4 ms·

If anything this seems to support the position that the only way to reduce costs is to increase volume. A classic economies of scale example. Instead the expe

If anything this seems to support the position that the only way to reduce costs is to increase volume. A classic economies of scale example. Instead the experts want to disregard the data for vague reasons.

Retric 4y ago
South Korea, Japan, and India all have similar costs which suggests South Korea isn’t benefiting significantly from continuous construction. Economies of scale generally exist, but it’s not magic. A large fraction of construction costs for nuclear power plants is very similar to other structures. A high pressure steam pipe is a high pressure steam pipe and people are constantly building structures using them.
- clairity 4y ago
  also, quantity is the (primary) independent variable in economies of scale, and at quantities of dozens for nuclear plants, you can't get much economies, as opposed to when quantities are in the many thousands/millions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
trashtester 4y ago
The cost of flying has come down by 50% since 1980, and while an airplane is a simpler machine than a nuclear plant, the two industries also have a lot in common (such as the perception of risk not being in their favour). By doing international standardization and coordination in ways similar to the aircraft industry, the same should be possible for the nuclear power industry. It should be possible to consolidate most of global production down to a handful of companies (like Boing and Airbus), with a forest of subcontractors in the same way that was done for airliners, and achieve similar economies of scale. Successful designs could be re-used over a period of 20 years or more, with only minor modernizations of things like electronics, like the Airbus A320 or Boing 747. Ideally, we should have done this in 1980, but even if we start today, nuclear can provide a lot of energy at very competitive prices in the next 60-100 years. By then, we should have fusion or the ability to build energy storage cheeply enough to make renewables (probably solar) competitive.
- maccolgan 4y ago
  >handful of companies (like Boing and Airbus) Why yes everyone should consolidate global production of _nuclear power plants_ to a handful of companies probably based in the Western world.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    Imagine if there were 200 companies producing airliners instead of a handful? How would the airports know which were safe enough to land? Imagine if there were 200 operating systems for phones, instead of 2? How would corporations know which were safe enough to install 2-factor auth on? Imagine if there were 200 suppliers of x86 cpu's, all with small differences in features? How would we build safe software for those? Consolidation to a few vendors (but more than 1) is a huge benefit for both costs and safety. And there is absolutely no reason these companies need to be "Western", unless you include Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India in the "Western World". China would probably have one such company, but would perhaps only be trusted by their allies, just like US companies would probably not be allowed such infra in China or Russia.
- sanxiyn 4y ago
  By the way, this blog (Construction Physics) is about why construction in general (not nuclear power construction in particular) is expensive. One big part is that construction is done on site, and site-to-site variation hurts standardization and economies of scale. Finished airplanes can transport itself by flying. This advantage is particular to aircraft industry and probably can't be copied by other industries. Finished buildings can't transport itself.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    According to the original article, only 16.5% of the costs of a nuclear plant is from the buildings, though. Most are things like reactor equipment, turbine equipment and electrical equipment. I'd bet most of that could be built in a central factory, and then shipped to the site. In fact, when comparing to air travel costs, the reactor buildings can be compared to the airports.

Retric 4y ago

South Korea, Japan, and India all have similar costs which suggests South Korea isn’t benefiting significantly from continuous construction. Economies of scale generally exist, but it’s not magic. A large fraction of construction costs for nuclear power plants is very similar to other structures. A high pressure steam pipe is a high pressure steam pipe and people are constantly building structures using them.

clairity 4y ago
also, quantity is the (primary) independent variable in economies of scale, and at quantities of dozens for nuclear plants, you can't get much economies, as opposed to when quantities are in the many thousands/millions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

trashtester 4y ago

The cost of flying has come down by 50% since 1980, and while an airplane is a simpler machine than a nuclear plant, the two industries also have a lot in common (such as the perception of risk not being in their favour). By doing international standardization and coordination in ways similar to the aircraft industry, the same should be possible for the nuclear power industry. It should be possible to consolidate most of global production down to a handful of companies (like Boing and Airbus), with a forest of subcontractors in the same way that was done for airliners, and achieve similar economies of scale. Successful designs could be re-used over a period of 20 years or more, with only minor modernizations of things like electronics, like the Airbus A320 or Boing 747. Ideally, we should have done this in 1980, but even if we start today, nuclear can provide a lot of energy at very competitive prices in the next 60-100 years. By then, we should have fusion or the ability to build energy storage cheeply enough to make renewables (probably solar) competitive.

maccolgan 4y ago
>handful of companies (like Boing and Airbus) Why yes everyone should consolidate global production of _nuclear power plants_ to a handful of companies probably based in the Western world.
- trashtester 4y ago
  Imagine if there were 200 companies producing airliners instead of a handful? How would the airports know which were safe enough to land? Imagine if there were 200 operating systems for phones, instead of 2? How would corporations know which were safe enough to install 2-factor auth on? Imagine if there were 200 suppliers of x86 cpu's, all with small differences in features? How would we build safe software for those? Consolidation to a few vendors (but more than 1) is a huge benefit for both costs and safety. And there is absolutely no reason these companies need to be "Western", unless you include Korea, Japan, Taiwan and India in the "Western World". China would probably have one such company, but would perhaps only be trusted by their allies, just like US companies would probably not be allowed such infra in China or Russia.
sanxiyn 4y ago
By the way, this blog (Construction Physics) is about why construction in general (not nuclear power construction in particular) is expensive. One big part is that construction is done on site, and site-to-site variation hurts standardization and economies of scale. Finished airplanes can transport itself by flying. This advantage is particular to aircraft industry and probably can't be copied by other industries. Finished buildings can't transport itself.
- trashtester 4y ago
  According to the original article, only 16.5% of the costs of a nuclear plant is from the buildings, though. Most are things like reactor equipment, turbine equipment and electrical equipment. I'd bet most of that could be built in a central factory, and then shipped to the site. In fact, when comparing to air travel costs, the reactor buildings can be compared to the airports.