17 ms·

Almost all of the cost issues with nuclear power is regulatory in nature. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://www.

Almost all of the cost issues with nuclear power is regulatory in nature. https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power...

IntelMiner 3y ago
With how brazenly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been captured? Unlikely
epistasis 3y ago
Even if this were true (and I have my doubts), nobody has a proposal for a different regulatory scheme that would lower costs. France has seen similarly high costs with an entirely different regulatory scheme, for example. "Regulations" are the excuse of people that didn't do their homework or prepare for the serious work of large construction projects. All of which have huge overruns in the US, regulations or not. In truth, it's a labor and productivity problem. Advanced economies have far more productive uses for workers than sitting around construction sites, waiting for something to arrive so that they can finally do a small amount of work before waiting some more.
- philwelch 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Oh I've read that thing many times, it gets linked everywhere...
- credit_guy 3y ago
  > In truth, it's a labor and productivity problem. Yes, and the gigantism of the projects does not help. Here's an example [1]. Last week they mounted the reactor dome at Hinkley. Here's a quote: > Using one of the world's largest cranes, known as Big Carl, the dome - with a diameter of almost 47 metres, height of 14 metres and weighing 245 tonnes - was lifted and then slowly lowered onto the 44-metre-high reactor building. SMRs would address that. Every single thing about gigawatt scale reactors is extremely expensive. If you reduce the scale of the reactor by a factor of 10, then you won't need "Big Carl", you would not need a 245 ton dome, you wouldn't need containment vessels that can only be build by a handful of forges in the world [2] (none in the US). You are absolutely right, this has nothing to do with the NRC. They have a job to do, and in a world where Fukushima can happen, you can't be too careful. But can SMRs reduce construction costs? The anti-nuclear crowd is dancing in the streets for the failure of NuScale to keep the Utah project alive. But NuScale is a player with zero experience. There are numerous other players [3] that actually build reactors. For example one is BWXT, a company that makes nuclear reactors for the US Navy. [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Hinkley-Point-C-landmark-dome-lift-in-pictures https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Hinkley-Point-C-... [2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/heavy-manufacturing-of-power-plants.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... [3] https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_booklet_2022.pdf https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_booklet_2022.pdf
  - camel_gopher 3y ago
    The mass production aspect of SMRs should provide some economies of scale for construction costs. Needing a large crane doesn’t scale.
  - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
    "SMR" has been tried time and time again by both established players and startups since the 50s. It is what the industry tend to swing to when large scale designs once again prove too expensive. They've never panned out. > The Forgotten History of Small Nuclear Reactors > Economics killed small nuclear power plants in the past—and probably will keep doing so https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors-2650272535 https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small...
    - credit_guy 3y ago
      I read that article, and it's not that convincing. The article goes over some attempts made in the '50s and '60s. And that's it, the conclusion is SMRs can't work now. It completely ignores that naval nuclear reactors are nothing else but SMRs and they work just fine, and are not expensive compared to civilian reactors. Of course, the article was published in 2015, so it could not predict that China would build and put in operation two fourth generation SMRs in 2023[1]. And that they would state they intend to build 6 more that would drive a single 650 MW turbine. [1] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstration-project-enters-commercial-operation-11354820 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstra...
      - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
        Naval nuclear reactors have the world's least price sensitive customers, run on highly enriched uranium, scuttling the vessel is deemed a safe outcome and military staffing is completely different from civilian. That does not match reality on land. China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor. https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 You also do the common misstake of always talking about future nuclear plans. They will be the savior, as long as the costs are marketing material and not real. Because we can't look at the existing batch of botched nuclear construction the past 20 years in the west, that would spoil the rosy image. Better trust our future to Powerpoint reactors. Rather than competitors delivering day in and day out.

IntelMiner 3y ago

With how brazenly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has been captured? Unlikely

epistasis 3y ago

Even if this were true (and I have my doubts), nobody has a proposal for a different regulatory scheme that would lower costs. France has seen similarly high costs with an entirely different regulatory scheme, for example. "Regulations" are the excuse of people that didn't do their homework or prepare for the serious work of large construction projects. All of which have huge overruns in the US, regulations or not. In truth, it's a labor and productivity problem. Advanced economies have far more productive uses for workers than sitting around construction sites, waiting for something to arrive so that they can finally do a small amount of work before waiting some more.

philwelch 3y ago
[flagged]
- epistasis 3y ago
  Oh I've read that thing many times, it gets linked everywhere...
credit_guy 3y ago
> In truth, it's a labor and productivity problem. Yes, and the gigantism of the projects does not help. Here's an example [1]. Last week they mounted the reactor dome at Hinkley. Here's a quote: > Using one of the world's largest cranes, known as Big Carl, the dome - with a diameter of almost 47 metres, height of 14 metres and weighing 245 tonnes - was lifted and then slowly lowered onto the 44-metre-high reactor building. SMRs would address that. Every single thing about gigawatt scale reactors is extremely expensive. If you reduce the scale of the reactor by a factor of 10, then you won't need "Big Carl", you would not need a 245 ton dome, you wouldn't need containment vessels that can only be build by a handful of forges in the world [2] (none in the US). You are absolutely right, this has nothing to do with the NRC. They have a job to do, and in a world where Fukushima can happen, you can't be too careful. But can SMRs reduce construction costs? The anti-nuclear crowd is dancing in the streets for the failure of NuScale to keep the Utah project alive. But NuScale is a player with zero experience. There are numerous other players [3] that actually build reactors. For example one is BWXT, a company that makes nuclear reactors for the US Navy. [1] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Hinkley-Point-C-landmark-dome-lift-in-pictures https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Hinkley-Point-C-... [2] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/heavy-manufacturing-of-power-plants.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c... [3] https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_booklet_2022.pdf https://aris.iaea.org/Publications/SMR_booklet_2022.pdf
- camel_gopher 3y ago
  The mass production aspect of SMRs should provide some economies of scale for construction costs. Needing a large crane doesn’t scale.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  "SMR" has been tried time and time again by both established players and startups since the 50s. It is what the industry tend to swing to when large scale designs once again prove too expensive. They've never panned out. > The Forgotten History of Small Nuclear Reactors > Economics killed small nuclear power plants in the past—and probably will keep doing so https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small-nuclear-reactors-2650272535 https://spectrum.ieee.org/amp/the-forgotten-history-of-small...
  - credit_guy 3y ago
    I read that article, and it's not that convincing. The article goes over some attempts made in the '50s and '60s. And that's it, the conclusion is SMRs can't work now. It completely ignores that naval nuclear reactors are nothing else but SMRs and they work just fine, and are not expensive compared to civilian reactors. Of course, the article was published in 2015, so it could not predict that China would build and put in operation two fourth generation SMRs in 2023[1]. And that they would state they intend to build 6 more that would drive a single 650 MW turbine. [1] https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstration-project-enters-commercial-operation-11354820 https://www.neimagazine.com/news/newschinas-htr-pm-demonstra...
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      Naval nuclear reactors have the world's least price sensitive customers, run on highly enriched uranium, scuttling the vessel is deemed a safe outcome and military staffing is completely different from civilian. That does not match reality on land. China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor. https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 You also do the common misstake of always talking about future nuclear plans. They will be the savior, as long as the costs are marketing material and not real. Because we can't look at the existing batch of botched nuclear construction the past 20 years in the west, that would spoil the rosy image. Better trust our future to Powerpoint reactors. Rather than competitors delivering day in and day out.