5 ms·

> the single driving cost issue is the lack of industry of scale Except for the 2020 MIT study[0] which showed that "contrary to expectations, building subseq

> the single driving cost issue is the lack of industry of scale Except for the 2020 MIT study[0] which showed that "contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant" https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118 https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118

rowanG077 3y ago
Pretty disingenuous leaving out the reason why: "Many of the excess costs were associated with delays caused by the need to make last-minute design changes based on particular conditions at the construction site or other local circumstances, so if more components of the plant, or even the entire plant, could be built offsite under controlled factory conditions, such extra costs could be substantially cut." In fact, later in the article an expert says that is happening precisely because the US does not have much expertise in this area that leads to exorbitant costs. Precisely what OP is saying.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  ...and there is France with a lot of experience. Never stopped building and still producing huge over budget and overdue failures.
  - rowanG077 3y ago
    Any country level just won't work on the scale of France or the US. If the EU were smart they would fund a nuclear company where all countries can bundle their resources and expertise.
    - logifail 3y ago
      > If the EU were smart they would fund a nuclear company where all countries can bundle their resources and expertise A bit like the EPR design?[0] Unfortunately it's not really the poster-child for efficiency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
      - rowanG077 3y ago
        Yes! But whether it will pan it is up in the air. There are only 2 plants operational right now. Once there are 1000 or something like that we can see whether this approach really works to scale up to tens of thousand.
        logifail 3y ago
        > There are only 2 plants operational right now. Once there are 1000 or something I think we should refresh ourselves on the timeline[0] of Flamanville 3, although this should probably come with a trigger warning. First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant on 6 December 2007. In December 2007, construction of the unit itself began. This was expected to last 54 months, with commissioning planned for 2012. In April 2008, the French nuclear safety authority (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, ASN) reported that a quarter of the welds inspected in the secondary containment steel liner are not in accordance with norms, and that cracks have been found in the concrete base. In May 2009, Stephen Thomas reported that after 18 months of construction, and after a series of quality control problems, the project is "more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it on schedule". In August 2010, the regulator, ASN, reported further welding problems on the secondary containment steel liner [..] EDF announced that costs had increased 50% to €5 billion, and commissioning was delayed by about two years to 2014. In July 2011, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €6 billion, and that completion of construction was delayed to 2016. In December 2012, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €8.5 billion In November 2014, EDF announced that completion of construction was delayed to 2017, due to delays in component delivery by Areva. In April 2015, Areva informed the French nuclear regulator ASN that anomalies had been detected in the reactor vessel steel, causing "lower than expected mechanical toughness values" [..] [it was] reported that Areva had been aware of this problem since 2006. In June 2015, multiple faults in cooling system safety valves were discovered by ASN. In September 2015, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018. In April 2016, ASN announced that additional weak spots had been found in the reactor steel, and Areva and EDF responded that new tests would be conducted, though construction work would continue. In February 2017 [it was] stated the project was six years late, and €7.2 billion over budget, while renewed delays in the construction of the EPR-reactors at Taishan Nuclear Power Plant prompted EDF to state that Flamanville 3 remains on schedule to start operations by the end of 2018, assuming it receives regulatory approval. The discovery of quality deviations in the welding led to a further revision of the schedule in July 2018. Fuel loading was delayed until the end of 2019, and the cost estimate was increased from €10.5 billion to €10.9 billion. In June 2019, nuclear regulator ASN determined that eight welds in steam transfer pipes passing through the two wall containment, that EDF had hoped to repair after startup, must be repaired before the reactor is commissioned [..] estimated costs were €11 billion. In October 2019, EDF announced that because of this issue costs would increase to €12.4 billion and that fuel loading would be delayed until the end of 2022. [auditors] revealed that the costs could reach €19.1 billion instead of €12.4 billion when taking into account the additional charges due to the delay in construction. In January 2022, it was announced that more time was needed for the repair of faulty welds and the solving of other issues. In December 2022, EDF announced a further delay of at least six months with an estimated cost increase of €500 million due to more work to establish a new process for the stress relieving heat treatment of some welds close to sensitive equipment. Fuel loading is now forecast for early 2024. Estimated total costs increased to €13.2 billion. Given all that, I'm not sure there's much appetite to continue building them at all, never mind at the scale you suggest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi...
  - Eisenstein 3y ago
    I would like to see a graph of 'budgeted expenditure' vs 'overage costs' for large construction projects so that we can see on what level this is 1) true of any large project 2) any significance
    - Krasnol 3y ago
      You don't have to do this for large construction products. Just do it for the direct competitor: renewable energy. You'll instantly see why France forced the greenwashing of nuclear within the EU. ...or just check the state of EDF S.A.
      - Eisenstein 3y ago
        This makes no sense and addresses nothing in which I am interested.
- logifail 3y ago
  > "based on particular conditions at the construction site or other local circumstances" [..] happening precisely because the US does not have much expertise in this area that leads to exorbitant costs Umm, the sites are the sites. We're going to somehow attempt to leverage our one standard design and rule out the very existance of any local circumstances by adding enough expertise? Good luck with that.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

rowanG077 3y ago

Pretty disingenuous leaving out the reason why: "Many of the excess costs were associated with delays caused by the need to make last-minute design changes based on particular conditions at the construction site or other local circumstances, so if more components of the plant, or even the entire plant, could be built offsite under controlled factory conditions, such extra costs could be substantially cut." In fact, later in the article an expert says that is happening precisely because the US does not have much expertise in this area that leads to exorbitant costs. Precisely what OP is saying.

