3 ms·

TL;DR rising labor costs and regulation

thriftwy 4y ago
Since 50s we've got so many improvements in construction tech that I would expect costs to plummet, instead they are higher than ever. Countries use immigrant labor (sometimes illegal) and have all tech available and the price only goes up. I wonder why.
kaiju0 4y ago
Each build is unique and requires way too much overhead. The new generation of preapproved factory assembled SMR's are the future.
- ortusdux 4y ago
  I have high hopes for prefab modular systems. The same design approval covers 1000+ units, most designs fit on a flat-bed for transport, and instillations can scale up as needed.
- yvdriess 4y ago
  Having talked to a nuclear engineer about this: SMRs are being politically pushed because of their political and financing convenience, more than engineering reasons. Power output scales really well with reactor size, so it makes much more sense to build the one big expensive power plant than a multitude of smaller ones. SMRs do make sense for off-grid or on-site power, but not for grid electricity.
  - Ericson2314 4y ago
    The ideal case is that SMRs are not the end goal, but a way to rebuild the supply chain. As soon as we have SMRs in prod, rather than building more of them, we should attempt to increase the size of deployments with minimal falling back on in-situ construction. SMRs take the supply chain metaphor a bit too literally: we do need practice but assembling prefabbed parts at a larger scale is fine too. There is a spectrum of options and we just need to avoid "special snowflake boondoggles". Given the US's fucked NIMBY culture, it well may be that SMRs are the best route despite these inefficiencies. Just don't expect the "solar model" where we just shit out lots of lousy product and that's it.
  - zbrozek 4y ago
    From a thermal physics and material science perspective, yes, bigger is definitely better. But there's a lot to be said of the value of being able to mass-produce a product in a factory and ship it in nearly ready-to-use state to its destination. There would also be a lot of value in turning off the ability of folks to NIMBY everything from new power plants to housing.
  - petre 4y ago
    Alvin Weinberg begs to differ, at least concerning PWRs and BWRs. The bigger plants are more efficient but less safe. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iW8yuyk3Ugw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iW8yuyk3Ugw One can scale the size by using several reactors, which is exactly what NuScale and others aim to do. One also doesn't have an unavailability problem having to shut down a large reactor in order to refuel it.
bryanlarsen 4y ago
Note that the regulatory costs are only responsible for much of the increases of the 60s and 70s. They're the boogey man, but the increases of the last forty years can't be blamed on them. It's a general problem: HSR and subway stations have seen similar increases.
- NaNDude 4y ago
  may be the increases of the last forty years have'nt been studied as thoses of the 60s to 70s, but regulatory costs are still a reality, the french EPR for exemple got a 20billion increase in cost during the construction for changes in security standards.
- Robotbeat 4y ago
  That’s also due to regulatory costs. Regulations now require “citizen voice” for large projects, whether infrastructure or just an apartment building. So NIMBYism is able to slow construction (which translates directly to increased costs), require additional measures or features. And NIMBY lawsuits after regulatory approval is given can further increase costs and schedule, even if the court rules in favor of the project. And then because of all these regulatory costs, the experience isn’t gained, so learning doesn’t occur, and if it does, it occurs only for a few firms. Additionally, large state sponsored projects often are treated as jobs programs, etc. Another issue is that the difficulty of complying with the regulations is intentional. The paperwork is difficult as an intentional sort of time-tax on building anything new. We could actually automate and streamline everything to be approved immediately (while following the letter) without large paperwork costs, but that’s not actually what those who push for the regulations actually want. They WANT it to be hard. It’s not just a boogeyman. It’s the real reason. Regulations are responsible for most of the cost of nuclear power.
  - bumby 4y ago
    You're not wrong, but I'm not sure what's a better alternative. Think of it in a different scope: government contracts are also expensive because the have to be open to competition. A lot of the red tape could be reduced with no-bid contracts, but people understand the corruption risk tradeoff is generally not worth it. In your example, it seems like the NIMBYism is the root cause, not the process by which NIMBYism is wielded.

