9 ms·

> There was a good article I read recently that made the argument that the gargantuan cost of nuclear, coupled with long regulatory lead times and lots of local

> There was a good article I read recently that made the argument that the gargantuan cost of nuclear, coupled with long regulatory lead times and lots of local opposition make it much too slow to deploy, when we need drastic changes ASAP. Fixing the regulations and committing to a large scale construction of at least 1,000 nuclear power plants in the United States could solve these problems pretty easily.

epistasis 3y ago
Nobody has a single proposal on what regulation to fix, or even the more basic problem of what regulations are unnecessary. However, if you look into detail at what happened at Vogtle, you find absolutely incompetent management that thought they could just ignore all the basic quality requirements and get away with it. Leading to massive delays, etc. etc. etc. Regulations are a red herring, IMHO. Idiotic construction companies are however a huge problem, as are absolutely idiotic design companies like Westinghouse, which many times delivered "unconstructable" plans! Ironically if there was more regulations, and plans were required to be checked by regulators both for safety as well as constructability, perhaps these projects could have been completed closer to on time and on budget. But that's just because of all the people working on these things, only the regulators are doing their job as if they were accountable entities, and the utility, the EPC, and the designer are all looking simply to pass the buck and hope that in the eventual lawsuit they can take minimal damages.
- philwelch 3y ago
  On average the US has commissioned more than one nuclear powered naval submarine or aircraft carrier every year. There’s no fundamental reason we can’t also cost-effectively build on land. Brian Potter’s “Construction Physics” substack has a series of articles about the cost issues with nuclear power: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370 https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... All in all, the issues with nuclear construction are largely down to regulation, and can be overcome through massive economies of scale. Building 1000 nuclear power plants within the next ten years is achievable if the United States, to use your words, “[marshalls] our resources as if we were at war”. The primary reason this hasn’t happened already are (a) activists like you spent the last half century trying to prevent it, eroding the practical expertise necessary and (b) natural gas is still probably more cost effective.

epistasis 3y ago

Nobody has a single proposal on what regulation to fix, or even the more basic problem of what regulations are unnecessary. However, if you look into detail at what happened at Vogtle, you find absolutely incompetent management that thought they could just ignore all the basic quality requirements and get away with it. Leading to massive delays, etc. etc. etc. Regulations are a red herring, IMHO. Idiotic construction companies are however a huge problem, as are absolutely idiotic design companies like Westinghouse, which many times delivered "unconstructable" plans! Ironically if there was more regulations, and plans were required to be checked by regulators both for safety as well as constructability, perhaps these projects could have been completed closer to on time and on budget. But that's just because of all the people working on these things, only the regulators are doing their job as if they were accountable entities, and the utility, the EPC, and the designer are all looking simply to pass the buck and hope that in the eventual lawsuit they can take minimal damages.

philwelch 3y ago
On average the US has commissioned more than one nuclear powered naval submarine or aircraft carrier every year. There’s no fundamental reason we can’t also cost-effectively build on land. Brian Potter’s “Construction Physics” substack has a series of articles about the cost issues with nuclear power: https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370 https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power... All in all, the issues with nuclear construction are largely down to regulation, and can be overcome through massive economies of scale. Building 1000 nuclear power plants within the next ten years is achievable if the United States, to use your words, “[marshalls] our resources as if we were at war”. The primary reason this hasn’t happened already are (a) activists like you spent the last half century trying to prevent it, eroding the practical expertise necessary and (b) natural gas is still probably more cost effective.