4 ms·

The problem is nuclear has been the affordable solution for decades and hasn't been built, due to politics.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Affordable by looking at any other measure than the balance sheet, maybe. Nuclear plants that are on time and on budget are exceptions, not the rule.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Affordable by looking at the decimation of the plantet. It comes at a fraction of the cost (destruction of human civilization and 80% plus of the world's animal population)
- mrjangles 5y ago
  I read an excellent article written in Physics Today by a nuclear physicist once. For the life of me I have never been able to find it again. But he describes this in detail. Basically, in his description this is entirely due to the environmental movement. Any time a nuclear plant gets planned the green groups move in a mountain of lawyers and lock down the process for years and years. The costs this adds to the projects are staggering and it is solely because of this that nuclear power can't be built in the US. In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time.
  - Krasnol 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure I know why you can't find it anymore...this is ridiculous.
    - tjr225 5y ago
      Don’t worry, they did their own research.
  - dd36 5y ago
    Astroturfing by fossil fuel companies.
    - pydry 5y ago
      I'll bet the physicist was also an ex-environmentalist. I've seen a few nuclear/carbon PR pieces dressed up this way.
  - wahern 5y ago
    > In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time. Not true, unfortunately. The same political dynamics that made nuclear expensive in the U.S. eventually made it expensive in Japan, France and, mostly recently South Korea. None of those countries, which were global leaders during their respective nuclear industry booms, can build nuclear nearly as cheaply as they used to; certainly not domestically, and not even internationally as the absence of continuous construction meant loss of skilled labor and project management expertise. See, e.g., https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u... (Google other more recent articles that better detail the current state for South Korea.)
  - moogly 5y ago
    > In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time Very much no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... "The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion, so in principle, any construction costs above that price fall on Areva." [...] "The total cost of the project, therefore, is estimated to be €11 billion." Since it's hard for me to track the scandals surrounding Areva and the different ownership structures of it, involving EDF, Framatome, TVO and who-knows-what-else, take this with a grain of salt, but I think the cost overruns may ultimately have to be paid by French tax payers? "The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010,[19] but has been pushed back several times.[20] As of August 2020, the estimate for start of regular production is June 2022.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... "EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[4] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.[6][2]" And there were also problems with the EPR reactor containment vessel EDF/Areva/Framatome delivered to China. This is all from the foremost "experts" at fission plant production in France. To my knowledge, only China has successfully (that we know) built new reactors lately.
    - natmaka 5y ago
      China: overbudget and overdelay. Then a reactor leaked and was shutdown for maintenance. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia/taishan-nuclear-plant-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia/taishan-nuclear-plan...
- yellowapple 5y ago
  The balance sheet doesn't include externalized costs, last I checked.
elihu 5y ago
I imagine there are probably ways to make nuclear power cheaper than it is without sacrificing safety, but can it compete purely on cost with solar and wind, or even coal and natural gas? If you have a plan to fix the regulatory environment in a way that makes it cheaper than fossil fuels (ignoring long term hidden costs of fossil fuel use), then by all means advocate for that. I just think that we shouldn't assume that the technical, economic, and political hurdles will be overcome. Wind and solar are the cheapest option we have right now, so I think that's what we should plan to use. If another better option becomes available we can use it too. I just don't think we should put our eggs in the "nuclear will save us" basket. Maybe it could, but maybe it won't and we need a plan B.
- lukeschlather 5y ago
  Nuclear can compete purely on cost with coal. Which is fundamentally the problem. A decade ago nuclear was still legitimately the cheapest source of power but the economics have totally changed and now coal is not profitable and nuclear is likely on the way out.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    how are you getting that coal is not profitable? Demand for coal is at an all time high. Check out coal prices. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal We are also producing more coal than ever before (modulo the dip during covid lockdowns), and coal use is projected to increase: "Global coal production is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3% between 2021 and 2025 to reach 8.8 billion t in 2025. While thermal coal production is expected to have a relatively marginal 2% CAGR to reach 7549.6 million t, metallurgical coal is forecast to register stronger growth of 4.2% per year, to reach 1216.9 million t in 2025."[1] [1]https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html
    - elihu 5y ago
      By that chart it looks like mining coal is quite profitable. On the other hand, if you're generating electricity from coal, high coal prices make generating electricity from coal more expensive, and thus less competitive with nuclear or renewables.

