3 ms·

I guess you should tell Poland because they've just ordered several. The first reactor is always the slowest and most expensive because you're going to make mi

by evilos 3y ago

I guess you should tell Poland because they've just ordered several. The first reactor is always the slowest and most expensive because you're going to make mistakes. Building just one is always a mistake. We've paid the deposit, so now we should reap the benefits of having the experience. We know what not to do now. With your attitude, we'd never build anything big.

epistasis 3y ago
It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and France and many other countries (but not all). Poland might need to use expensive nuclear, but it's not the case in the continental US. Poland is not the US, has far cheaper labor, and I don't know the status of their construction industry or their funding sources, but they are different from the US's. Again, if you think that this is a good idea for the US, how are you going to convince a utility to do this? And if it's an investor operated power gen facility, what investor would risk this? If it's a government-funded and owned facility, then that would solve thee funding source. It's another question if it's a wise use of capital, and yet another of who does the EPC. Perhaps Bechtel? Definitely the most likely to succeed. My attitude is not to avoid big projects. I think we need to build massive big projects. HVDC. High speed rail. Subways in all major cities. Massive factories, mines, etc. Advanced geothermal. New hydro in select locations. All of these projects will have better pay off, less risk, and increase the construction capacity of the US. Nuclear is not a wise choice for any of this. If we can increase our productivity on large projects, then it's time to try projects with less payoff, like nuclear.

3 ms·

I guess you should tell Poland because they've just ordered several. The first reactor is always the slowest and most expensive because you're going to make mi

by evilos 3y ago

epistasis 3y ago
It's most definitely not the case that successive reactors are cheaper or faster, that's a myth that gets told but the data says otherwise both in the US and France and many other countries (but not all). Poland might need to use expensive nuclear, but it's not the case in the continental US. Poland is not the US, has far cheaper labor, and I don't know the status of their construction industry or their funding sources, but they are different from the US's. Again, if you think that this is a good idea for the US, how are you going to convince a utility to do this? And if it's an investor operated power gen facility, what investor would risk this? If it's a government-funded and owned facility, then that would solve thee funding source. It's another question if it's a wise use of capital, and yet another of who does the EPC. Perhaps Bechtel? Definitely the most likely to succeed. My attitude is not to avoid big projects. I think we need to build massive big projects. HVDC. High speed rail. Subways in all major cities. Massive factories, mines, etc. Advanced geothermal. New hydro in select locations. All of these projects will have better pay off, less risk, and increase the construction capacity of the US. Nuclear is not a wise choice for any of this. If we can increase our productivity on large projects, then it's time to try projects with less payoff, like nuclear.