6 ms·

> In conclusion, (...) nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive What do you mean? 50+ reactors are under construction

by m2fkxy 4y ago

> In conclusion, (...) nuclear reactors are simply not going to be built because they are not competitive What do you mean? 50+ reactors are under construction as we write [1], and almost twice as much are planned [2] (with even more proposed). Furthermore: > A nuclear reactor cannot be shipped Marine nuclear reactors (of which 200-ish are in active service) and Chukotka's floating nuclear power plants are notable counter-examples. Especially with marine reactors being the baseline for the philosophy behind SMRs. [1] https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstructionreactorsbycountry.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction... [2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu...

rattray 4y ago
Can you share sources? I'm surprised that so many reactors are being built.
- m2fkxy 4y ago
  Yes, sorry for not having done so. Edited my comment. On reactors under construction, IAEA's PRIS database. https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstructionreactorsbycountry.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction... On planned reactors, World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... EDIT: wrong link for IAEA's db.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  What matters is how many will be completed, not cancelled. That number is rather smaller.
otherme123 4y ago
That table doesn't support your thesis, specially when you think of the one reactor being built in France. Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. A better table would be "increase in nuclear output". E.g. fully self driving vehicles are being built, but little or none see the street, much less have a positive ROI. Planned and proposed is even worse. A lot of them would never leave that status. Only energy super eager countries like China or India are effectively increasing nuclear capacity, and in a way that nobody knows if they are financially sound investments.
- modo_mario 4y ago
  >Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. If you'd go to check for the average build time of a nuclear reactor or the new reactors that come into service you'd notice they're often/typically connected and running 5-6 years after they start building. A lot of that is helped by china and the likes not having horror stories like Finland.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    It's also helped by China starting the construction clock after concrete and steel are already in the ground. You can get good numbers by cheating.
locallost 4y ago
The capacity of plants built now is about the same as it's being retired. This will only accelerate in the future as old plants get more and more decommissioned. I'm comparison there is almost 300GW of capacity in renewables added every year. All nuclear capacity being built now for the next decades is less than what's added in renewables every year, and that's even considering the capacity factor. So they are not being built in any significant way. Percentage of nuclear went down from 20 to 10 percent and it will continue to go down, until it becomes economical or we figure out we can't get renewables to work. I personally wouldn't bet on either of those, but that's just my opinion. There is a third option of course that is very realistic, and that is that the nuclear lobby buys itself a business model through FUD and other means. Currently they realistically don't have one.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  If renewables can't do it, they can at least reach a state where the residual demand is utterly unsuitable to nuclear. If renewables are maxed out there will be long periods where they are supplying all demand; the residue has zero base load.
ncmncm 4y ago
Plants planned or under construction will be cancelled anywhere they are not massively subsidized by government coercion of tax- or ratepayers, as energy prices continue downward. They will be recognized as unable to compete. Existing plants will be mothballed as energy prices drop below the level needed to continue operating, again except where coerced.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  Nuclear power is the cheapest option: https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ And it is far more reliable than renewables.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    With enough thumbs on the scale, you can support any conclusion. In this case, neglecting all public subsidies and neglecting CAPEX. It is furthermore a snapshot. Policy for construction needs to consider the future, and renewables cost is still falling fast.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    That's for "LTO": extending the lifespan of existing nuclear plants. The cost of power from new construction nuclear would be much higher.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      The LTO is the estimated lifespan of the plant. The LTOs provided in that chart are well below the real lifespan of these plants. The capital cost of building the plants is also provided in the chart. That means this accounts for "the cost of power from new construction nuclear" you refer to.
      - pfdietz 4y ago
        LTO is referring to refurbishment efforts to extend the lifespan of an existing plant. Look at the first line in that chart. It's for 20 years of operation of a 1000 MW reactor. The capital cost is listed as $5.93/MWh. If that reactor is operating at 90% capacity factor for 20 years, the total capital cost comes in at less than $1B. That cannot possibly be the cost of building a new nuclear plant. Instead, it's the capital cost of the refurbishment needed to allow an existing reactor to operate for another 20 years. This can surely be a nice way to get more from many existing NPPs (although some of these refurbishment efforts have gone disastrously wrong; see Crystal River 3 in Florida for example), but it has little relevance to the cost of building a new NPP.

