4 ms·

> nuclear power plants take forever to build. In France, the first nuclear plants of the current production group were contracted in 1970, and connected to the

by pyrale 5y ago

> nuclear power plants take forever to build. In France, the first nuclear plants of the current production group were contracted in 1970, and connected to the network in 1977, so that's 7 years for a pilot industrial project. Later plants were built in 5-6 years. The kicker is that this work is highly scalable: France built over 6 reactors per year over its program. The current issue with new generation reactors seem to be related to loss of industrial knowledge, there is no reason to think that the next built in the series would suffer from the same issues.

Ekaros 5y ago
I think large part of it is increased scrutiny and standards. Which is entirely justified. And most of issues could be solved as said with knowledge and proper pipeline of keeping people who already gained experience from past projects on new ones.
- epistasis 5y ago
  As an amateur, I read everything I can about why the US's current nuclear construction attempts have failed, and my conclusion is exactly the reverse. The problem is a lack of scrutiny and attention to detail, poor planning, bad logistics, and general incompetence. The NRC reviews only the safety of reactors, not if it's a constructible design. If somebody had held Westinghouse to the standard of having constructible designs, in addition to safe designs, maybe the disasters at Vogtle and VC Summer might have been avoided.
  - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
    At least in the US, we can’t seem to build any large projects of any kind. I just don’t see nuclear happening here.
- liketochill 5y ago
  I think the problem is the compensation model. None of the people building the plant have any skin in the game. At some level the people doing the work aren’t paid enough to care enough to prevent the issues that plague new nuclear projects, or they don’t have the resources, or they don’t have any incentive to go the extra mile to ensure project success. Are there stock options and equity for the engineers and project managers? Any ambitious engineer graduating in the last 15 years probably went to tech, not utilities. I’m in the energy sector
juahan 5y ago
Well, currently the French are buildin a new nuclear power plant in Finland. Construction started 2005 and it was supposed to be ready in 2009… they are still building it and _maybe_ next year it finally will be connected to the grid. So 17 years give or take.
- pyrale 5y ago
  France lost lots of construction/industrial knowledge wrt nuclear plants. It's not very surprising that new models built by inexperienced companies end up being over budget and schedule. I wouldn't surprised for Hinkley point C to also have such issues. What I would like to know is whether the amount of issues is significantly reduced compared to Flamanville and Olkiluoto. That would be a good indication about whether the design is faulty, or whether it's the industry having teething issues.
epistasis 5y ago
7 years is way too long. And it was a different time, in an economy with different skills, and entirely different technologies. What was cheap and fast 50 years ago may not be the best thing to build today. For example, the wealthy no longer build many mansions with intricate stonework and wood molding, all crafted by hand. The workforce is no longer there. We should pay close attention to the productive capacity of today, what sort of industrial machines we have at our actual disposal. Nobody who is talking about nuclear pays attention to what it would actually take to build nuclear like France did in the 1970s, it's just an assumption that it could be done, without paying attention to any of the details. Further, those proposing lots of new nuclear never deal with the massive failures of current attempts, whether it's France's EPR designs at Flamanville, Olkiluoto, or Hinkley. All have been failures. What would change to get a first-of-a-kind build down to 7 years? Nobody has answers to these questions, least of all the nuclear industry. And until somebody has a clear and detailed and knowledgeable path forward on construction, we will waste billions and billions more on ineffective nuclear when those resources could instead be out to use right away with storage and renewables.
- pyrale 5y ago
  > 7 years is way too long. What's a good timeline then, and what technology not emitting co2 supports it? The countries that have started wind&solar policies a decade ago are nowhere close to a clean electricity mix. In fact, fossil plants and infrastructures are still being built in these countries.
  - epistasis 5y ago
    There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here. You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. If you plot out the growth of wind and solar deployments rate, we are just baaaarely on track to replace all of our energy services with renewable energy in the next 15-20 years. Storage is also growing at an acceptable rate for our needs, we are producing 200GWh/ year right now, will get to 2000GWh/year by 2026, and be at 20-30 TWh/ year by 2031-2036. In contrast, if we figure out how to build a first-of-a-kind in 7 years, then start scaling up, most of the energy transition will have already happened. The only reason to pursue nuclear is if it seems to be cheaper than the alternatives. It doesn't look like it will be. But even if it's more expensive, getting 10% or so of our power from nuclear might lead to a cost optimal solution, so I hope the industry can pull itself together. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.
atomicusit 5y ago
Let's check the stats on the newest nuclear power plant built in France: > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor. In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022. > EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months. The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. 10 years late (so far) and 15 bil over budget (so far). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

by pyrale 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

I think large part of it is increased scrutiny and standards. Which is entirely justified. And most of issues could be solved as said with knowledge and proper pipeline of keeping people who already gained experience from past projects on new ones.

