5 ms·

> The cost of operating such a plant would be at least 10x the equivalent fission plant. But fission is already not competitive, and gets less so every day. Pe

> The cost of operating such a plant would be at least 10x the equivalent fission plant. But fission is already not competitive, and gets less so every day. People keep repeating this (fission is not competitive) like it's a law of nature, but the reason they are not competitive are entirely human-made.

epistasis 4y ago
They don't repeat it "like a law of nature" but as an empirical description of our technological capacity. If there is a large advancement of construction productivity that may make nuclear more cost effective, it would be good to know about, but nobody who claims this is possible seems to have some sort of methodological description of this advancement. Similarly, those that claim that it's just regulations getting in the way of nuclear don't seem to have an answer for why Flamanville in France has issues, or have the specific change of regulations that will alleviate the construction issues that we regularly see in the Western Hemisphere. Personally, I believe an advancement in construction productivity is quite possible, but that it will take an entirely new generation of bright, ambitious, and innovative individuals entering the field, as well as compensation to attract them from other fields that currently outpay construction by quite a bit. But that's a loooong and expensive change of economies.
- DennisP 4y ago
  Here is a peer-reviewed global survey of nuclear reactor costs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... For a quick overview, skip down to figure 12, which shows a plot of overnight construction costs across time and countries. Note that the bulk of them are below $3000/kW, quite a bit less than the most expensive reactors in the US. So here's an optimizer that finds the lowest overall grid cost, based on various assumptions you can modify: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ Pick a country. "Show advanced assumption settings." Check the box for "dispatchable technology 2." Set the overnight cost down to $3000. The lifetime of 25 years is unrealistic, given that the average age of US reactors is 40 years. Set that to a more accurate value, like 60 years. Finally, give it the same discount rate as everything else. You'll find that in many countries, nuclear does quite well. In countries without good wind/solar resources, even a higher capital cost can result in a 100% nuclear grid.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    That paper is about historical costs, which is not informative for current costs. Saying 60 years is "more accurate" is kind of putting one's thumb on the scale, as is putting an overnight cost at $3000/kW. These sorts of overly rosy and unrealistically optimistic assumptions are how we get into such terrible estimates for nuclear. Even though MIT has been one of the sources of inaccurate nuclear optimism in the past, I think that this is perhaps the best assessment of how to make nuclear competitive again: https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-power/ https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-power/ I still thinks it's somewhat overly optimistic, but it at least tried to address the real and deep issues within the industry instead of hand waving them away. Until nuclear proponents both acknowledge the full reality of construction, in the 2020s, and the errors of the past, they will never be able to get to $10k/kW or even $5k/kW. A future at $3k/kW in the US is not worth even contemplating until we could reliably even hit $5k/kW, and a world with $5k/kW is currently not worth contemplating because we are so far away from that.
    - DennisP 4y ago
      If it's been done before, then we don't need a "large advancement of construction productivity" to do it again. If, as the paper shows, other countries have managed lower costs recently, then we should look at what they're doing. If the average lifespan of our existing nuclear reactors is 40 years, then setting a lifespan of more than 40 years is indeed more accurate than setting it to 25 years.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        We live in a different technological setting than we did in the past, and all sorts of skilled labor that was economical in the past is no longer economical. As parts of the economy become more productive, labor costs rise, and the less productive parts of the economy become more expensive in comparison. We see this cost disease in all sorts of large construction projects, not just nuclear. Though nuclear seems to be particularly bad. And that's why we need breakthrough in productivity. Personally I think that such a construction productivity breakthrough would have its greatest impact on decarbonization through cheaper subway construction, high speed rail construction, and through increased urban density with cheaper big buildings. These type of construction projects have few realistic alternatives, whereas renewables plus storage are already a great way to power an energy system. So if we can fix companies like Bechtel, we will see lots of improvement throughout our society far beyond nuclear construction.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  > advancement in construction productivity ... will take an entirely new generation of bright, ambitious, and innovative individuals Lack of those is not the cause of construction cost overruns, so increasing their supply would not help. Cost overruns are a deliberate consequence of wholly-legal institutional corruption, which no one shows any appetite for rooting out. Ingesting exemplary individuals just generates disillusioned individuals out the other end.

