4 ms·

Cost. Have a look at the numbers and then it should make sense. Don’t get caught up in silly internet debates about safety and politics. It might soon be che

Cost. Have a look at the numbers and then it should make sense. Don’t get caught up in silly internet debates about safety and politics. It might soon be cheaper to install new wind and solar than to operate some existing nuclear plants. https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020 https://www.lazard.com/perspective/lcoe2020

saddlerustle 5y ago
Cost is a non-answer. The cost of nuclear plants has gone up about 5x since the 70's due to regulation, which is entirely in the hands of the government.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  If your generator technology isn’t cost effective because of safety regulation, the problem is not regulation, it’s your generator technology. China recently had a reactor that nearly had a radiological release from damaged fuel rods. Even recently built reactors from newer designs have significant challenges. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-reactor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-re...
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    In what universe does this viewpoint square with regulatory capture where you saddle your competition with requirements under the guise of safety, environmentalism (or some other feel good thing it's easy to peddle to the useful idiots)? We can all imagine a case where some locale that has a big steam turbine manufacturer who has successfully lobbied to get extraneous safety requirements slapped on windmills. Or some locale where oil is big so they regulate solar excessively. Remember, energy and other commodities have razor thin margins and make it up at scale. A handicap of a percent that's masquerading as Safety(TM) can massively affect adoption.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Regulation isn't the only problem. The steam turbine of a nuclear plant by itself is more expensive than solar today. This is a similar turbine to that in a coal plant. So if coal plants are more expensive than solar, so is nuclear, even if there are no regulations. The problem isn't regulation, it's that any large infrastructure project in America is crazy expensive. Nuclear power plants are expensive because of regulation, but ev even more so for the same reason that bridges and subways are crazy expensive to build. Solar & wind are built in factories and so don't have this problem. People are trying to build nuclear plants in factories, which might be the solution.
vimy 5y ago
Cost is high because there is no mass production. Every new nuclear plant starts from scratch. France built almost all their nuclear power plants in one decade with tech from the seventies. They have 56 reactors. There’s no reason we couldn’t do it again.
- baybal2 5y ago
  > Cost is high because there is no mass production. Aside from reactor, everything else is shared with all other thermal powerplants. And think, "other thermal powerplants" also cost a ton to build, run, maintain, and decomission. Reactors themselves are the most expensive single part in the nuclear powerplant, but they are far from being the deciding factor. You cannot do much about the cost of reactors, with mass production, or without: - Without mass production, you have to forge one giant pressure vessel to extremely high standard - With mass production, you have to forge few dozen giant pressure vessels to extremely high standard The capital cost of the reactor is considerable, but take just any reactor technology, it will not make much difference to the fact of reactors being giant, expensive pressure vessels. Union's RBMK reactor design (one which blew up in Czernobil) tried to work around that by turning the pressure vessel into a huge pipe network, without much success: - Such piping network still needed to be fabricated to an extremely high standard - Such piping network still was gigantic - Such piping network still had to use super expensive superalloys - This giant pipe network was requiring even more inspection, and maintenance than one big boiler - This giant pipe network obviously leaked way more than one big boiler - Fixing the above leaks was taking enormous amounts of time, money, and manpower, and opportunity cost in lost generation hours
  - Tarrosion 5y ago
    > Reactors themselves are the most expensive single part in the nuclear powerplant Do you have a recommended source for this? My impression was the vast majority of cost was outside the "nuclear island" of the plant.
    - baybal2 5y ago
      Yes, you are right, most of the cost is still outside of nuclear island. But the single costliest part would still be a reactor, despite it itself being a small part of the plant cost. Turbines may've been more expensive than reactors for gigawatt scale plants decades ago, but large steam turbines went down in price considerably exactly because of mass manufacturing.
kongolongo 5y ago
Costs aren't static though, have we reached the limits of how much we can improve on nuclear tech? If we were having this discussion a couple of decades ago, this reasoning would lead you to believe solar and wind have insurmountable costs compared to nuclear.
poutine 5y ago
“Sorry kids. We had the solution to limitless clean energy but it was just a bit more expensive than others, so we passed. Too bad about the devastation. Lol.“
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Renewables backed by storage are cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear in most of the world. Even with a lower cost it’s taking too long to roll out, but some of that is incumbent inertia. The change will come. https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Power-Sector-Outlook_March-2021.pdf http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Power-Sector-...
- poutine 5y ago
  The above was meant to be pro nuclear. Though I see how someone could take it either way. Point being, saying one energy source is too expensive Vs another is an idiotic argument should one lead to decarbonization. But sure guys, go ahead and throw trillions on economic bailouts every several years but wring your hands at moderately more expensive energy.
- imtringued 5y ago
  You can say the same thing about renewables. Gas and coal are just a tiny bit cheaper than renewables because of subsidies.

