5 ms·

> nuke generation is cheap if you push all the risks for construction cost overruns onto someone else. This is what France tried to do with the reactor they bu

by pydry 4y ago

> nuke generation is cheap if you push all the risks for construction cost overruns onto someone else. This is what France tried to do with the reactor they built for Finland. There was a budget hole of a few billion and an argument/lawsuit over who would pay for it. Nuclear costs are a hot potato.

Kuinox 4y ago
The EPR design is bloated because germany wanted to sabotage the project and achieved to increase the cost through additional security no other nuclear plant ever needed.
- Maakuth 4y ago
  That's an interesting idea, any source? Certainly the containment building is very heavy construction, supposed to be able to withstand a passenger jet collision. Keep in mind the design was made right after the WTC attacks.
  - Kuinox 4y ago
    > That's an interesting idea, any source? Sadly, I had one months ago but I can't find it again. The EPR have a double containement layer where EPR2 have a single one. The EPR was also an industrial demonstrator. > supposed to be able to withstand a passenger jet collision. Our autorithy of nuclear safety says any regular nuclear plants should be able to whistand an passanger jet collision, but added extra protection on the EPR for it: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/segolene-royal-les-centrales-sont-concues-pour-resister-aux-chutes-d-avions_1768265.html https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/seg... > Even if "they are not built to withstand such a shock without damage, nuclear power plants would offer a good resistance capacity", assures the Nuclear Safety Authority. But no evaluation exists because this type of accident was considered at the time as totally improbable. That said, after the authorities and EDF claim to have made arrangements for the construction of the future Flamanville EPR. "The specific protection against falling aircraft called aircraft hull is a reinforced concrete structure covering the following buildings: the reactor building, two divisions of the safeguard auxiliaries building and the fuel building". The fact remains that zero risk does not exist, as Jacques Repussard, Director General of IRSN, affirmed during his hearing before a parliamentary commission of inquiry last February: "I could not affirm under oath that in the event crash of a very large aircraft, loaded with tens of tons of fuel, the consequences of the fire would be brought under control"
g8oz 4y ago
Further to your point - South Korea built 4 reactors for the UAE at the Barakah site. Took 11 years from deal to first grid connection and cost $25 billion for 5.3 GW of nameplate capacity. It's expected to cost another $20 billion for operation, maintenance and fuel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant supply. Contrast that to the Al Dhafra PV project also in the UAE - $1 billion for 2 GW of nameplate capacity. One can apply whatever discount is wanted to account for solar's shortcomings and it still comes out ahead when planning an energy generation portfolio. Further away from the equator a similar case can be made for wind. The Barakah reactors will be generating 5.3 GWh from 6 pm to 8am which of course solar can't do. In that time it will deliver 14 hours X 5.3 GW ~= 75 GWh of electricity. Capital costs for 4 hour utility scale lithium storage are expected to be $250 million per GWh by 2025. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf 75 GWh x $250 million = ~$19 billion to get those gigawatt hours from storage. The nameplate capacity of the solar plant to generate 75 GWh for night time use in the hours from 8 am to 6pm is 7.5 GW. To prove my point let's double that to 15 GW. The cost of that 15 GW solar plant, based on the Al Dhafra PV plant would be $7.5 billion. Another 5 GW solar plant to deliver the same day time GWh that the reactors do...let's double that to 10 GW so another $5 billion. So my back of the napkin calculations say that the cost to replace the Barakah reactors with solar + storage are: - $19 billion for Li-ion storage - $7.5 billion for a solar plant to charge that storage for nighttime use. - $5 billion for a solar plant to deliver (more than) equivalent daytime use. $31.5 billion in total. Very much competitive with the nuclear option taking into account a) time to completion / general project risk b) the falling cost of storage plus the development of new options like sodium ion storage c) radioactive waste risks, solvable as they are d) security concerns - Houthi rebels fired a few missiles at the Barakah site a while back. e) construction and operational workforce skill requirements
- msandford 4y ago
  The math here seems pretty well reasoned. But it assumes that the price doesn't change as the amount of materials increases. Can an organization just write a $10b check and get the batteries? Does anyone just have the stock of them sitting around? I'd have to imagine not. And that it might take as long to get all the batteries built and installed as it does to build a nuke plant.

by pydry 4y ago

Kuinox 4y ago

The EPR design is bloated because germany wanted to sabotage the project and achieved to increase the cost through additional security no other nuclear plant ever needed.

