4 ms·

Cost overruns have been the norm, but nuclear power generation at scale during the 1970s was still at most half as expensive as the Votgle and Flamanville proje

Cost overruns have been the norm, but nuclear power generation at scale during the 1970s was still at most half as expensive as the Votgle and Flamanville projects that you like to cherry-pick. The atrophy of the nuclear supply chain is precisely why nuclear plants are cheaper when built at scale. When you have a steady demand for reactor pressure vessels, high pressure heat exchangers, and other specialized machinery for nuclear plants its cheaper on a per-unit basis. Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor. The only intersection that nuclear weapons manufacturing has with nuclear power is uranium enrichment. But the cost of fuel is negligible in nuclear power. > It will almost certainly be much cheaper than building nuclear reactors, and by a very large margin. Right, just like how early nuclear advocates said it would almost certainly be cheaper than fossil fuels. We don't know this. This isn't a historical cost estimate, it's cost speculation. And cost speculation fundamentally cannot account for unknown challenges. > But if it's not, no big deal. We could build reactors later if by some miracle it turns out they're needed. Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"? Not to mention, exacerbating global warming because we delayed nuclearization of our energy sector pursuing energy storage? These are pretty big deals. Decarbonization of the energy sector is going to be one of the biggest endeavors that countries conduct. It's no time to bet on unproven technologies. We know nuclear is expensive. But we know that it works, and we have experience building it at scale. We're walking in the footsteps of what we've done before, not bushwhacking through unknown engineering challenges.

pfdietz 6y ago
> Votgle and Flamanville projects that you like to cherry-pick. Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s I suppose I should also have included all the projects that were abandoned before ground was even broken? > Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor. It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise. > Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"? Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age. (I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.)
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  > Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s Yup, precisely. You've conveniently ignored successful projects elsewhere, like the Hanul nuclear power plant and the Taishan nuclear plant. Also, you're incorrect that Votgle is the only nuclear project in the US, Turkey Point is installing two more AP1000 reactors. > It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise. Enrichment is not a substantial portion of nuclear power's cost. Almost all of it is in construction and fabrication of the plant. I'm also not sure why you think building a nuclear warhead translates into running a nuclear plant. A nuclear weapons designer wants a very violent runaway nuclear reaction. This is what a nuclear plant designer wants to avoid. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons don't use the same fuel. That's not quite true with recent plants: a few of the newer nuclear plants can mix in some weapons-grade plutonium - but the mix is still mostly uranium. This more about dismantling plutonium, as it's the only way we know how to get ride of weapons-grade fissile material - well, besides detonating the nuclear weapon. > Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age. You continue to miss the point. With renewables and storage, we're talking in terms of hypothetical costs. What we think it will cost. Projected costs are cheap, because by definition they exclude the costs of unforeseen issues. Historical costs do include the costs of unforeseen issues that emerged in implementation. Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale. The cost of proposed storage technologies are hypothetical costs. Nobody has built a 1TWh storage facility, let alone a 10 TWh storage facility. We can make educated guesses at what this will cost, but they're still guesses. We'll only know the real cost after it's been built. And projected costs are almost always optimistic. Comparing historical costs to projected costs is comparing apples to oranges. > (I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.) You seem to be particularly determined to avoid the one solution that is actually proven to work. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/#:~:text=Team-,12%20hours%20of%20energy%20storage%20enough%20for%20U.S.%20to%20run,3%20weeks%20of%20energy%20storage https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora....

pfdietz 6y ago

> Votgle and Flamanville projects that you like to cherry-pick. Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s I suppose I should also have included all the projects that were abandoned before ground was even broken? > Also, I'm not sure why you think weapons programs have anything to do with nuclear power generation's supply chain. The supply chain issues pertain to the construction of pressure vessels, pumps, and pipes that need to withstand the more difficult environment inside a nuclear reactor. It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise. > Trillions of dollars wasted is "no big deal"? Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age. (I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.)

Manfredo_1 6y ago
> Yes, I have cherry picked 100% of the current era new nuclear construction projects in France and the US. How selective of me! /s Yup, precisely. You've conveniently ignored successful projects elsewhere, like the Hanul nuclear power plant and the Taishan nuclear plant. Also, you're incorrect that Votgle is the only nuclear project in the US, Turkey Point is installing two more AP1000 reactors. > It includes such things as instrumentation, enrichment, fuel fabrication, and (most importantly) manpower and expertise. Enrichment is not a substantial portion of nuclear power's cost. Almost all of it is in construction and fabrication of the plant. I'm also not sure why you think building a nuclear warhead translates into running a nuclear plant. A nuclear weapons designer wants a very violent runaway nuclear reaction. This is what a nuclear plant designer wants to avoid. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons don't use the same fuel. That's not quite true with recent plants: a few of the newer nuclear plants can mix in some weapons-grade plutonium - but the mix is still mostly uranium. This more about dismantling plutonium, as it's the only way we know how to get ride of weapons-grade fissile material - well, besides detonating the nuclear weapon. > Investments are made on expected payoff. The expectation that renewables will do well is high. The off chance that they do not, oh well! Nuclear could be a backup in that case. There is no need to pump trillions into nuclear now to restore your putative golden age. You continue to miss the point. With renewables and storage, we're talking in terms of hypothetical costs. What we think it will cost. Projected costs are cheap, because by definition they exclude the costs of unforeseen issues. Historical costs do include the costs of unforeseen issues that emerged in implementation. Nuclear costs are historical costs. We know what nuclear costs, because we've built it before. And we've built it at scale. The cost of proposed storage technologies are hypothetical costs. Nobody has built a 1TWh storage facility, let alone a 10 TWh storage facility. We can make educated guesses at what this will cost, but they're still guesses. We'll only know the real cost after it's been built. And projected costs are almost always optimistic. Comparing historical costs to projected costs is comparing apples to oranges. > (I'd actually put carbon capture over nuclear as the backup plan. Nuclear would be the backup to the backup.) You seem to be particularly determined to avoid the one solution that is actually proven to work. 1. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-storage-80-percent-wind-solar/#:~:text=Team-,12%20hours%20of%20energy%20storage%20enough%20for%20U.S.%20to%20run,3%20weeks%20of%20energy%20storage https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/03/01/12-hours-energy-stora....