented over time. I'm not saying that safety is not important, but it means there are hidden costs. And because safety is paramount, you can't just ignore them, e.g. a safety risk is discovered in incident X, to avoid similar problems, all the XYZ reactors must be upgraded! e.g. the nuclear reactor Y has an minor anomaly Z, it's believed that the issue is not a big deal, but for safety, the reactors are switched off until the reason is determined! (6 months later) Engineers have determined the issue is a completely normal phenomenon within the design! (3 months later) The executive/legislative body finally allowed the reactors to be restarted... Just think about how much economic damage is done in this process... Worse, any such problems, even it was the direct result of being safety-minded, will be attacked by the anti-nuclear activists and politicians, further contributing to problem No.1, make the cost even greater. 3. In addition, a nuclear power plant requires highly competent personnels, companies and regulatory agencies to run and monitor. Mismanagement due to incompetency can make its safety risks much higher than the projected risks. It's not a big problem if it's operated with a good record of safety in some countries with a government that has a relatively good public image, but in other countries it's a big problem. I've once asked a networking engineer from Taiwan about the nuclear protests over the Lungmen Nuclear Power Plant, he said he was against the project, not because he doesn't believe the technology (which is the most common reason in the anti-nuclear movement), but that he has no confidence that the miserable government is competent enough to operate it. 4. Furthermore, the political resistance of deep underground nuclear waste disposal repository is even higher. One should realize that currently there are already thousands buckets of nuclear waste waiting for proper disposal, and without a deep underground repository, by doing nothing, the risks for the environment is much more higher. Unfortunately, as long as the political resistance exists, it adds a huge cost to everything nuclear. Not to mention the environmental risks of continue producing more nuclear waste without a repository. 5. Finally, even in China - one of the biggest supporters of nuclear power - the ambitious construction projects are slowing down due to reason No.1 and No.2, despite that the political resistance is not a big problem in its authoritarian political system. Competition of cheap solar and wind is another reason. > China’s losing its taste for nuclear power. That’s bad news. > https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-taste-for-nuclear-power-thats-bad-news/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-... I'm really uncertain about everything now. What is your opinion regarding my observations?

redwood 7y ago

The costs of nuclear power have never appropriately included the costs of disposal and handling of wastes which will become a permanent long-running tax on all of society for thousands of years. It's similar to how the fossil fuels based externalities are also never included in the true cost.

fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
Does the cost of wind and solar include the disposal of the panels? What about the cost of the rare mineral mining needed for the batteries that make solar and wind viable?
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Hinkley Point C is supposed to. Which is a significant part of why the price per MWh is so high. Though I bet there'll be significant overrun come decommissioning.
xavieralexandre 7y ago
> The costs of nuclear power have never appropriately included the costs of disposal and handling of wastes Of course, they do: - Hinkley Point: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Hinkley-Point-C-contract-terms-08101401.html http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NP-Hinkley-Point-C-contrac... - France [French]: http://www.sfen.org/sites/default/files/public/atoms/files/note_-_les_couts_de_production_du_parc_nucleaire_francais_-_ppe_-_sfen.pdf http://www.sfen.org/sites/default/files/public/atoms/files/n... - Switzerland [French]: http://www.swissnuclear.ch/fr/couts-_content---1--1050.html http://www.swissnuclear.ch/fr/couts-_content---1--1050.html
segfaultbuserr 7y ago
One big problem is the political resistance of deep underground nuclear waste disposal repository. One should realize that currently there are already thousands buckets of nuclear waste waiting for proper disposal, and without a deep underground repository, by doing nothing and leaving them in temporary storage, the risks for the environment is much more higher. Unfortunately, I think it's stupid, but as long as the political resistance exists, it adds a huge cost to everything nuclear. Not to mention the environmental risks of continue producing more nuclear waste without a repository. As long as there's no solution, it only makes the existing problem even greater. There is almost no "real" deep underground disposal repository currently in operation at large scale anywhere in the world (!!!), the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the U.S. is the most active one, but it's still more of an experimental site and cannot replace a real one. The ones in Finland and Sweden are small. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_r...

