5 ms·

imagine if we had invested more into nuclear power and 1/10th electricity prices

by VMG 6y ago

pfdietz 6y ago
Magically cheaper nuclear powerplants, presumably built by the Nuclear Fairy. The cost of steam turbines and generators alone would prevent nuclear plants from producing power at 1/10th the cost of current plants. I don't think you're going to find a nuclear component of the plant that costs negative dollars.
- korantu 6y ago
  In 1969 electricity from nuclear plants did cost less than coal one [1], [2] so it is totally possible, no fairies needed. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#early-days https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#early-days [2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7tAwNIvUs&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7tAwNIvUs&feature=youtu.be
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    In the US, nuclear plants were being sold at a price competitive with coal plants. But that wasn't because that was what it cost to build the plants, it was because the vendors were setting the price to compete with coal plants, with the hope that costs would come down with experience (which didn't happen). These turnkey contracts cost the nuclear vendors a lot of money, and they moved away from them for that reason. Only in the last wave did Westinghouse go back to these kinds of contracts, and it drove them to bankruptcy.
    - korantu 6y ago
      Well, in the link above there is a very clear take as to why that happened; in particular regulations were pushed to be way over stringent than needed by nuclear service companies themselves. regulations were changed retroactively as well, for already approved projects. Ill look around for better links to clarify this.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        What that first link claimed was "By 1965, large-scale power plants were being sold commercially at costs competitive with fossil fuel plants." And I explained why that was misleading. They were being sold at a loss. The PRICE was competitive with coal, but the cost was not. This was even before changes in regulations.
        korantu 6y ago
        Thank you for the details! Can you point me on where to look for the price/cost distinction in early nuclear? I was not able to find definitive info there.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        This is an article in the popular press about that era. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-n... See also The Turnkey Era in Nuclear Power, H. Stuart Burness, W. David Montgomery and James P. Quirk, Land Economics Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 1980) (available through JSTOR) The latter is interesting, as it also gives an explanation for why utilities might have liked non-turnkey contracts: any escalation of capital cost can be (and very often was) passed on to ratepayers. In light of this, what really nailed the first US nuclear age was the passage in 1978 of PURPA, particularly the part about non-utility suppliers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Regulatory_Policies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Regulatory_Poli...
        korantu 6y ago
        Thank you.. a lot to digest to be fair. As for turnkey contract, interestingly, other industries trying to avoid uncertainty and not pass costs to consumers. AFAIK, Russian nuclear contracts come with warranty of all funding, so if overrun happens, these are Rosatom problem, not customer's
        6y ago
  - tuatoru 6y ago
    Not an order of magnitude cheaper. Fairies still required for that.
    - korantu 6y ago
      Well, technically you can find now a nuclear plant that with all the overruns ended up being 10 times more expensive. My point is that with cheaper than coal it becomes viable co2-less source of energy for,among other things, vertical farming. it will allow growing regardless of the weather and clouds above.

imagine if we had invested more into nuclear power and 1/10th electricity prices

by VMG 6y ago

imagine if we had invested more into nuclear power and 1/10th electricity prices

Magically cheaper nuclear powerplants, presumably built by the Nuclear Fairy. The cost of steam turbines and generators alone would prevent nuclear plants from producing power at 1/10th the cost of current plants. I don't think you're going to find a nuclear component of the plant that costs negative dollars.

korantu 6y ago
In 1969 electricity from nuclear plants did cost less than coal one [1], [2] so it is totally possible, no fairies needed. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#early-days https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html#early-days [2] https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7tAwNIvUs&feature=youtu.be https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb7tAwNIvUs&feature=youtu.be
- pfdietz 6y ago
  In the US, nuclear plants were being sold at a price competitive with coal plants. But that wasn't because that was what it cost to build the plants, it was because the vendors were setting the price to compete with coal plants, with the hope that costs would come down with experience (which didn't happen). These turnkey contracts cost the nuclear vendors a lot of money, and they moved away from them for that reason. Only in the last wave did Westinghouse go back to these kinds of contracts, and it drove them to bankruptcy.
  - korantu 6y ago
    Well, in the link above there is a very clear take as to why that happened; in particular regulations were pushed to be way over stringent than needed by nuclear service companies themselves. regulations were changed retroactively as well, for already approved projects. Ill look around for better links to clarify this.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      What that first link claimed was "By 1965, large-scale power plants were being sold commercially at costs competitive with fossil fuel plants." And I explained why that was misleading. They were being sold at a loss. The PRICE was competitive with coal, but the cost was not. This was even before changes in regulations.
      - korantu 6y ago
        Thank you for the details! Can you point me on where to look for the price/cost distinction in early nuclear? I was not able to find definitive info there.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        This is an article in the popular press about that era. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-nuclear-breakthrough-that-wasnt/72816/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-n... See also The Turnkey Era in Nuclear Power, H. Stuart Burness, W. David Montgomery and James P. Quirk, Land Economics Vol. 56, No. 2 (May, 1980) (available through JSTOR) The latter is interesting, as it also gives an explanation for why utilities might have liked non-turnkey contracts: any escalation of capital cost can be (and very often was) passed on to ratepayers. In light of this, what really nailed the first US nuclear age was the passage in 1978 of PURPA, particularly the part about non-utility suppliers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Regulatory_Policies_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Utility_Regulatory_Poli...
        korantu 6y ago
        Thank you.. a lot to digest to be fair. As for turnkey contract, interestingly, other industries trying to avoid uncertainty and not pass costs to consumers. AFAIK, Russian nuclear contracts come with warranty of all funding, so if overrun happens, these are Rosatom problem, not customer's
        6y ago
- tuatoru 6y ago
  Not an order of magnitude cheaper. Fairies still required for that.
  - korantu 6y ago
    Well, technically you can find now a nuclear plant that with all the overruns ended up being 10 times more expensive. My point is that with cheaper than coal it becomes viable co2-less source of energy for,among other things, vertical farming. it will allow growing regardless of the weather and clouds above.