5 ms·
Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to
by lettergram 4y ago
Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers.
Further, I can imagine an insurance broker (similar to the FDIC) collaborating across areas of nuclear was an option.
Laws are what’s stopping nuclear, not finances or economics. I’ve mentioned it here before, my family was in the industry building nuclear plants. They’d have 3+ people for every weld, fit; etc.
example of real situation: contractor is supposed to weld frame, the union guy is supposed to weld pipes, there are different inspectors for each. Pipe inspector comes Wednesday, frame inspector comes Thursday. Frame must be inspected before pipe is in.
Contractor welds pipe and frame Tuesday because union guy is out sick. Pipe inspector approves on Wednesday. Pipe welder returns Thursday, frame inspector comes and pipe welder complains, take it out.
Next week, the pipe welder drinks all week. Frame welder welds frame, inspection complete and passes.
Following week pipe welder completes weld for pipe. But inspector was out sick. Further sections must be put on hold until inspected.
Following week pipe inspector inspects and approve.
At this point the project is 1 month behind where it could have been due to union rules (enforced by law) & legal requirements of inspection.
What really put the nail in the coffin, was (I believe it was GE) was caught faking photos of pipes. There was then a requirement to remove and replace all the piping for a project(s) - at cost. Which was a hell of a lot of money and regulations were then dramatically increased. Haven’t built since.
- dale_glass 4y ago> Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers. Okay, and if people are selling wind or solar at 30% of the price, why would anyone pay to the nuclear plant? > Laws are what’s stopping nuclear, not finances or economics. I’ve mentioned it here before, my family was in the industry building nuclear plants. They’d have 3+ people for every weld, fit; etc. Well, tough shit, that's how things work when you're dealing with dangerous stuff. I fully believe nuclear can be a safe technology. But it's only safe when everything is done by the rules, and there are inspectors for everything.
- cnlevy 4y ago> that's how things work when you're dealing with dangerous stuff What the OP described was looking more like an Italian strike than manufacturing sensitive construction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule
- fewavewavewa 4y agoIf modern renewables are so affordable as investments, provide quick returns, and produce electrictiy that's 30% the cost of nuclear, then why isn't it everywhere and electric power very cheap?
- dale_glass 4y agoThey take time to build, solar is intermittent, and just like with nuclear there are NIMBY issues. Installed solar capacity is rapidly going up. Solar in particular is a big potential issue for nuclear, because so long the sun is shining, why would you buy any nuclear power? Solar is far cheaper to provide, so any rational person would buy solar first. And the more solar the less nuclear has to do during the day, which means that all those billions take longer and longer to pay off. And you better hope storage doesn't kick off before that.
- fewavewavewa 4y agoSo renewables are not cheap, easy, and quick?
- dale_glass 4y agoThey're very cheap compared to building nuclear, very easy to build compared to nuclear, and go up in weeks or months rather than years, so also quick. Capacity is being rapidly added, but there's not enough of them yet.
- fewavewavewa 4y ago
- cinntaile 4y ago> Power companies where I have lived can charge a percentage over costs. Basically, they can build nuclear all they want; amortize it and charge 10% above cost to customers. This doesn't solve the economics, if the cost is too high it doesn't matter that you can charge the consumers extra. You have to weigh it against other energy investments you can do instead.