4 ms·

> Why wouldn't the learning curve apply to nuclear power? You would think so. Which is why nuclear's apparent negative learning curve in the west is such a su

> Why wouldn't the learning curve apply to nuclear power? You would think so. Which is why nuclear's apparent negative learning curve in the west is such a surprise. https://archive.thinkprogress.org/does-nuclear-power-have-a-negative-learning-curve-b389ef2de998/ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/does-nuclear-power-have-a-... "Apparently negative learning curve" means from the raw data it is each plant is getting more expensive to build. Worse, when they analyse it, the main driver behind the cost increases doesn't appear to be government regulation or politics. It's all about construction and supply issues. I can't help but think that in post industrial societies, maybe we are getting worse at building things.

godelski 5y ago
> the main driver behind the cost increases doesn't appear to be government regulation or politics. It's all about construction and supply issues. My understanding is that the reason construction and supply costs is so high is because we go so long between building new ones that the process has to essentially be re-invented. That nuclear does not benefit from economies of scale. One could argue that this here is coupled with government and politics given that if the approval rate is low and people fight them, then it drives the cost up. And on the other side, that's why they were so much cheaper when we first built them and why they were cheap for France. There were lots of orders and so there was a benefit from scale.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  No. Nukes cost so much and take so long mainly because they are big capital projects that attract wholly legal corruption. Once the money starts flowing, it would be stopped by completing construction, so that is delayed, sometimes indefinitely, sometimes until all the money available has been spent. Occasionally an actual reactor may be delivered, in the end, but that is increasingly rare, thus evidently optional. And no one ever gives back any of the money.
  - spupe 5y ago
    Ok, but by that logic refineries would also show the same pattern. I'm not aware that they do, although I'm having a hard time finding data to back this up.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      Refineries are private projects. Nukes never are.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        That, BTW, is another clue: no private nuke power station has ever been built.
zaphirplane 5y ago
I know when doctors, lawyers, cement mixer, plumbers want to make more by charging more they blame it on costs, safety (or privacy), insurance. Never I want to make an additional 10% for doing to same amount of work, is which is a hard convincing argument. I suspect it’s not so much reinventing rather repricing

godelski 5y ago

> the main driver behind the cost increases doesn't appear to be government regulation or politics. It's all about construction and supply issues. My understanding is that the reason construction and supply costs is so high is because we go so long between building new ones that the process has to essentially be re-invented. That nuclear does not benefit from economies of scale. One could argue that this here is coupled with government and politics given that if the approval rate is low and people fight them, then it drives the cost up. And on the other side, that's why they were so much cheaper when we first built them and why they were cheap for France. There were lots of orders and so there was a benefit from scale.

ncmncm 5y ago
No. Nukes cost so much and take so long mainly because they are big capital projects that attract wholly legal corruption. Once the money starts flowing, it would be stopped by completing construction, so that is delayed, sometimes indefinitely, sometimes until all the money available has been spent. Occasionally an actual reactor may be delivered, in the end, but that is increasingly rare, thus evidently optional. And no one ever gives back any of the money.
- spupe 5y ago
  Ok, but by that logic refineries would also show the same pattern. I'm not aware that they do, although I'm having a hard time finding data to back this up.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Refineries are private projects. Nukes never are.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      That, BTW, is another clue: no private nuke power station has ever been built.

zaphirplane 5y ago

I know when doctors, lawyers, cement mixer, plumbers want to make more by charging more they blame it on costs, safety (or privacy), insurance. Never I want to make an additional 10% for doing to same amount of work, is which is a hard convincing argument. I suspect it’s not so much reinventing rather repricing