4 ms·

All of the above is true enough, but it is not the full story on why US nukes cost like they do. The ones attempted recently in South Carolina and Georgia cost

by ncmncm 4y ago

All of the above is true enough, but it is not the full story on why US nukes cost like they do. The ones attempted recently in South Carolina and Georgia cost so much because people in a position to block building them want it that way. Once a nuke project starts, a torrent of money starts flowing. Everybody with a stake expects a share, and none want it ever to end. Finishing a plant would plug that flow. If it looks like the flow will dry up regardless, they might deliver something at the end. We see the same process with urban tunnels and big military procurements. It is all perfectly legal. It is probably not fixable. Thus far, wind and solar projects have mostly avoided it, maybe in part because their legitimate costs are easy to estimate. Existing nukes also cost more than renewables to operate, because they actually have operating costs. Big steam turbines, in particular, need regular overhauls. So, it is hard for anything with a steam turbine to compete with something that has none. Reactors need also operation, inspections, refueling, security, compliance monitoring... the list goes on. Solar panels might need to be dusted off, or replaced. The worst that can happen to a wind turbine is to catch fire.

pclmulqdq 4y ago
Wind turbines also need regular maintenance, but a lot less than big turbines.
dylan604 4y ago
>We see the same process with urban tunnels and big military procurements. It is all perfectly legal. It is probably not fixable. Not being a lawyer and all that, would some of this holding of the hands-out not qualify as some sort of grift or worse? Are there not laws already in place for this stuff? Is it a case of it being too hard to prove so no prosecutions are brought?
- thereisnospork 4y ago
  >Not being a lawyer and all that, would some of this holding of the hands-out not qualify as some sort of grift or worse? Are there not laws already in place for this stuff? Is it a case of it being too hard to prove so no prosecutions are brought? Practically speaking sure, but all one needs to do is hide the grift behind a veneer of altruism and people[0] lap it up. Also half the time it is the lawmakers behind the grift. Do the phrases: “Think of the children“, “we need an environmental impact report“, or “This is a building of historical significance“ ring a bell? Behind each of them is an entity(ies) looking to advance their interest, which is often, but not always, profit from the increased diligence required or profit from the obstruction and the induced scarcity. [0]The voting electorate, anyway.
- specialist 4y ago
  Extortion is the metaphor I use. Francis Fukuyama uses the term "vetocracy" for our government. So many layers, so many checks and balances. Some of them were even a good idea at the time (eg in response to abusers like Robert Caro). Every petty tyrant or crank has to be bought off, rolled over, or buried under. That takes time, resources, lawyers, political capital, stamina, tenacity. I'm not even so sure vetocracy is a wholly bad thing, in principle. Of course people impacted by projects should be considered, heard, and hopefully accommodated. But, as others have already stated, vetocracy has been weaponized to thwart all progress, regardless of how much popular support is behind them. For instance, we need expand our power grid, roughly 3x bigger. The challenge is our current patchwork of veto points (local, county, state, regional, national). So someone(s) will have to expend huge political capital to overhaul the regulatory and permitting system. Or we simply won't reach our goal for net zero carbon emissions.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    >Extortion is the metaphor I use. When I mentioned "grift or worse", extortion is what I was thinking of but just unable to use my brain to get to extortion. So thanks for getting me there.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  I think the technical term is "patronage". I am not very clear on the details. It is just, the bigger the budget, the more people you need on board pulling for it vs. every other project after the same money. Some people will support you because they agree with your priorities. Others need persuasion. You don't personally have the means for persuasion, but the project does, so it comes from that budget. Of course, the more persuasion you need, the more it costs, and the more backing you need. So it is usually better to budget less and plan on overruns, instead. And, finishing on time would mean cutting off all those backers; thus, the schedule is overrun, too. Thing is, most things somebody wants to spend $billions in public money on shouldn't proceed.
pfdietz 4y ago
One reason renewables avoid it is the projects can be built in stages, with an off ramp if the contractor turns out to have lied.

by ncmncm 4y ago

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Wind turbines also need regular maintenance, but a lot less than big turbines.

dylan604 4y ago

>We see the same process with urban tunnels and big military procurements. It is all perfectly legal. It is probably not fixable. Not being a lawyer and all that, would some of this holding of the hands-out not qualify as some sort of grift or worse? Are there not laws already in place for this stuff? Is it a case of it being too hard to prove so no prosecutions are brought?

thereisnospork 4y ago
>Not being a lawyer and all that, would some of this holding of the hands-out not qualify as some sort of grift or worse? Are there not laws already in place for this stuff? Is it a case of it being too hard to prove so no prosecutions are brought? Practically speaking sure, but all one needs to do is hide the grift behind a veneer of altruism and people[0] lap it up. Also half the time it is the lawmakers behind the grift. Do the phrases: “Think of the children“, “we need an environmental impact report“, or “This is a building of historical significance“ ring a bell? Behind each of them is an entity(ies) looking to advance their interest, which is often, but not always, profit from the increased diligence required or profit from the obstruction and the induced scarcity. [0]The voting electorate, anyway.
specialist 4y ago
Extortion is the metaphor I use. Francis Fukuyama uses the term "vetocracy" for our government. So many layers, so many checks and balances. Some of them were even a good idea at the time (eg in response to abusers like Robert Caro). Every petty tyrant or crank has to be bought off, rolled over, or buried under. That takes time, resources, lawyers, political capital, stamina, tenacity. I'm not even so sure vetocracy is a wholly bad thing, in principle. Of course people impacted by projects should be considered, heard, and hopefully accommodated. But, as others have already stated, vetocracy has been weaponized to thwart all progress, regardless of how much popular support is behind them. For instance, we need expand our power grid, roughly 3x bigger. The challenge is our current patchwork of veto points (local, county, state, regional, national). So someone(s) will have to expend huge political capital to overhaul the regulatory and permitting system. Or we simply won't reach our goal for net zero carbon emissions.
- dylan604 4y ago
  >Extortion is the metaphor I use. When I mentioned "grift or worse", extortion is what I was thinking of but just unable to use my brain to get to extortion. So thanks for getting me there.
ncmncm 4y ago
I think the technical term is "patronage". I am not very clear on the details. It is just, the bigger the budget, the more people you need on board pulling for it vs. every other project after the same money. Some people will support you because they agree with your priorities. Others need persuasion. You don't personally have the means for persuasion, but the project does, so it comes from that budget. Of course, the more persuasion you need, the more it costs, and the more backing you need. So it is usually better to budget less and plan on overruns, instead. And, finishing on time would mean cutting off all those backers; thus, the schedule is overrun, too. Thing is, most things somebody wants to spend $billions in public money on shouldn't proceed.

pfdietz 4y ago

One reason renewables avoid it is the projects can be built in stages, with an off ramp if the contractor turns out to have lied.