5 ms·

> The cost of nuclear is artificially high because special interests have lobbied hard against nuclear, draining western countries of the experience to build nu

by foepys 5y ago

> The cost of nuclear is artificially high because special interests have lobbied hard against nuclear, draining western countries of the experience to build nuclear facilities rapidly and also taking away any opportunities for efficiencies of scale. Hinkley Point C is build in cooperation by China and France, the at the moment most active countries in building and maintaining nuclear power plants. It doesn't get more "economy of scale"-ly than this.

zdragnar 5y ago
Smaller, safer, modular reactors should have been our focus decades ago. We are several generations behind where we ought to be, because we haven't prioritized it. The zero-nuclear agenda, combined with cheap natural gas and a (to me) strange fixation on renewables* has held us back. *I say strange, because renewables have only just now started to get to make sense at scale, despite the reliance on fossil fuels to provide a base load, when we could have had a clean grid by now without them had we tried.
- Retric 5y ago
  Modular reactors don’t actually reduce costs in any meaningful way. Construction costs are significant, but surprisingly low percentage of overall costs. For example nuclear needs a large highly trained workforce for decades. Every individual pulling 100k * 50 years is 5 million dollars, and you need a large workforce. Arguably security guards and medical staff are unnecessary, but modular reactors don’t lower those costs. Fuel is similarly expensive and no in practice reprocessing doesn’t really help. Shutting down for refueling is again expensive when you consider it happens 30 times over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant. Decommissioning is extremely expensive even if it can but off. Even highly subsidized insurance is yet again expensive. Overall construction costs aren’t limited to the reactor you still need radiation shielding, cooling towers or the equivalent, cooling ponds for waste, roads, offices etc. Don’t get me wrong if someone had come up with a great modular reactor 20 years ago Nuclear might be much better off today, but we’re simply past the point where more R&D is going to help. The only possibly for change is if nighttime electricity costs ended up much higher than current daytime costs. However a lot of demand is being shifted to nighttime because costs are currently cheaper, change that equation and nighttime demand will fall dramatically.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway894345 5y ago
It certainly could get a lot more “economy of scale”-y than a single bespoke reactor project. Indeed, look into small modular reactors—they’re designed to be built at scale in factories (rather than individual bespoke plants). The levels ed cost of energy for these is projected to be well below $100/MWh which compares favorably with fossil fuel sources.
- foepys 5y ago
  One unsolved problem with those small reactors is security. How do you prevent some terrorists from building dirty bombs with material stolen from a company's basement reactor? How do you trace the vast amount of radioactive material at so many sites?
  - p_l 5y ago
    One solution to it from mid-1990s was sealed reactors that are refueled by sending them back to manufacturer, fitting on single railway car. Combined with being rather hard to extract the material due to coolant used (liquid metal solidifying when shut down or leaking) and various anti-proliferation poisons used, it makes a pretty good solution.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      I am dubious. Something that fits on a single railway car can be stolen in its entirety, and then the question is “is it valuable enough someone might just do that?” It’s the same reason that puts me off houseboats: “thieves stole my house”/“my nuclear reactor has gone missing” should be Onion headlines and Pratchett storylines respectively, not things that actually happen.
      - p_l 5y ago
        individual fuel assemblies are much smaller, and by this logic easier to steal. There's a reason why logistics for certain materials include security services, and it's much harder to abscond with multiple-tens-of-tons container that can have tracking beacon than a single fuel assembly.
jjk166 5y ago
One-off megaprojects are the opposite of economy of scale. Standardized production in large numbers allows you to amortize the costs of development and validation as well as maintain a healthy ecosystem of suppliers and employees who can compete for contracts.

by foepys 5y ago

zdragnar 5y ago

Smaller, safer, modular reactors should have been our focus decades ago. We are several generations behind where we ought to be, because we haven't prioritized it. The zero-nuclear agenda, combined with cheap natural gas and a (to me) strange fixation on renewables* has held us back. *I say strange, because renewables have only just now started to get to make sense at scale, despite the reliance on fossil fuels to provide a base load, when we could have had a clean grid by now without them had we tried.

Retric 5y ago
Modular reactors don’t actually reduce costs in any meaningful way. Construction costs are significant, but surprisingly low percentage of overall costs. For example nuclear needs a large highly trained workforce for decades. Every individual pulling 100k * 50 years is 5 million dollars, and you need a large workforce. Arguably security guards and medical staff are unnecessary, but modular reactors don’t lower those costs. Fuel is similarly expensive and no in practice reprocessing doesn’t really help. Shutting down for refueling is again expensive when you consider it happens 30 times over the lifetime of a nuclear power plant. Decommissioning is extremely expensive even if it can but off. Even highly subsidized insurance is yet again expensive. Overall construction costs aren’t limited to the reactor you still need radiation shielding, cooling towers or the equivalent, cooling ponds for waste, roads, offices etc. Don’t get me wrong if someone had come up with a great modular reactor 20 years ago Nuclear might be much better off today, but we’re simply past the point where more R&D is going to help. The only possibly for change is if nighttime electricity costs ended up much higher than current daytime costs. However a lot of demand is being shifted to nighttime because costs are currently cheaper, change that equation and nighttime demand will fall dramatically.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway894345 5y ago

It certainly could get a lot more “economy of scale”-y than a single bespoke reactor project. Indeed, look into small modular reactors—they’re designed to be built at scale in factories (rather than individual bespoke plants). The levels ed cost of energy for these is projected to be well below $100/MWh which compares favorably with fossil fuel sources.

foepys 5y ago
One unsolved problem with those small reactors is security. How do you prevent some terrorists from building dirty bombs with material stolen from a company's basement reactor? How do you trace the vast amount of radioactive material at so many sites?
- p_l 5y ago
  One solution to it from mid-1990s was sealed reactors that are refueled by sending them back to manufacturer, fitting on single railway car. Combined with being rather hard to extract the material due to coolant used (liquid metal solidifying when shut down or leaking) and various anti-proliferation poisons used, it makes a pretty good solution.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    I am dubious. Something that fits on a single railway car can be stolen in its entirety, and then the question is “is it valuable enough someone might just do that?” It’s the same reason that puts me off houseboats: “thieves stole my house”/“my nuclear reactor has gone missing” should be Onion headlines and Pratchett storylines respectively, not things that actually happen.
    - p_l 5y ago
      individual fuel assemblies are much smaller, and by this logic easier to steal. There's a reason why logistics for certain materials include security services, and it's much harder to abscond with multiple-tens-of-tons container that can have tracking beacon than a single fuel assembly.

jjk166 5y ago

One-off megaprojects are the opposite of economy of scale. Standardized production in large numbers allows you to amortize the costs of development and validation as well as maintain a healthy ecosystem of suppliers and employees who can compete for contracts.