epistasis 5y ago
As an amateur, I read everything I can about why the US's current nuclear construction attempts have failed, and my conclusion is exactly the reverse. The problem is a lack of scrutiny and attention to detail, poor planning, bad logistics, and general incompetence. The NRC reviews only the safety of reactors, not if it's a constructible design. If somebody had held Westinghouse to the standard of having constructible designs, in addition to safe designs, maybe the disasters at Vogtle and VC Summer might have been avoided.
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  At least in the US, we can’t seem to build any large projects of any kind. I just don’t see nuclear happening here.
liketochill 5y ago
I think the problem is the compensation model. None of the people building the plant have any skin in the game. At some level the people doing the work aren’t paid enough to care enough to prevent the issues that plague new nuclear projects, or they don’t have the resources, or they don’t have any incentive to go the extra mile to ensure project success. Are there stock options and equity for the engineers and project managers? Any ambitious engineer graduating in the last 15 years probably went to tech, not utilities. I’m in the energy sector

juahan 5y ago

Well, currently the French are buildin a new nuclear power plant in Finland. Construction started 2005 and it was supposed to be ready in 2009… they are still building it and _maybe_ next year it finally will be connected to the grid. So 17 years give or take.

pyrale 5y ago
France lost lots of construction/industrial knowledge wrt nuclear plants. It's not very surprising that new models built by inexperienced companies end up being over budget and schedule. I wouldn't surprised for Hinkley point C to also have such issues. What I would like to know is whether the amount of issues is significantly reduced compared to Flamanville and Olkiluoto. That would be a good indication about whether the design is faulty, or whether it's the industry having teething issues.

epistasis 5y ago

7 years is way too long. And it was a different time, in an economy with different skills, and entirely different technologies. What was cheap and fast 50 years ago may not be the best thing to build today. For example, the wealthy no longer build many mansions with intricate stonework and wood molding, all crafted by hand. The workforce is no longer there. We should pay close attention to the productive capacity of today, what sort of industrial machines we have at our actual disposal. Nobody who is talking about nuclear pays attention to what it would actually take to build nuclear like France did in the 1970s, it's just an assumption that it could be done, without paying attention to any of the details. Further, those proposing lots of new nuclear never deal with the massive failures of current attempts, whether it's France's EPR designs at Flamanville, Olkiluoto, or Hinkley. All have been failures. What would change to get a first-of-a-kind build down to 7 years? Nobody has answers to these questions, least of all the nuclear industry. And until somebody has a clear and detailed and knowledgeable path forward on construction, we will waste billions and billions more on ineffective nuclear when those resources could instead be out to use right away with storage and renewables.

pyrale 5y ago
> 7 years is way too long. What's a good timeline then, and what technology not emitting co2 supports it? The countries that have started wind&solar policies a decade ago are nowhere close to a clean electricity mix. In fact, fossil plants and infrastructures are still being built in these countries.
- epistasis 5y ago
  There's a big contradiction in your two assessments here. You seem to think that nuclear can scale from almost nothing to the hundreds of reactor per year that we need in a suitable amount of time. However, even with renewable's exponential growth to hundreds of GW deployed every year today, with exponential growth continuing from today, you seem to think it's not enough. If you plot out the growth of wind and solar deployments rate, we are just baaaarely on track to replace all of our energy services with renewable energy in the next 15-20 years. Storage is also growing at an acceptable rate for our needs, we are producing 200GWh/ year right now, will get to 2000GWh/year by 2026, and be at 20-30 TWh/ year by 2031-2036. In contrast, if we figure out how to build a first-of-a-kind in 7 years, then start scaling up, most of the energy transition will have already happened. The only reason to pursue nuclear is if it seems to be cheaper than the alternatives. It doesn't look like it will be. But even if it's more expensive, getting 10% or so of our power from nuclear might lead to a cost optimal solution, so I hope the industry can pull itself together. I'm doubtful, but hopeful.

atomicusit 5y ago

Let's check the stats on the newest nuclear power plant built in France: > A third reactor at the site, an EPR unit, began construction in 2007 with its commercial introduction scheduled for 2012. As of 2020 the project is more than five times over budget and years behind schedule. Various safety problems have been raised, including weakness in the steel used in the reactor. In July 2019, further delays were announced, pushing back the commercial date to the end 2022. > EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months. The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022. 10 years late (so far) and 15 bil over budget (so far). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...