3 ms·

That's fair. But what about South Korea, China, India, Turkey? In China you can't probably trust the official cost numbers (I'm not even trying to google for t

That's fair. But what about South Korea, China, India, Turkey? In China you can't probably trust the official cost numbers (I'm not even trying to google for them). But you can't deny the astonishing pace they've built in the last decade: in 2012 they had 12 GW of nuclear capacity, in 2022 this went to 52 GW. 40 GW in one decade. France built 41 GW of capacity between 1980 and 1990, and the US 44 GW between 1970 and 1980, so this is not unprecedented, but it'd darn impressive in post-Fukushima era. [1] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/china-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profil...

epistasis 3y ago
Those countries have costs of labor far far below Western countries. There are also huge questions about corruption and actual work performed. For example, Sourh Korea, the least corrupt country there with the highest cost of labor, put executives in jail for their fraud on safety certifications. My personal hypothesis is that nuclear is only kind of affordable for a very narrow band of technological advancement, where labor is still cheap enough but tech capability has not advanced too much. After your technological capacities advance far enough, labor is better spent on other tech than building massive cathedrals. As for China, try comparing nuclear builds to a single quarter of solar or storage output. It's a big country, and China's investment in nuclear is proof that even in a country known for excellent skills in managing massive construction projects, it's not really giving renewables a run for their money.
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > Those countries have costs of labor far far below Western countries That could be for some labor, but not all. The US is still in the game when it comes to automobiles. Well, when it comes to Tesla, it looks to me Tesla is eating everyone's lunch. The US is still in the game for other very high tech things, like military hardware. Or industrial trucks (think Caterpillar). Where the US and other Western nations are a bit hopeless is the costs of megaconstructions, be they nuclear power plant or high speed rail, or simply skyscrapers. But nuclear power plants could be more like Caterpillar than like "massive cathedrals", as you call them.

epistasis 3y ago

Those countries have costs of labor far far below Western countries. There are also huge questions about corruption and actual work performed. For example, Sourh Korea, the least corrupt country there with the highest cost of labor, put executives in jail for their fraud on safety certifications. My personal hypothesis is that nuclear is only kind of affordable for a very narrow band of technological advancement, where labor is still cheap enough but tech capability has not advanced too much. After your technological capacities advance far enough, labor is better spent on other tech than building massive cathedrals. As for China, try comparing nuclear builds to a single quarter of solar or storage output. It's a big country, and China's investment in nuclear is proof that even in a country known for excellent skills in managing massive construction projects, it's not really giving renewables a run for their money.

credit_guy 3y ago
> Those countries have costs of labor far far below Western countries That could be for some labor, but not all. The US is still in the game when it comes to automobiles. Well, when it comes to Tesla, it looks to me Tesla is eating everyone's lunch. The US is still in the game for other very high tech things, like military hardware. Or industrial trucks (think Caterpillar). Where the US and other Western nations are a bit hopeless is the costs of megaconstructions, be they nuclear power plant or high speed rail, or simply skyscrapers. But nuclear power plants could be more like Caterpillar than like "massive cathedrals", as you call them.