4 ms·

The main takeaway from that is that 2009 is not the 90's. California is building a new desalination plant, a fairly straightforward project with no surprises o

The main takeaway from that is that 2009 is not the 90's. California is building a new desalination plant, a fairly straightforward project with no surprises or midstream design changes, construction is expected to take 3 years. Let's look at something simple, such as a railway in California. >On December 2, 2010, the Authority Board of Directors voted to begin construction on the first section of the system from Madera to Fresno. >In July 2012, the California legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown approved construction of the high-speed system. >Fresno hosted a groundbreaking ceremony on January 6, 2015, to mark the commencement of sustained construction activities. It took 5 years from the vote to begin construction to groundbreaking. In 2022, there is still not a ride able section of track yet. The Fresno station, where groundbreaking occurred is scheduled completion in 2029. 14 years, or about the same length of time as Vogal if everything stays on track. The point is, big construction projects take time and are complicated. If they whipped up a nuclear plant in 3 years, there would be fear mongering about how they must have cut corners and it is unsafe. We could get the plant completion times down by committing to build more of them. Then all the large and specialized components would be built in more of a production manner rather than a bespoke manner, allowing for both cost and time savings.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> We could get the plant completion times down by committing to build more of them. Then all the large and specialized components would be built in more of a production manner rather than a bespoke manner, allowing for both cost and time savings. If that's true then go for it (it never happened in the past -- costs increased exponentially even before three mile island), but don't ask for special treatment. Whatever deal you demand in terms of fast tracking environmental assessment, guaranteed loans, billions of dollars for free insurance, public resources for security and 40 year guaranteed price for generation should be available for anyone who can meet the 50g carbon intensity target, risk of major accident, and a minimum availability. If you need just two (or ten) more $13/W projects to get you started, then offer the same $30 billion guaranteed loan to tidal and see what happens. On a level playing field noone in their right mind is going to choose to build nuclear.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Alright. Think of it a different way. I give you the nuclear heat source up front for free. Brand new AP1000 appears up to the second cooling loop by magic. Steam turbines sans the emission control equipment are about $3k/kWe Fuel rods are $10-20/MWh. Take it at a constant $10 for an AP1000 (costs of uranium and SWUs go up, but fuel efficiency and fabrication improves at about the same rate). Decomissioning is underfunded at $10/MWh but we'll pretend this is enough O&M costs for a steam turbine sans fuel is $10/MWh Demonstrate how nuclear makes sense with these constraints vs wind at $2000/kW net or solar at $2500/kW net while the gas turbines still run. Demonstrate how nuclear makes sense vs. Projected costs of pv + wind + h2 + batteries.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> We could get the plant completion times down by committing to build more of them. Then all the large and specialized components would be built in more of a production manner rather than a bespoke manner, allowing for both cost and time savings. If that's true then go for it (it never happened in the past -- costs increased exponentially even before three mile island), but don't ask for special treatment. Whatever deal you demand in terms of fast tracking environmental assessment, guaranteed loans, billions of dollars for free insurance, public resources for security and 40 year guaranteed price for generation should be available for anyone who can meet the 50g carbon intensity target, risk of major accident, and a minimum availability. If you need just two (or ten) more $13/W projects to get you started, then offer the same $30 billion guaranteed loan to tidal and see what happens. On a level playing field noone in their right mind is going to choose to build nuclear.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Alright. Think of it a different way. I give you the nuclear heat source up front for free. Brand new AP1000 appears up to the second cooling loop by magic. Steam turbines sans the emission control equipment are about $3k/kWe Fuel rods are $10-20/MWh. Take it at a constant $10 for an AP1000 (costs of uranium and SWUs go up, but fuel efficiency and fabrication improves at about the same rate). Decomissioning is underfunded at $10/MWh but we'll pretend this is enough O&M costs for a steam turbine sans fuel is $10/MWh Demonstrate how nuclear makes sense with these constraints vs wind at $2000/kW net or solar at $2500/kW net while the gas turbines still run. Demonstrate how nuclear makes sense vs. Projected costs of pv + wind + h2 + batteries.