Maakuth 4y ago
That's an interesting idea, any source? Certainly the containment building is very heavy construction, supposed to be able to withstand a passenger jet collision. Keep in mind the design was made right after the WTC attacks.
- Kuinox 4y ago
  > That's an interesting idea, any source? Sadly, I had one months ago but I can't find it again. The EPR have a double containement layer where EPR2 have a single one. The EPR was also an industrial demonstrator. > supposed to be able to withstand a passenger jet collision. Our autorithy of nuclear safety says any regular nuclear plants should be able to whistand an passanger jet collision, but added extra protection on the EPR for it: https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/segolene-royal-les-centrales-sont-concues-pour-resister-aux-chutes-d-avions_1768265.html https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/seg... > Even if "they are not built to withstand such a shock without damage, nuclear power plants would offer a good resistance capacity", assures the Nuclear Safety Authority. But no evaluation exists because this type of accident was considered at the time as totally improbable. That said, after the authorities and EDF claim to have made arrangements for the construction of the future Flamanville EPR. "The specific protection against falling aircraft called aircraft hull is a reinforced concrete structure covering the following buildings: the reactor building, two divisions of the safeguard auxiliaries building and the fuel building". The fact remains that zero risk does not exist, as Jacques Repussard, Director General of IRSN, affirmed during his hearing before a parliamentary commission of inquiry last February: "I could not affirm under oath that in the event crash of a very large aircraft, loaded with tens of tons of fuel, the consequences of the fire would be brought under control"

g8oz 4y ago

Further to your point - South Korea built 4 reactors for the UAE at the Barakah site. Took 11 years from deal to first grid connection and cost $25 billion for 5.3 GW of nameplate capacity. It's expected to cost another $20 billion for operation, maintenance and fuel https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant supply. Contrast that to the Al Dhafra PV project also in the UAE - $1 billion for 2 GW of nameplate capacity. One can apply whatever discount is wanted to account for solar's shortcomings and it still comes out ahead when planning an energy generation portfolio. Further away from the equator a similar case can be made for wind. The Barakah reactors will be generating 5.3 GWh from 6 pm to 8am which of course solar can't do. In that time it will deliver 14 hours X 5.3 GW ~= 75 GWh of electricity. Capital costs for 4 hour utility scale lithium storage are expected to be $250 million per GWh by 2025. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy21osti/79236.pdf 75 GWh x $250 million = ~$19 billion to get those gigawatt hours from storage. The nameplate capacity of the solar plant to generate 75 GWh for night time use in the hours from 8 am to 6pm is 7.5 GW. To prove my point let's double that to 15 GW. The cost of that 15 GW solar plant, based on the Al Dhafra PV plant would be $7.5 billion. Another 5 GW solar plant to deliver the same day time GWh that the reactors do...let's double that to 10 GW so another $5 billion. So my back of the napkin calculations say that the cost to replace the Barakah reactors with solar + storage are: - $19 billion for Li-ion storage - $7.5 billion for a solar plant to charge that storage for nighttime use. - $5 billion for a solar plant to deliver (more than) equivalent daytime use. $31.5 billion in total. Very much competitive with the nuclear option taking into account a) time to completion / general project risk b) the falling cost of storage plus the development of new options like sodium ion storage c) radioactive waste risks, solvable as they are d) security concerns - Houthi rebels fired a few missiles at the Barakah site a while back. e) construction and operational workforce skill requirements

msandford 4y ago
The math here seems pretty well reasoned. But it assumes that the price doesn't change as the amount of materials increases. Can an organization just write a $10b check and get the batteries? Does anyone just have the stock of them sitting around? I'd have to imagine not. And that it might take as long to get all the batteries built and installed as it does to build a nuke plant.