24 ms·

Given how badly both AP1000 projects in the US have gone (the other project was cancelled after spending $9B on a hole in the ground) its extremely unlikely it

Given how badly both AP1000 projects in the US have gone (the other project was cancelled after spending $9B on a hole in the ground) its extremely unlikely it or any other big reactors will ever be built here. All the previous AP1000 projects that were in the development pipeline were cancelled and no generator in their right mind would order one without the feds agreeing to take on construction risk. Looks like the only game in town are SMRs and none of those are supposed to come online until 2030. But everything about them is highly speculative, who knows which ones will work or be economic. The costs of the one furthest ahead, NuScale, are already exploding and the power will be way more expensive than planned, even with big new money from the feds.

credit_guy 3y ago
> The costs of the one furthest ahead, NuScale, are already exploding and the power will be way more expensive than planned. Not sure if you've heard - there was some inflation that hit the US back in 2022. Are you asking for NuScale to be immune to inflation? Even regular cars became more expensive.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  In mid 2021, NuScale was estimating $58/mwh.. it's now $89/mwh. I don't think you can blame 'inflation' for a +50% increase in estimated power costs over the last 18 months.
  - thinkcontext 3y ago
    Its $89MWH with a $30MWH generation credit and a $1.4B subsidy (thanks Biden). This is all before construction has started, there will certainly be more cost inflation coming. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-r...
    - evilos 3y ago
      1.4B doesn't even offset the 2B they paid to the NRC to certify their technology. This is boring old PWR reactors too. It's ancient tech. Fast construction is basically the point of SMRs so we will see if that pans out. Not that I expect them to nail it on the first try.
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    > I don't think you can blame 'inflation' for a +50% increase in estimated power costs over the last 18 months. Yes you can. One of the main costs in a project like this is the financing cost. Interest rates were nearly zero, now they are at 5%. Of course, NuScale would pay more than the rate published by the Fed, so, let's say they could secure financing in early 2022 at 4% and now they can at 9%. That's a steep increase. The reason the rates went up is because the Fed is fighting inflation.
    - mikeyouse 3y ago
      Just abject nonsense. If they were relying on 0% interest rates and no inflation for the next 10 years for the project to pencil, we should shut the whole thing down today. Edit- just looked at their explanation and their discount rate only increased by 2%. We should probably shut it all down today regardless. It actually increased from $58 to $119 but the IRA gave them a $30/mwh subsidy. So a 100% miss on price in only 18 months and we’re still nearly a decade before it’s planned to be operational: https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/UAMPS-NuScale-SMR-Target-Price-of-Power.png https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/UAMPS-Nu...
      - credit_guy 3y ago
        > we should shut the whole thing down today. Who is "we"? You are just a random guy on the internet. The people who actually invest money have a different opinion [1]: “Despite the project’s rising costs, felt worldwide by all large energy projects due to interest rates increases and rapidly escalating inflation in commodities such as fabricated plate and structural steel, copper wire and cable, not seen for over 40 years, participants felt overwhelmingly that the CFPP remains viable and is a key energy resource for the future,” said Mason Baker, UAMPS CEO and General Manager. [1] https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/small-modular-reactor-project-being-developed-uamps-moves-forward https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/small-modular...
        mikeyouse 3y ago
        As someone who’s done financial modeling for energy projects. If you miss by 100% before groundbreaking, management is incompetent or the engineers designing the thing are. With this track record, I’d bet $100 the $120/mwh unsubsidized rate (that’s already 100% higher than the rate published 18 months ago) is increased by another 100% before the first concrete is poured. Probably even odds that if they finish this project, they’re north of $300/mwh unsubsidized.
_hypx 3y ago
It's because we only build them one at a time, and after 40 years of hiatus. At which point nearly all of the expertise for building them has retired. The problem is that environmentalists are fundamentally unserious about climate change. They pander to wishful thinking as hard as those who reject the existence of climate change. If we were really serious about it, we'd build 500 nuclear reactors all at once and demand they get built as fast as possible. And it isn't even that expensive once you get down to it! How many nuclear reactors could we build for the price of the F-35 program? We could easily afford thousands of them if we really needed to. So no, the problem is lack of willpower and seriousness, not cost.
- Simulacra 3y ago
  It's not just environmentalists, but environmental regulation that is used by anti-nuclear opponents to stall, slow down, and halt all nuclear development.
  - dboreham 3y ago
    Also the whole blowing up and contaminating square miles of planet surface, every so often thing.
  - pfdietz 3y ago
    The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but nuclear fans are really good at making excuses. It's always someone else's fault.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  Blaming environmentalists for the complete and utter failure of nuclear power plant EPCMs to actually build nuclear power plants seems pretty misguided. Edit; Environmentalists didn't bankrupt multiple international conglomerates and blow their construction schedule and budget by >100%. What part of this did Greenpeace influence; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle/how-two-cutting-edge-u-s-nuclear-projects-bankrupted-westinghouse-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...
photochemsyn 3y ago
Comparable solar plant output (with storage for consistent delivery) seems to cost in the neighborhood of $1 billion per gigawatt. Vogtle's two 1GW reactors appear to be coming in at a total cost of $30 billion (and that's not counting long-term costs of hot 'spent' fuel rod management and uranium fuel sourcing), so $15 billion per gigawatt if I'm reading correctly. https://commercialsolarguy.com/americas-first-gigawatt-solar-power-plant-a-warren-buffett-investment-to-be-built-in-nevada/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/americas-first-gigawatt-solar... Incidentally, the US federal government also provided $12 billion in loan guarantees to Vogtle, which counts as a pretty big subsidy.
- offmycloud 3y ago
  Even with a few hours of storage, I doubt that solar/battery plant's combined capacity factor will exceed 50%. A well-managed nuclear plant can exceed 90% capacity factor and keeps working even when it is cloudy and raining for a week.
  - bottlepalm 3y ago
    Who cares about capacity factor, just build more than enough solar/wind/battery/hvdc and transport it where needed. Faster, simpler, safer, cheaper.
    - evilos 3y ago
      Let's say it was faster, simpler, safer, cheaper. I find the idea of making your energy systems entirely dependent on weather to be an odd choice when we are expecting global climate change now and in the future. At the very least, it will make forecasting supply more difficult. At worst, what if there are major wind pattern shifts or catastrophic weather events that damage your dispersed energy harvesting machines? A nuclear plant is designed to survive a direct impact from an airliner but a hail storm can ruin a region's rooftop solar panels.
      - bottlepalm 3y ago
pfdietz 3y ago
There were plenty of other AP1000 projects in the US that never even got that far. The utilities (or their regulators) wisely gave up. Amory Lovins has some choice words on AP1000, its cost, and its apologists. He's been a vocal critic of the nuclear industry for decades, and the rage of the nuclear fans against him has only increased as events have vindicated him. https://www.energyintel.com/00000180-f7a8-d67b-a3cd-f7faad650000 https://www.energyintel.com/00000180-f7a8-d67b-a3cd-f7faad65...