Since 50s we've got so many improvements in construction tech that I would expect costs to plummet, instead they are higher than ever. Countries use immigrant labor (sometimes illegal) and have all tech available and the price only goes up. I wonder why.

kaiju0 4y ago

Each build is unique and requires way too much overhead. The new generation of preapproved factory assembled SMR's are the future.

ortusdux 4y ago
I have high hopes for prefab modular systems. The same design approval covers 1000+ units, most designs fit on a flat-bed for transport, and instillations can scale up as needed.
yvdriess 4y ago
Having talked to a nuclear engineer about this: SMRs are being politically pushed because of their political and financing convenience, more than engineering reasons. Power output scales really well with reactor size, so it makes much more sense to build the one big expensive power plant than a multitude of smaller ones. SMRs do make sense for off-grid or on-site power, but not for grid electricity.
- Ericson2314 4y ago
  The ideal case is that SMRs are not the end goal, but a way to rebuild the supply chain. As soon as we have SMRs in prod, rather than building more of them, we should attempt to increase the size of deployments with minimal falling back on in-situ construction. SMRs take the supply chain metaphor a bit too literally: we do need practice but assembling prefabbed parts at a larger scale is fine too. There is a spectrum of options and we just need to avoid "special snowflake boondoggles". Given the US's fucked NIMBY culture, it well may be that SMRs are the best route despite these inefficiencies. Just don't expect the "solar model" where we just shit out lots of lousy product and that's it.
- zbrozek 4y ago
  From a thermal physics and material science perspective, yes, bigger is definitely better. But there's a lot to be said of the value of being able to mass-produce a product in a factory and ship it in nearly ready-to-use state to its destination. There would also be a lot of value in turning off the ability of folks to NIMBY everything from new power plants to housing.
- petre 4y ago
  Alvin Weinberg begs to differ, at least concerning PWRs and BWRs. The bigger plants are more efficient but less safe. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iW8yuyk3Ugw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=iW8yuyk3Ugw One can scale the size by using several reactors, which is exactly what NuScale and others aim to do. One also doesn't have an unavailability problem having to shut down a large reactor in order to refuel it.

bryanlarsen 4y ago

Note that the regulatory costs are only responsible for much of the increases of the 60s and 70s. They're the boogey man, but the increases of the last forty years can't be blamed on them. It's a general problem: HSR and subway stations have seen similar increases.

NaNDude 4y ago
may be the increases of the last forty years have'nt been studied as thoses of the 60s to 70s, but regulatory costs are still a reality, the french EPR for exemple got a 20billion increase in cost during the construction for changes in security standards.
Robotbeat 4y ago
That’s also due to regulatory costs. Regulations now require “citizen voice” for large projects, whether infrastructure or just an apartment building. So NIMBYism is able to slow construction (which translates directly to increased costs), require additional measures or features. And NIMBY lawsuits after regulatory approval is given can further increase costs and schedule, even if the court rules in favor of the project. And then because of all these regulatory costs, the experience isn’t gained, so learning doesn’t occur, and if it does, it occurs only for a few firms. Additionally, large state sponsored projects often are treated as jobs programs, etc. Another issue is that the difficulty of complying with the regulations is intentional. The paperwork is difficult as an intentional sort of time-tax on building anything new. We could actually automate and streamline everything to be approved immediately (while following the letter) without large paperwork costs, but that’s not actually what those who push for the regulations actually want. They WANT it to be hard. It’s not just a boogeyman. It’s the real reason. Regulations are responsible for most of the cost of nuclear power.
- bumby 4y ago
  You're not wrong, but I'm not sure what's a better alternative. Think of it in a different scope: government contracts are also expensive because the have to be open to competition. A lot of the red tape could be reduced with no-bid contracts, but people understand the corruption risk tradeoff is generally not worth it. In your example, it seems like the NIMBYism is the root cause, not the process by which NIMBYism is wielded.