5 ms·
> There's so many complaints about cost overruns, etc. This is ironic. I recommend you read How Big Things Get Done[1], by Bent Flyvbjerg, the world's foremost
by tuatoru 3y ago
> There's so many complaints about cost overruns, etc.
This is ironic. I recommend you read How Big Things Get Done[1], by Bent Flyvbjerg, the world's foremost expert on megaprojects. The book discusses an analysis of about 10,000 projects of over a billion dollars each.
Which projects were most likely to come in on time and on budget, and deliver the promised returns? PV solar.
Which projects were third most likely to overrun by 100% or more, be 100% late or more, and deliver only a fraction of the promised returns? Nuclear power plants.
Edit: The book's ratings are based on construction phase only, after all the permitting and other planning work has been completed.
(Third worst? What could be worse? Answer: nuclear waste storage sites, and Olympic Games hosting.)
1. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/672118/how-big-things-get-done-by-bent-flyvbjerg-and-dan-gardner/ https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/672118/how-big-thin...
- acidburnNSA 3y agoWho'd have thought that the targets of perhaps the world's largest anti-anything campaign can slow them down so much? In the 1991 the anti-nuclear industry published its strategy to use everything in their power to slow down nuclear plants and especially nuclear waste sites. It's in black and white. [1] [1] https://atomicinsights.com/anti-nuclear-movement-strategy-circa-april-1991/ https://atomicinsights.com/anti-nuclear-movement-strategy-ci...
- tuatoru 3y agoHow does that work in China and Russia?
- acidburnNSA 3y agoChina and Russia regularly deliver nuclear plants (VVERs, Hualong One) roughly on time and budget.
- tuatoru 3y agoBut not at a rate that can keep up with the growth in demand, especially in China. Demand in China has grown more than 20-fold over the 21st Century but nuclear installs have not come close to keeping up with that. In contrast solar PV and wind have now grown to the point where they are overtaking the growth in demand, meaning that fossil plants can soon start to be be retired.
- emmelaich 3y agoAnti-pollution activists share a lot with anti-nuclear activists. In China and Russia they don't have as much clout, so they use lots of coal, if it's cheaper.
- konart 3y agoAccording to https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count... Russia's coal consumption is notably lower than that of the US per capita.
- lupusreal 3y agoChina and Russia funded the antinuclear sentiment in other countries, not in their own.
- cycomanic 3y agoSo how to anti nuclear activists cause massive cost overruns? The nuclear industry is a multibillion dollar industry with extremely close ties to government (probably one of the closest after the military industry). But somehow a movement, that still gets largely dismissed by politicians as environmental nutters managed to get them to overrun costs? I mean the myth of the supposedly all powerful anti-nuclear lobby is actually hilarious. I mean took fukushima to get Germany (arguably on of the most nuclear sceptical countries) to decide on stopping nuclear (despite the majority of the population being against nuclear power for years prior) and under quite favourable conditions for the nuclear industry.
- roenxi 3y agoIf you think about it, what is the argument for why nuclear is to plan? Nuclear is impossible to plan because ... pixies steal the computers the planners are using? Note that whatever factors you identify, the people estimating the plant build process are aware of that. The planners know exactly how long it takes to build a nuclear plant, and they learn just as quickly as everyone watching from the sidelines. Their assumptions are being thrown by something - almost certainly anti-nuclear campaigners in government or regulatory forces warping incentives. Those are the only things that can consistently diver overruns. Otherwise it is hard for overruns of a nuclear plant to be different from any other project.
- RNAlfons 3y agoAre you joking? This is a blog post by some guy from a venture which invests into nuclear outlining a conspiracy theory where the Nuclear Information Resource Service (NIRS), the Safe Energy Communication Council (SECC), and Greenpeace slowed down nuclear around the world? What?
- acidburnNSA 3y agoThe blog post simply links to a scanned 1991 document from the major anti-nuclear players laying out their strategy. It includes folks like Ralph Nader. ICYMI: https://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Antinuclear-strategy-April-1991.pdf https://atomicinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/Antinuclear-st... Given the absolutely massive popularity of the antinuclear movement, the fringe belief is actually to think the legal intervenors that came out of it had negligible impact. Germany for example had a 100% complete fast breeder reactor called SNR-300, designed to provide sustainable low carbon 24/7 energy for decades. Before it could turn on for the first time, protestors rioted. They never turned it on. Today it's an amusement park. Now that is impact.
- RNAlfons 3y agoNeither you nor the blog post "just" do something. You both imply a conspiracy resulting from this document. You have no proof for any connection to anything relevant going from that. The SNR-300 story is also completely unrelated. You just stacked it upon the conspiracy theory.
- acidburnNSA 3y agoNot to double-spiderman you or anything, but from my perspective, your claims that the anti-nuclear movement was not a significant cause of nuclear power cost escalations worldwide appear to be baseless. Not sure how old you are, but the scale of the movement worldwide is pretty flabbergasting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement
- 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- abstractbeliefs 3y agoI think you misunderstand. The comment you reply to I think acknowledges that there are problems with nuclear project management - they're saying that with that in mind, let's figure out how to do it better, to make nuclear projects less risky, more reproducible, and subsequently more commercially attractive.
- tuatoru 3y agoSure. To go down the Wright's Law learning curve at a rate that keeps pace with PV, we need to ramp up manufacturing to a rate of about a million reactors per year. Is that feasible? In what time frame?
- BenFranklin100 3y agoThis is a misguided response. Nuclear power plants have all been essentially custom, one-off projects built by inexperienced crews. It’s little surprise the cost overruns. It’s a very different proposition with identical, smaller modular plants that are being proposed that will be built in the tens to hundreds. Costs will drop dramatically while safety will increase, both by the design of the plants and the economies of scale.
- bruce511 3y agoYou are correct - one offs incur huge "unknowns" which bloat budgets. You are correct that the obvious solution is standard production of modular designs are the solution to that. This has all be true and obvious for several decades. Yet the realisation of this approach seems to still be far away. It also doesn't factor in the non-technical hurdles, costs, and delays that are involved here. Environmental impacts, and local-population-resistance are significant, often terminal, factors in plant construction. Put another way, nobody cares if I have solar panels on my roof. But if I have a tiny modular reactor in the garden the neighbours will (not surprisingly) object. I say this as a nuclear supporter.
- eru 3y ago> Put another way, nobody cares if I have solar panels on my roof. But if I have a tiny modular reactor in the garden the neighbours will (not surprisingly) object. Yes, though your neighbours will probably also object to you putting up one of those big wind turbines in your backyard. Or a coal fired power plant.
- bruce511 3y agoIm not sure they'd complain if I put up a small wind turbine. If I was in a more rural area I doubt theyd object to a big wind turbine. (The extent of their worry being noise, and danger if it self destructed in bad weather.) Clearly a coal-fired plant would be an issue, to the degree to which they pollute the neighbours. There are diesel generators here attached to factories etc, and nobody really cares. Objection to nuclear though is more visceral. With diesel I can hear the noise and decide if I don't like it. With coal I might notice the smell. But I don't think either would silently kill me. Nuclear leaks are invisible, and accumulative, so it can be (disproportionately) scary. Certainly those who are opposed to it will use fear to rally other people to their side. Fear is a strong motivating emotion that is easily manipulated.