4 ms·

It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. As we build fewer reactors we lose economies of scales, we lose sub-contractors, we lose the knowledge to build

by simias 7y ago

It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. As we build fewer reactors we lose economies of scales, we lose sub-contractors, we lose the knowledge to build these reactors efficiently and without incurring huge financial penalties due to delays and sub-standard deliveries by contractors. This in turn is used to justify building fewer reactors which creates this feedback loop. You can always expect the first type of a new reactor (like this EPR design we've been working on) is going to face challenges, missed deadlines and cost inflation. If in the long run you plan to build a hundred of those it doesn't matter as much as if you only have 4-ish reactors in the pipeline.

_ph_ 7y ago
Right. But what are the realistic prospects of the next EPR designs getting considerably cheaper? I am very excited about any new design which has a good chance to be cheaper, but so far the track record hasn't been very good. And of course, we haven't talked about the nuclear waste.
- pfdietz 7y ago
  The prospects are poor. Cost improvement comes from iteration and learning, and demand for new reactors is low. Even when they are built, the time span is so long that learning is balanced by forgetting.
cycomanic 7y ago
You will never get economies of scale with nuclear. There is just not enough of them being build and wouldn't be even if we'd go full nuclear. You need to build to local conditions etc.. Also for those of you who say it's a problem of too much regulation. That's a hilarious proposition: yes sure let's remove regulatory control over technology which could yield large areas of densely inhabited aras no go zones for 100s of years (even if it's 10s it would be unacceptable). It's not like it has been shown over and over again that if you remove regulatory control companies will start taking shortcuts to maximize profits
- simias 7y ago
  There might not be huge economies of scale but there seems to be a baseline under which we basically lose our capacity to build more power plants. At this point we have additional delays and costs (and loss of trust) because of manufacturing errors. That seems to be a real problem for Areva nowadays.

by simias 7y ago

_ph_ 7y ago

Right. But what are the realistic prospects of the next EPR designs getting considerably cheaper? I am very excited about any new design which has a good chance to be cheaper, but so far the track record hasn't been very good. And of course, we haven't talked about the nuclear waste.

pfdietz 7y ago
The prospects are poor. Cost improvement comes from iteration and learning, and demand for new reactors is low. Even when they are built, the time span is so long that learning is balanced by forgetting.

cycomanic 7y ago

You will never get economies of scale with nuclear. There is just not enough of them being build and wouldn't be even if we'd go full nuclear. You need to build to local conditions etc.. Also for those of you who say it's a problem of too much regulation. That's a hilarious proposition: yes sure let's remove regulatory control over technology which could yield large areas of densely inhabited aras no go zones for 100s of years (even if it's 10s it would be unacceptable). It's not like it has been shown over and over again that if you remove regulatory control companies will start taking shortcuts to maximize profits

simias 7y ago
There might not be huge economies of scale but there seems to be a baseline under which we basically lose our capacity to build more power plants. At this point we have additional delays and costs (and loss of trust) because of manufacturing errors. That seems to be a real problem for Areva nowadays.