Merrill 7y ago

There appear to be 48 nuclear plants under construction. Most are in Eastern Europe and Asia. In North America and Western Europe the main activity is life extension and uprate projects. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-an...

ekingr 7y ago

Just to put it in perspective, the same model of EPR (European Pressurized Reactor) being build at Flamanville in France is 10 years late (x3 vs 5 years initial estimate) and €8bn over budget (x3.5 vs €3bn initial budget). The Finnish one is also massively struggling. Fortunately the Chinese ones in Taishan were delivered quite on time & budget this year. It's sad to see all these issues with execution, doing a bad press for nuclear - while we really need more of it to decarbonize our electricity (at least in the mid-term).

gridlockd 7y ago
My theory is that companies in the west don't have much of an incentive to actually build plants to completion, so they don't. In this political climate, it is unlikely that another reactor will ever be commissioned, operating a plant is an ongoing risk that can be avoided by never even going online. Might as well keep the paychecks for everyone coming for a while, then sail smoothly into inevitable bankruptcy.
- Brakenshire 7y ago
  “In this political climate, it is unlikely that another reactor will ever be commissioned” That’s nonsense, the UK is right in the middle of commissioning 5-10 new nuclear reactors, if Areva/EDF could demonstrate an ability to build these plants on budget there’s a huge market opportunity.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > That’s nonsense, the UK is right in the middle of commissioning 5-10 new nuclear reactors, ... I'm not talking about the reactors that already have been or will be commissioned soon. I'm talking about the situation in 10 years when these reactors are supposed to be finished. Let's see what the situation is like today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_nuclear_power_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_nuclear_power_station... Hinkley B - under construction, way over budget already Oldbury and Wylfa Newydd - shelved Moorside - failed Bradwell B - Chinese venture That leaves Sizewell C, to be completed in 2031. That's just a not a good trend for western companies. > ...if Areva/EDF could demonstrate an ability to build these plants on budget there’s a huge market opportunity. If private companies need to be dragged in with tons of incentives just to get involved, that doesn't sound like a great opportunity at all.

Knufen 7y ago

I Will try to formulate my argument very carefully. There is quite a lot of discussion about the price of nuclear. And tho it might be more expensive than wind and solar it also extremely environmentally clean when done right (waste is honestly not that big of a problem). So it is great option for giving relatively cheap energy but more importantly it gives us a very stable baseload which a lot of people underestimate.

sunkenvicar 7y ago

Hinkley and Vogtle are the first Gen 3 reactors. It would be surprising if construction was fast and easy. When we build more reactors our processes will improve. Just like Korea, Japan, and France.

hanoz 7y ago

2.9 billion. Not great... not terrible.

woodandsteel 7y ago

It seems to me much of the problem is that the nuclear energy industry was build up in the old days of fossil fuel electric utilities, and so is modeled to fit into that. It just isn't structured right for the new world of global climate change, renewable energy, and electricity storage. Maybe one of the new nuclear technologies that is being worked on will turn out to be a help in the new world. But I am not going to wait.

nickik 7y ago

If you build nuclear power-plants as bespoke one time builds, they will never be cost competitive. This is the problem with the approche taken in the Western world for nuclear. A few were built a long time ago, then the industry mostly went in decline and then in the modern day a few individual projects were greenlit. Nuclear was always only cost effective when you build many of them. As in the early expention of US nuclear, or in France. Nuclear in an effect produce to much power, a country like Switzerland (where I am from) would only need to build one every 10-20 years for all the electicity needs and that will never be cost effective. Even worse, each country historically has its own designs that they want to push. Today you could probebly be cost competitve if you let China or South Korea bill some reactors, but that will not happen in the West. France, Britain, US, Russia, Germany all want or wanted their own reactors. The nuclear industry will not be saved by these mega projects, but if its safed at all, it will be newer reactors that can be build smaller. The pure size, complexity and regulatory requirments, plus the interest rate absolutly kill anybody that is trying to build a Gen III reactor. I love nuclear and had envoirmental movement focused on pushed for them we would have had a viable solution for climate change back then. We see this in France, they had green power for almost as long as the debate existed and provided a clear model that somehow nobody else adopted rather talking about wind and solar for decades. Wind and Solar are still very questionable while nuclear was ready 30 years ago. Now it is slowly changing but we lost lots of time.