Affordable by looking at any other measure than the balance sheet, maybe. Nuclear plants that are on time and on budget are exceptions, not the rule.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
Affordable by looking at the decimation of the plantet. It comes at a fraction of the cost (destruction of human civilization and 80% plus of the world's animal population)
mrjangles 5y ago
I read an excellent article written in Physics Today by a nuclear physicist once. For the life of me I have never been able to find it again. But he describes this in detail. Basically, in his description this is entirely due to the environmental movement. Any time a nuclear plant gets planned the green groups move in a mountain of lawyers and lock down the process for years and years. The costs this adds to the projects are staggering and it is solely because of this that nuclear power can't be built in the US. In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time.
- Krasnol 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure I know why you can't find it anymore...this is ridiculous.
  - tjr225 5y ago
    Don’t worry, they did their own research.
- dd36 5y ago
  Astroturfing by fossil fuel companies.
  - pydry 5y ago
    I'll bet the physicist was also an ex-environmentalist. I've seen a few nuclear/carbon PR pieces dressed up this way.
- wahern 5y ago
  > In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time. Not true, unfortunately. The same political dynamics that made nuclear expensive in the U.S. eventually made it expensive in Japan, France and, mostly recently South Korea. None of those countries, which were global leaders during their respective nuclear industry booms, can build nuclear nearly as cheaply as they used to; certainly not domestically, and not even internationally as the absence of continuous construction meant loss of skilled labor and project management expertise. See, e.g., https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-u... (Google other more recent articles that better detail the current state for South Korea.)
- moogly 5y ago
  > In Europe, people have no problem building nuclear cheaply and on time Very much no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... "The main contractor, Areva, is building the unit for a fixed price of €3 billion, so in principle, any construction costs above that price fall on Areva." [...] "The total cost of the project, therefore, is estimated to be €11 billion." Since it's hard for me to track the scandals surrounding Areva and the different ownership structures of it, involving EDF, Framatome, TVO and who-knows-what-else, take this with a grain of salt, but I think the cost overruns may ultimately have to be paid by French tax payers? "The construction of the unit began in 2005. The start of commercial operation was planned for 2010,[19] but has been pushed back several times.[20] As of August 2020, the estimate for start of regular production is June 2022.[21]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... "EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[4] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[5] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.[6][2]" And there were also problems with the EPR reactor containment vessel EDF/Areva/Framatome delivered to China. This is all from the foremost "experts" at fission plant production in France. To my knowledge, only China has successfully (that we know) built new reactors lately.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    China: overbudget and overdelay. Then a reactor leaked and was shutdown for maintenance. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia/taishan-nuclear-plant-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2021/07/31/asia/taishan-nuclear-plan...
yellowapple 5y ago
The balance sheet doesn't include externalized costs, last I checked.

elihu 5y ago

I imagine there are probably ways to make nuclear power cheaper than it is without sacrificing safety, but can it compete purely on cost with solar and wind, or even coal and natural gas? If you have a plan to fix the regulatory environment in a way that makes it cheaper than fossil fuels (ignoring long term hidden costs of fossil fuel use), then by all means advocate for that. I just think that we shouldn't assume that the technical, economic, and political hurdles will be overcome. Wind and solar are the cheapest option we have right now, so I think that's what we should plan to use. If another better option becomes available we can use it too. I just don't think we should put our eggs in the "nuclear will save us" basket. Maybe it could, but maybe it won't and we need a plan B.

lukeschlather 5y ago
Nuclear can compete purely on cost with coal. Which is fundamentally the problem. A decade ago nuclear was still legitimately the cheapest source of power but the economics have totally changed and now coal is not profitable and nuclear is likely on the way out.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  how are you getting that coal is not profitable? Demand for coal is at an all time high. Check out coal prices. https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/coal We are also producing more coal than ever before (modulo the dip during covid lockdowns), and coal use is projected to increase: "Global coal production is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.3% between 2021 and 2025 to reach 8.8 billion t in 2025. While thermal coal production is expected to have a relatively marginal 2% CAGR to reach 7549.6 million t, metallurgical coal is forecast to register stronger growth of 4.2% per year, to reach 1216.9 million t in 2025."[1] [1]https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html https://www.world-energy.org/article/17139.html
  - elihu 5y ago
    By that chart it looks like mining coal is quite profitable. On the other hand, if you're generating electricity from coal, high coal prices make generating electricity from coal more expensive, and thus less competitive with nuclear or renewables.