epistasis 4y ago

They don't repeat it "like a law of nature" but as an empirical description of our technological capacity. If there is a large advancement of construction productivity that may make nuclear more cost effective, it would be good to know about, but nobody who claims this is possible seems to have some sort of methodological description of this advancement. Similarly, those that claim that it's just regulations getting in the way of nuclear don't seem to have an answer for why Flamanville in France has issues, or have the specific change of regulations that will alleviate the construction issues that we regularly see in the Western Hemisphere. Personally, I believe an advancement in construction productivity is quite possible, but that it will take an entirely new generation of bright, ambitious, and innovative individuals entering the field, as well as compensation to attract them from other fields that currently outpay construction by quite a bit. But that's a loooong and expensive change of economies.

DennisP 4y ago
Here is a peer-reviewed global survey of nuclear reactor costs: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421516300106 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151... For a quick overview, skip down to figure 12, which shows a plot of overnight construction costs across time and countries. Note that the bulk of them are below $3000/kW, quite a bit less than the most expensive reactors in the US. So here's an optimizer that finds the lowest overall grid cost, based on various assumptions you can modify: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ Pick a country. "Show advanced assumption settings." Check the box for "dispatchable technology 2." Set the overnight cost down to $3000. The lifetime of 25 years is unrealistic, given that the average age of US reactors is 40 years. Set that to a more accurate value, like 60 years. Finally, give it the same discount rate as everything else. You'll find that in many countries, nuclear does quite well. In countries without good wind/solar resources, even a higher capital cost can result in a 100% nuclear grid.
- epistasis 4y ago
  That paper is about historical costs, which is not informative for current costs. Saying 60 years is "more accurate" is kind of putting one's thumb on the scale, as is putting an overnight cost at $3000/kW. These sorts of overly rosy and unrealistically optimistic assumptions are how we get into such terrible estimates for nuclear. Even though MIT has been one of the sources of inaccurate nuclear optimism in the past, I think that this is perhaps the best assessment of how to make nuclear competitive again: https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-power/ https://energy.mit.edu/research/future-nuclear-power/ I still thinks it's somewhat overly optimistic, but it at least tried to address the real and deep issues within the industry instead of hand waving them away. Until nuclear proponents both acknowledge the full reality of construction, in the 2020s, and the errors of the past, they will never be able to get to $10k/kW or even $5k/kW. A future at $3k/kW in the US is not worth even contemplating until we could reliably even hit $5k/kW, and a world with $5k/kW is currently not worth contemplating because we are so far away from that.
  - DennisP 4y ago
    If it's been done before, then we don't need a "large advancement of construction productivity" to do it again. If, as the paper shows, other countries have managed lower costs recently, then we should look at what they're doing. If the average lifespan of our existing nuclear reactors is 40 years, then setting a lifespan of more than 40 years is indeed more accurate than setting it to 25 years.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      We live in a different technological setting than we did in the past, and all sorts of skilled labor that was economical in the past is no longer economical. As parts of the economy become more productive, labor costs rise, and the less productive parts of the economy become more expensive in comparison. We see this cost disease in all sorts of large construction projects, not just nuclear. Though nuclear seems to be particularly bad. And that's why we need breakthrough in productivity. Personally I think that such a construction productivity breakthrough would have its greatest impact on decarbonization through cheaper subway construction, high speed rail construction, and through increased urban density with cheaper big buildings. These type of construction projects have few realistic alternatives, whereas renewables plus storage are already a great way to power an energy system. So if we can fix companies like Bechtel, we will see lots of improvement throughout our society far beyond nuclear construction.
ncmncm 4y ago
> advancement in construction productivity ... will take an entirely new generation of bright, ambitious, and innovative individuals Lack of those is not the cause of construction cost overruns, so increasing their supply would not help. Cost overruns are a deliberate consequence of wholly-legal institutional corruption, which no one shows any appetite for rooting out. Ingesting exemplary individuals just generates disillusioned individuals out the other end.