Krasnol 3y ago
...and there is France with a lot of experience. Never stopped building and still producing huge over budget and overdue failures.
- rowanG077 3y ago
  Any country level just won't work on the scale of France or the US. If the EU were smart they would fund a nuclear company where all countries can bundle their resources and expertise.
  - logifail 3y ago
    > If the EU were smart they would fund a nuclear company where all countries can bundle their resources and expertise A bit like the EPR design?[0] Unfortunately it's not really the poster-child for efficiency. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)
    - rowanG077 3y ago
      Yes! But whether it will pan it is up in the air. There are only 2 plants operational right now. Once there are 1000 or something like that we can see whether this approach really works to scale up to tens of thousand.
      - logifail 3y ago
        > There are only 2 plants operational right now. Once there are 1000 or something I think we should refresh ourselves on the timeline[0] of Flamanville 3, although this should probably come with a trigger warning. First concrete was poured for the demonstration EPR reactor at the Flamanville Nuclear Power Plant on 6 December 2007. In December 2007, construction of the unit itself began. This was expected to last 54 months, with commissioning planned for 2012. In April 2008, the French nuclear safety authority (Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, ASN) reported that a quarter of the welds inspected in the secondary containment steel liner are not in accordance with norms, and that cracks have been found in the concrete base. In May 2009, Stephen Thomas reported that after 18 months of construction, and after a series of quality control problems, the project is "more than 20 percent over budget and EDF is struggling to keep it on schedule". In August 2010, the regulator, ASN, reported further welding problems on the secondary containment steel liner [..] EDF announced that costs had increased 50% to €5 billion, and commissioning was delayed by about two years to 2014. In July 2011, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €6 billion, and that completion of construction was delayed to 2016. In December 2012, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €8.5 billion In November 2014, EDF announced that completion of construction was delayed to 2017, due to delays in component delivery by Areva. In April 2015, Areva informed the French nuclear regulator ASN that anomalies had been detected in the reactor vessel steel, causing "lower than expected mechanical toughness values" [..] [it was] reported that Areva had been aware of this problem since 2006. In June 2015, multiple faults in cooling system safety valves were discovered by ASN. In September 2015, EDF announced that the estimated costs had escalated to €10.5 billion, and the start-up of the reactor was delayed to the fourth quarter of 2018. In April 2016, ASN announced that additional weak spots had been found in the reactor steel, and Areva and EDF responded that new tests would be conducted, though construction work would continue. In February 2017 [it was] stated the project was six years late, and €7.2 billion over budget, while renewed delays in the construction of the EPR-reactors at Taishan Nuclear Power Plant prompted EDF to state that Flamanville 3 remains on schedule to start operations by the end of 2018, assuming it receives regulatory approval. The discovery of quality deviations in the welding led to a further revision of the schedule in July 2018. Fuel loading was delayed until the end of 2019, and the cost estimate was increased from €10.5 billion to €10.9 billion. In June 2019, nuclear regulator ASN determined that eight welds in steam transfer pipes passing through the two wall containment, that EDF had hoped to repair after startup, must be repaired before the reactor is commissioned [..] estimated costs were €11 billion. In October 2019, EDF announced that because of this issue costs would increase to €12.4 billion and that fuel loading would be delayed until the end of 2022. [auditors] revealed that the costs could reach €19.1 billion instead of €12.4 billion when taking into account the additional charges due to the delay in construction. In January 2022, it was announced that more time was needed for the repair of faulty welds and the solving of other issues. In December 2022, EDF announced a further delay of at least six months with an estimated cost increase of €500 million due to more work to establish a new process for the stress relieving heat treatment of some welds close to sensitive equipment. Fuel loading is now forecast for early 2024. Estimated total costs increased to €13.2 billion. Given all that, I'm not sure there's much appetite to continue building them at all, never mind at the scale you suggest. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi...
- Eisenstein 3y ago
  I would like to see a graph of 'budgeted expenditure' vs 'overage costs' for large construction projects so that we can see on what level this is 1) true of any large project 2) any significance
  - Krasnol 3y ago
    You don't have to do this for large construction products. Just do it for the direct competitor: renewable energy. You'll instantly see why France forced the greenwashing of nuclear within the EU. ...or just check the state of EDF S.A.
    - Eisenstein 3y ago
      This makes no sense and addresses nothing in which I am interested.
logifail 3y ago
> "based on particular conditions at the construction site or other local circumstances" [..] happening precisely because the US does not have much expertise in this area that leads to exorbitant costs Umm, the sites are the sites. We're going to somehow attempt to leverage our one standard design and rule out the very existance of any local circumstances by adding enough expertise? Good luck with that.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]