saddlerustle 5y ago

Cost is a non-answer. The cost of nuclear plants has gone up about 5x since the 70's due to regulation, which is entirely in the hands of the government.

toomuchtodo 5y ago
If your generator technology isn’t cost effective because of safety regulation, the problem is not regulation, it’s your generator technology. China recently had a reactor that nearly had a radiological release from damaged fuel rods. Even recently built reactors from newer designs have significant challenges. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-reactor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/business/china-nuclear-re...
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  In what universe does this viewpoint square with regulatory capture where you saddle your competition with requirements under the guise of safety, environmentalism (or some other feel good thing it's easy to peddle to the useful idiots)? We can all imagine a case where some locale that has a big steam turbine manufacturer who has successfully lobbied to get extraneous safety requirements slapped on windmills. Or some locale where oil is big so they regulate solar excessively. Remember, energy and other commodities have razor thin margins and make it up at scale. A handicap of a percent that's masquerading as Safety(TM) can massively affect adoption.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
Regulation isn't the only problem. The steam turbine of a nuclear plant by itself is more expensive than solar today. This is a similar turbine to that in a coal plant. So if coal plants are more expensive than solar, so is nuclear, even if there are no regulations. The problem isn't regulation, it's that any large infrastructure project in America is crazy expensive. Nuclear power plants are expensive because of regulation, but ev even more so for the same reason that bridges and subways are crazy expensive to build. Solar & wind are built in factories and so don't have this problem. People are trying to build nuclear plants in factories, which might be the solution.

vimy 5y ago

Cost is high because there is no mass production. Every new nuclear plant starts from scratch. France built almost all their nuclear power plants in one decade with tech from the seventies. They have 56 reactors. There’s no reason we couldn’t do it again.

baybal2 5y ago
> Cost is high because there is no mass production. Aside from reactor, everything else is shared with all other thermal powerplants. And think, "other thermal powerplants" also cost a ton to build, run, maintain, and decomission. Reactors themselves are the most expensive single part in the nuclear powerplant, but they are far from being the deciding factor. You cannot do much about the cost of reactors, with mass production, or without: - Without mass production, you have to forge one giant pressure vessel to extremely high standard - With mass production, you have to forge few dozen giant pressure vessels to extremely high standard The capital cost of the reactor is considerable, but take just any reactor technology, it will not make much difference to the fact of reactors being giant, expensive pressure vessels. Union's RBMK reactor design (one which blew up in Czernobil) tried to work around that by turning the pressure vessel into a huge pipe network, without much success: - Such piping network still needed to be fabricated to an extremely high standard - Such piping network still was gigantic - Such piping network still had to use super expensive superalloys - This giant pipe network was requiring even more inspection, and maintenance than one big boiler - This giant pipe network obviously leaked way more than one big boiler - Fixing the above leaks was taking enormous amounts of time, money, and manpower, and opportunity cost in lost generation hours
- Tarrosion 5y ago
  > Reactors themselves are the most expensive single part in the nuclear powerplant Do you have a recommended source for this? My impression was the vast majority of cost was outside the "nuclear island" of the plant.
  - baybal2 5y ago
    Yes, you are right, most of the cost is still outside of nuclear island. But the single costliest part would still be a reactor, despite it itself being a small part of the plant cost. Turbines may've been more expensive than reactors for gigawatt scale plants decades ago, but large steam turbines went down in price considerably exactly because of mass manufacturing.

kongolongo 5y ago

Costs aren't static though, have we reached the limits of how much we can improve on nuclear tech? If we were having this discussion a couple of decades ago, this reasoning would lead you to believe solar and wind have insurmountable costs compared to nuclear.

poutine 5y ago

“Sorry kids. We had the solution to limitless clean energy but it was just a bit more expensive than others, so we passed. Too bad about the devastation. Lol.“

toomuchtodo 5y ago
Renewables backed by storage are cheaper than fossil fuels and nuclear in most of the world. Even with a lower cost it’s taking too long to roll out, but some of that is incumbent inertia. The change will come. https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Power-Sector-Outlook_March-2021.pdf http://ieefa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/US-Power-Sector-...
poutine 5y ago
The above was meant to be pro nuclear. Though I see how someone could take it either way. Point being, saying one energy source is too expensive Vs another is an idiotic argument should one lead to decarbonization. But sure guys, go ahead and throw trillions on economic bailouts every several years but wring your hands at moderately more expensive energy.
imtringued 5y ago
You can say the same thing about renewables. Gas and coal are just a tiny bit cheaper than renewables because of subsidies.