credit_guy 3y ago

> The costs of the one furthest ahead, NuScale, are already exploding and the power will be way more expensive than planned. Not sure if you've heard - there was some inflation that hit the US back in 2022. Are you asking for NuScale to be immune to inflation? Even regular cars became more expensive.

mikeyouse 3y ago
In mid 2021, NuScale was estimating $58/mwh.. it's now $89/mwh. I don't think you can blame 'inflation' for a +50% increase in estimated power costs over the last 18 months.
- thinkcontext 3y ago
  Its $89MWH with a $30MWH generation credit and a $1.4B subsidy (thanks Biden). This is all before construction has started, there will certainly be more cost inflation coming. https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-released-nuscale-small-modular-reactor https://ieefa.org/resources/eye-popping-new-cost-estimates-r...
  - evilos 3y ago
    1.4B doesn't even offset the 2B they paid to the NRC to certify their technology. This is boring old PWR reactors too. It's ancient tech. Fast construction is basically the point of SMRs so we will see if that pans out. Not that I expect them to nail it on the first try.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > I don't think you can blame 'inflation' for a +50% increase in estimated power costs over the last 18 months. Yes you can. One of the main costs in a project like this is the financing cost. Interest rates were nearly zero, now they are at 5%. Of course, NuScale would pay more than the rate published by the Fed, so, let's say they could secure financing in early 2022 at 4% and now they can at 9%. That's a steep increase. The reason the rates went up is because the Fed is fighting inflation.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    Just abject nonsense. If they were relying on 0% interest rates and no inflation for the next 10 years for the project to pencil, we should shut the whole thing down today. Edit- just looked at their explanation and their discount rate only increased by 2%. We should probably shut it all down today regardless. It actually increased from $58 to $119 but the IRA gave them a $30/mwh subsidy. So a 100% miss on price in only 18 months and we’re still nearly a decade before it’s planned to be operational: https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/UAMPS-NuScale-SMR-Target-Price-of-Power.png https://ieefa.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/UAMPS-Nu...
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      > we should shut the whole thing down today. Who is "we"? You are just a random guy on the internet. The people who actually invest money have a different opinion [1]: “Despite the project’s rising costs, felt worldwide by all large energy projects due to interest rates increases and rapidly escalating inflation in commodities such as fabricated plate and structural steel, copper wire and cable, not seen for over 40 years, participants felt overwhelmingly that the CFPP remains viable and is a key energy resource for the future,” said Mason Baker, UAMPS CEO and General Manager. [1] https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/small-modular-reactor-project-being-developed-uamps-moves-forward https://www.publicpower.org/periodical/article/small-modular...
      - mikeyouse 3y ago
        As someone who’s done financial modeling for energy projects. If you miss by 100% before groundbreaking, management is incompetent or the engineers designing the thing are. With this track record, I’d bet $100 the $120/mwh unsubsidized rate (that’s already 100% higher than the rate published 18 months ago) is increased by another 100% before the first concrete is poured. Probably even odds that if they finish this project, they’re north of $300/mwh unsubsidized.

