5 ms·

Most of the cost of a MWh of nuclear comes from the cost of capital (interests). [1] Put differently, if capital is backed by the state, that the $/MWh could be

by steeve 6y ago

Most of the cost of a MWh of nuclear comes from the cost of capital (interests). [1] Put differently, if capital is backed by the state, that the $/MWh could be a _lot_ less than it is. 1. https://imgur.com/a/4mAlUbO https://imgur.com/a/4mAlUbO

aidenn0 6y ago
This also seems to be a problem because the US seems to have gotten much worse at building fixed structures (bridges, buildints &c.) over the last 100 year. Some of that cost is probably due to better workplace safety, but some of that cost has come in the past 40 years, and I don't feel like OSHA has tightened the screws that much in the psat 40 years.
- vianneychevalie 6y ago
  Not only the US. The Flamanville EPR has suffered increased costs because the welders that actually learned how to do nuclear-level welds had retired by the time someone decided to build a new nuclear reactor after Chernobyl. Additionally, the foundries that build a key part of the nuclear core (I belive it’s called a chaudron in French, but it’s basically a big metal boiler) were not as good as they were, because they had to actually remake it twice. It is horrifying but we lost a technological capacity. Here’s a good source in French on that subject: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/rapport-epr-flamanville# https://www.economie.gouv.fr/rapport-epr-flamanville#
  - manfredo 6y ago
    It's less that we've lost a technological capacity, and more than we are no longer leveraging economies of scale. France and the US built a lot of nuclear power plants in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (well, mostly just France in the 1980s). Nuclear power plants often require specialized parts that aren't found in any other industry. That means when one-off plants are built an entire portion of the supply chain needs to be rebuilt, but when a serial run of plants are constructed (as was done in France) overhead costs of setting up the supply chain are spread out across all plants.
  - makomk 6y ago
    I think you may have missed the punchline in the story of the defective castings for the Flamanville reactor pressure vessel: the foundry responsible were exactly as good as they used to be, their previous castings going back decades and in use at existing nuclear power plants had similar defects, and they'd just managed to cover it up for all that time. I suspect the same might be true of some of the welding on the existing nuclear fleet too; they've definitely discovered some welding defects.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
I cannot stress this enough - we have people allergic to direct development paid for by the state because "it's socialist". Instead we invent all kinds of stupid ways of financing power plants, such a guaranteed electricity price for 50 years ahead, guaranteed profits to attract 'free market investors' for a project thats specified, sited and planned by the government and where all risk is born by the government. Ao then, instead of 0.25% interest we get fianance at 3-5% interest.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  Also because it's economically inefficient and fertile ground for rent seeking parasites.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Last I checked, 30 years treasuries were in the neighborhood of 1.5%, and not 0.25%. More importantly, the reason all those stupid ways are employed is that then the private companies running it have incentive to keep the costs down. Just compare it with recent California's high speed rail project, which was direct development paid for by the state, like you suggest. The most recent cost estimate was $100B, or $250M per mile.
pfdietz 6y ago
Things are much cheaper when someone subsidizes them. If the state funds nuclear at below the rate the market would give, that's a subsidy. It could mean, for example, that the state is taking on financial risk that would otherwise have been accounted for in higher interest rates.
- steeve 6y ago
  This is not a subsidy but a loan. If the state wants to stay out of it, but only has to say: "we are going to be using nuclear power for the next 40 years", and the interests will naturally go down because the investment is safer, and so everybody would pay less. One would think that the state backing (either politically or financially) investment in infrastructure would make sense, since it benefits everyone.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    It's a subsidy, because the interest on the loan is below what the market would charge. Requiring use of nuclear even if it becomes noncompetitive is also a subsidy. What's happening in both cases is that risk is being moved from the investor to the public. Privatize profits, socialize risk. It's the nuclear story as old as time.

by steeve 6y ago

aidenn0 6y ago

This also seems to be a problem because the US seems to have gotten much worse at building fixed structures (bridges, buildints &c.) over the last 100 year. Some of that cost is probably due to better workplace safety, but some of that cost has come in the past 40 years, and I don't feel like OSHA has tightened the screws that much in the psat 40 years.

vianneychevalie 6y ago
Not only the US. The Flamanville EPR has suffered increased costs because the welders that actually learned how to do nuclear-level welds had retired by the time someone decided to build a new nuclear reactor after Chernobyl. Additionally, the foundries that build a key part of the nuclear core (I belive it’s called a chaudron in French, but it’s basically a big metal boiler) were not as good as they were, because they had to actually remake it twice. It is horrifying but we lost a technological capacity. Here’s a good source in French on that subject: https://www.economie.gouv.fr/rapport-epr-flamanville# https://www.economie.gouv.fr/rapport-epr-flamanville#
- manfredo 6y ago
  It's less that we've lost a technological capacity, and more than we are no longer leveraging economies of scale. France and the US built a lot of nuclear power plants in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s (well, mostly just France in the 1980s). Nuclear power plants often require specialized parts that aren't found in any other industry. That means when one-off plants are built an entire portion of the supply chain needs to be rebuilt, but when a serial run of plants are constructed (as was done in France) overhead costs of setting up the supply chain are spread out across all plants.
- makomk 6y ago
  I think you may have missed the punchline in the story of the defective castings for the Flamanville reactor pressure vessel: the foundry responsible were exactly as good as they used to be, their previous castings going back decades and in use at existing nuclear power plants had similar defects, and they'd just managed to cover it up for all that time. I suspect the same might be true of some of the welding on the existing nuclear fleet too; they've definitely discovered some welding defects.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

I cannot stress this enough - we have people allergic to direct development paid for by the state because "it's socialist". Instead we invent all kinds of stupid ways of financing power plants, such a guaranteed electricity price for 50 years ahead, guaranteed profits to attract 'free market investors' for a project thats specified, sited and planned by the government and where all risk is born by the government. Ao then, instead of 0.25% interest we get fianance at 3-5% interest.

pfdietz 6y ago
Also because it's economically inefficient and fertile ground for rent seeking parasites.
xyzzyz 6y ago
Last I checked, 30 years treasuries were in the neighborhood of 1.5%, and not 0.25%. More importantly, the reason all those stupid ways are employed is that then the private companies running it have incentive to keep the costs down. Just compare it with recent California's high speed rail project, which was direct development paid for by the state, like you suggest. The most recent cost estimate was $100B, or $250M per mile.

pfdietz 6y ago

Things are much cheaper when someone subsidizes them. If the state funds nuclear at below the rate the market would give, that's a subsidy. It could mean, for example, that the state is taking on financial risk that would otherwise have been accounted for in higher interest rates.

steeve 6y ago
This is not a subsidy but a loan. If the state wants to stay out of it, but only has to say: "we are going to be using nuclear power for the next 40 years", and the interests will naturally go down because the investment is safer, and so everybody would pay less. One would think that the state backing (either politically or financially) investment in infrastructure would make sense, since it benefits everyone.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  It's a subsidy, because the interest on the loan is below what the market would charge. Requiring use of nuclear even if it becomes noncompetitive is also a subsidy. What's happening in both cases is that risk is being moved from the investor to the public. Privatize profits, socialize risk. It's the nuclear story as old as time.