3 ms·

Wishful thinking. The problem with nuclear energy is not is not the risk of meltdown. It is not the waste, not directly. The problem is economics. Light water

Wishful thinking. The problem with nuclear energy is not is not the risk of meltdown. It is not the waste, not directly. The problem is economics. Light water fission reactors are the least expensive nuclear reactors we know of, and even these can not break even. Every other design is even more expensive. For nuclear energy to work it must be profitable. Economics is nuclear energy's Achilles' heel, and its only hurdle.

PaulHoule 4y ago
That's what people thought in 1980. A big part of the high cost of the LWR is the cost of the steam turbine and associated heat exchangers (a typical PWR has several of those, each of which is as big as the reactor vessel) These very large systems inflate the balance of system costs such as the size of both the confinement and auxillary buildings. It's no accident that they stopped building coal burning power plants at the same time they stopped building nuclear plants. Neither one could compete with the low capital cost of gas turbine power plants fueled with methane. Old literature expected that HTGR power plants with steam turbines might be able to beat the LWR in economics, that fast breeder reactors would be more fuel efficient but have higher capital costs. Today there is some expectation that a fast reactor with a closed cycle gas turbine could undercut the capital cost of an LWR. Now that kind of gas turbine is not a bird in the hand and will take some development, but the potential reward is huge... Such a turbine would almost fit in the employee break room of the turbine house of an LWR.
- philipkglass 4y ago
  Nuclear plant and coal plant construction didn't really stop at the same time, though. In the early 21st century before the fracking boom took off in the US, natural gas prices were rising. This spurred a small spurt of new coal plant construction in the US. Their operating start dates cluster around 2010 though construction starts were earlier: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30812 The bad news is that coal fired power can be cheaper than gas fired power when gas prices are high. If coal and nuclear alike were dominated by the cost of steam equipment, we should have seen a similar burst of nuclear reactors starting to operate in the US around that time. Nuclear power plants are sadly more expensive to build and operate than coal plants. The good news is that falling costs for renewables and storage make it very unlikely that the US will build any more coal-fired plants on economic grounds.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    The US has not built a new coal fired power plant for ten years now (932 MW Sandy Creek Energy Station in Texas, came online in 2013). Do we even have the industrial infrastructure to build one now?
    - Maursault 4y ago
      It no longer makes economic sense to build coal power plants as 99% of US coal plants are more expensive than renewables.[1] This is pretty bad news for nuclear, as nuclear is 5x–6x more expensive to build than a coal plant. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/01/30/99-of-us-coal-plants-are-more-expensive-than-new-renewables-a-coal-to-clean-transition-is-worth-589-billion-mostly-in-red-states/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/01/30/99-...
- Maursault 4y ago
  > Today there is some expectation that a fast reactor with a closed cycle gas turbine could undercut the capital cost of an LWR. No there isn't. Check your figures. Breeder reactors literally cost twice as much as light water reactors of comparable power.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    That is the old data from the 1980s. That assumes you have heat exchangers with miles and miles of pipe that will fail annoyingly (but not catastrophically) if a pinhole leak causes water to contact sodium. If you are working at higher temperatures with printed circuit heat exchangers the whole thing is dramatically smaller.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      The data is current. It has not and is not possible to build a breeder reactor for less than a water cooled reactor. And breeder reactors are more costly to operate. Nothing has changed. Make it profitable, and you can have all the breeder reactors you want.

PaulHoule 4y ago

That's what people thought in 1980. A big part of the high cost of the LWR is the cost of the steam turbine and associated heat exchangers (a typical PWR has several of those, each of which is as big as the reactor vessel) These very large systems inflate the balance of system costs such as the size of both the confinement and auxillary buildings. It's no accident that they stopped building coal burning power plants at the same time they stopped building nuclear plants. Neither one could compete with the low capital cost of gas turbine power plants fueled with methane. Old literature expected that HTGR power plants with steam turbines might be able to beat the LWR in economics, that fast breeder reactors would be more fuel efficient but have higher capital costs. Today there is some expectation that a fast reactor with a closed cycle gas turbine could undercut the capital cost of an LWR. Now that kind of gas turbine is not a bird in the hand and will take some development, but the potential reward is huge... Such a turbine would almost fit in the employee break room of the turbine house of an LWR.

philipkglass 4y ago
Nuclear plant and coal plant construction didn't really stop at the same time, though. In the early 21st century before the fracking boom took off in the US, natural gas prices were rising. This spurred a small spurt of new coal plant construction in the US. Their operating start dates cluster around 2010 though construction starts were earlier: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=30812 The bad news is that coal fired power can be cheaper than gas fired power when gas prices are high. If coal and nuclear alike were dominated by the cost of steam equipment, we should have seen a similar burst of nuclear reactors starting to operate in the US around that time. Nuclear power plants are sadly more expensive to build and operate than coal plants. The good news is that falling costs for renewables and storage make it very unlikely that the US will build any more coal-fired plants on economic grounds.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  The US has not built a new coal fired power plant for ten years now (932 MW Sandy Creek Energy Station in Texas, came online in 2013). Do we even have the industrial infrastructure to build one now?
  - Maursault 4y ago
    It no longer makes economic sense to build coal power plants as 99% of US coal plants are more expensive than renewables.[1] This is pretty bad news for nuclear, as nuclear is 5x–6x more expensive to build than a coal plant. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/01/30/99-of-us-coal-plants-are-more-expensive-than-new-renewables-a-coal-to-clean-transition-is-worth-589-billion-mostly-in-red-states/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/energyinnovation/2023/01/30/99-...
Maursault 4y ago
> Today there is some expectation that a fast reactor with a closed cycle gas turbine could undercut the capital cost of an LWR. No there isn't. Check your figures. Breeder reactors literally cost twice as much as light water reactors of comparable power.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  That is the old data from the 1980s. That assumes you have heat exchangers with miles and miles of pipe that will fail annoyingly (but not catastrophically) if a pinhole leak causes water to contact sodium. If you are working at higher temperatures with printed circuit heat exchangers the whole thing is dramatically smaller.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    The data is current. It has not and is not possible to build a breeder reactor for less than a water cooled reactor. And breeder reactors are more costly to operate. Nothing has changed. Make it profitable, and you can have all the breeder reactors you want.