_hypx 3y ago

It's because we only build them one at a time, and after 40 years of hiatus. At which point nearly all of the expertise for building them has retired. The problem is that environmentalists are fundamentally unserious about climate change. They pander to wishful thinking as hard as those who reject the existence of climate change. If we were really serious about it, we'd build 500 nuclear reactors all at once and demand they get built as fast as possible. And it isn't even that expensive once you get down to it! How many nuclear reactors could we build for the price of the F-35 program? We could easily afford thousands of them if we really needed to. So no, the problem is lack of willpower and seriousness, not cost.

Simulacra 3y ago
It's not just environmentalists, but environmental regulation that is used by anti-nuclear opponents to stall, slow down, and halt all nuclear development.
- dboreham 3y ago
  Also the whole blowing up and contaminating square miles of planet surface, every so often thing.
- pfdietz 3y ago
  The nuclear industry isn't very good at making reactors, but nuclear fans are really good at making excuses. It's always someone else's fault.
mikeyouse 3y ago
Blaming environmentalists for the complete and utter failure of nuclear power plant EPCMs to actually build nuclear power plants seems pretty misguided. Edit; Environmentalists didn't bankrupt multiple international conglomerates and blow their construction schedule and budget by >100%. What part of this did Greenpeace influence; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westinghouse-nucle/how-two-cutting-edge-u-s-nuclear-projects-bankrupted-westinghouse-idUSKBN17Y0CQ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...

photochemsyn 3y ago

Comparable solar plant output (with storage for consistent delivery) seems to cost in the neighborhood of $1 billion per gigawatt. Vogtle's two 1GW reactors appear to be coming in at a total cost of $30 billion (and that's not counting long-term costs of hot 'spent' fuel rod management and uranium fuel sourcing), so $15 billion per gigawatt if I'm reading correctly. https://commercialsolarguy.com/americas-first-gigawatt-solar-power-plant-a-warren-buffett-investment-to-be-built-in-nevada/ https://commercialsolarguy.com/americas-first-gigawatt-solar... Incidentally, the US federal government also provided $12 billion in loan guarantees to Vogtle, which counts as a pretty big subsidy.

offmycloud 3y ago
Even with a few hours of storage, I doubt that solar/battery plant's combined capacity factor will exceed 50%. A well-managed nuclear plant can exceed 90% capacity factor and keeps working even when it is cloudy and raining for a week.
- bottlepalm 3y ago
  Who cares about capacity factor, just build more than enough solar/wind/battery/hvdc and transport it where needed. Faster, simpler, safer, cheaper.
  - evilos 3y ago
    Let's say it was faster, simpler, safer, cheaper. I find the idea of making your energy systems entirely dependent on weather to be an odd choice when we are expecting global climate change now and in the future. At the very least, it will make forecasting supply more difficult. At worst, what if there are major wind pattern shifts or catastrophic weather events that damage your dispersed energy harvesting machines? A nuclear plant is designed to survive a direct impact from an airliner but a hail storm can ruin a region's rooftop solar panels.
    - bottlepalm 3y ago

pfdietz 3y ago

There were plenty of other AP1000 projects in the US that never even got that far. The utilities (or their regulators) wisely gave up. Amory Lovins has some choice words on AP1000, its cost, and its apologists. He's been a vocal critic of the nuclear industry for decades, and the rage of the nuclear fans against him has only increased as events have vindicated him. https://www.energyintel.com/00000180-f7a8-d67b-a3cd-f7faad650000 https://www.energyintel.com/00000180-f7a8-d67b-a3cd-f7faad65...