by m2fkxy 4y ago

rattray 4y ago

Can you share sources? I'm surprised that so many reactors are being built.

m2fkxy 4y ago
Yes, sorry for not having done so. Edited my comment. On reactors under construction, IAEA's PRIS database. https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstructionreactorsbycountry.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/pris/worldstatistics/underconstruction... On planned reactors, World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-fu... EDIT: wrong link for IAEA's db.
ncmncm 4y ago
What matters is how many will be completed, not cancelled. That number is rather smaller.

otherme123 4y ago

That table doesn't support your thesis, specially when you think of the one reactor being built in France. Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. A better table would be "increase in nuclear output". E.g. fully self driving vehicles are being built, but little or none see the street, much less have a positive ROI. Planned and proposed is even worse. A lot of them would never leave that status. Only energy super eager countries like China or India are effectively increasing nuclear capacity, and in a way that nobody knows if they are financially sound investments.

modo_mario 4y ago
>Something being built means little when the time from "start" and "end" is meassured in decades. If you'd go to check for the average build time of a nuclear reactor or the new reactors that come into service you'd notice they're often/typically connected and running 5-6 years after they start building. A lot of that is helped by china and the likes not having horror stories like Finland.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  It's also helped by China starting the construction clock after concrete and steel are already in the ground. You can get good numbers by cheating.

locallost 4y ago

The capacity of plants built now is about the same as it's being retired. This will only accelerate in the future as old plants get more and more decommissioned. I'm comparison there is almost 300GW of capacity in renewables added every year. All nuclear capacity being built now for the next decades is less than what's added in renewables every year, and that's even considering the capacity factor. So they are not being built in any significant way. Percentage of nuclear went down from 20 to 10 percent and it will continue to go down, until it becomes economical or we figure out we can't get renewables to work. I personally wouldn't bet on either of those, but that's just my opinion. There is a third option of course that is very realistic, and that is that the nuclear lobby buys itself a business model through FUD and other means. Currently they realistically don't have one.

pfdietz 4y ago
If renewables can't do it, they can at least reach a state where the residual demand is utterly unsuitable to nuclear. If renewables are maxed out there will be long periods where they are supplying all demand; the residue has zero base load.

ncmncm 4y ago

Plants planned or under construction will be cancelled anywhere they are not massively subsidized by government coercion of tax- or ratepayers, as energy prices continue downward. They will be recognized as unable to compete. Existing plants will be mothballed as energy prices drop below the level needed to continue operating, again except where coerced.

ETH_start 4y ago
Nuclear power is the cheapest option: https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ https://www.oecd-nea.org/lcoe/ And it is far more reliable than renewables.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  With enough thumbs on the scale, you can support any conclusion. In this case, neglecting all public subsidies and neglecting CAPEX. It is furthermore a snapshot. Policy for construction needs to consider the future, and renewables cost is still falling fast.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  That's for "LTO": extending the lifespan of existing nuclear plants. The cost of power from new construction nuclear would be much higher.
  - ETH_start 4y ago
    The LTO is the estimated lifespan of the plant. The LTOs provided in that chart are well below the real lifespan of these plants. The capital cost of building the plants is also provided in the chart. That means this accounts for "the cost of power from new construction nuclear" you refer to.
    - pfdietz 4y ago
      LTO is referring to refurbishment efforts to extend the lifespan of an existing plant. Look at the first line in that chart. It's for 20 years of operation of a 1000 MW reactor. The capital cost is listed as $5.93/MWh. If that reactor is operating at 90% capacity factor for 20 years, the total capital cost comes in at less than $1B. That cannot possibly be the cost of building a new nuclear plant. Instead, it's the capital cost of the refurbishment needed to allow an existing reactor to operate for another 20 years. This can surely be a nice way to get more from many existing NPPs (although some of these refurbishment efforts have gone disastrously wrong; see Crystal River 3 in Florida for example), but it has little relevance to the cost of building a new NPP.