4 ms·

In effect they did through overzealous safety requirements (which made it more expensive compared to other forms of electricity generation) this regulatory inc

by pas 3y ago

In effect they did through overzealous safety requirements (which made it more expensive compared to other forms of electricity generation) this regulatory inconsistency is mostly irrational, because it's clear through other policies that society values safety much less in other policies (eg. driving, all the emissions from other sources, gun safety, etc) of course regulations are not perfect mirrors of society's preferences, but it's close enough. (and of course society doesn't "has to be" consistent, but I would say a pretty vocal minority, perhaps even the majority wishes it to be so) . . that said, yes, if the world would order 1000+ nuclear power plants, all standardized, then we could have it cheaper, because then it would make sense to invest in automation, and maybe modular small reactors can already get enough traction. but since we are not ordering that many and even AP1000 is just a brand not really a standard, there's practically no economies of scale

_ph_ 3y ago
If you claim the safety requirements were overzealous, do you have any data to substantiate your claim?
- pas 3y ago
  On nuclear construction cost increases, from Crowley and Griffith 1982, “US construction cost rise threatens nuclear option” (via @whatisnuclear): """ Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """ via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 The whole quote is worth reading/skimming. More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-eight-months-after-receiving-proposed-advanced-reactor-licensing-rule-commission-has-not-acted https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regu... )
  - goodpoint 3y ago
    And yet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident...
    - Fatnino 3y ago
      Is there a similar list for coal plants? Also, skimming the list of USA incidents, there are a great deal of bullshit "incidents" in recent times. Most related to natural machanical breakdowns in non radioactive systems due to everything being operated decades past its expiration date. Wouldn't be happening if new NPPs had been built to replace these ancient designs.
      - cinntaile 3y ago
        Coal simply does not have the same risk profile so such a list does not exist. > Wouldn't be happening if new NPPs had been built to replace these ancient designs. That's possible but the economics have to make sense as well. You would do well to try and extend the lifetime of a NPP and run it as an LTO NPP, this maximises profits if it is possible to run the plant past the lifetime it was originally designed for. Incremental upgrades are the way to go in such a case.
      - imtringued 3y ago
        You can literally operate the coal power plant until it falls apart and burns down and nobody gives a damn. Try doing that with a nuclear power plant.
    - pas 3y ago
      And thus! This is how a good culture of safety looks like. Treat small stuff seriously to prevent the big bad things. Similarly with aviation, and with medicine, etc.
hef19898 3y ago
Considering the potential damage, nuclear is right up there with aviation, medical and life science when it comes to safety standards. Because each and every incident can be traced back to ignoring whatever safety standards and practices where applicable at the time these accidents happened. Someone would have to pay for those 1000 NPPs, and in the current market conditions no one is willing to, because the ROI isn't there. Even you said so, there is no NPP standard in place to begin with, so before those 1000 plants are ordered, this standard design has to defined, agreed upon and developed first. And that takes how long in your opinion?
- pas 3y ago
  Yes, and the safety conscious approach is great, and aviation and medicine are a pretty good examples, they can be safe and cheap at the same time. (Notwithstanding the usual [and rightful!] grumbling about the FDA, and the Boeing/FAA MCAS fuckup.) The ROI is not there because other forms of electricity generation didn't have to pay for most of their externalities[1], and people don't give a damn about actual safety profile, or mid-long term overall costs, it's simply the usual sentimentalism-theater. > Oh think of the nuclear waste, oh think of the poor little spent fuel rods leaking into our puppies' drinking water, oh think of all the horrible unspeakable tragedies we will get when every Monday Chernobyl repeats but worse, Fridays are for Fukushimas, and the rest of the weekdays are for all the usual GreenPeace-made-up dangers. But of course instead currently, of course, we enjoy the peaceful and prosperous energy abundance granted to us by ... checks notes ... the same geniuses who delivered the just one-more-lane will solve the traffic jams for sure hit comedy series, the single-family house exclusive rated 10/10 absolute heavens on Earth[2], healthcare as an investment [3], but muh guns [4], and so on. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Largo,+FL,+USA/@27.9213946,-82.7848613,180a,35y,39.5t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88c2f1a682630e5b:0x61bf2ea662c55d45!8m2!3d27.9094665!4d-82.7873244!16zL20vMHJyMWY?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Largo,+FL,+USA/@27.9213946... whatever the hell is going on here :o [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773426 private equity takeover is amazing for hospitals(' profitabilty) [4] https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2017/special-report/unlocked-loaded/stolen-guns/ https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2017/special-report/u... muh guns and muh freedum to leave guns in not-even-locked cars to get stolen

by pas 3y ago

_ph_ 3y ago

If you claim the safety requirements were overzealous, do you have any data to substantiate your claim?

pas 3y ago
On nuclear construction cost increases, from Crowley and Griffith 1982, “US construction cost rise threatens nuclear option” (via @whatisnuclear): """ Ironically, some of the decisions that have been made in the name of improving safety margins for low probability events, may have reduced the safety margins for high probability events. The UE&C piping study uncovered numerous areas where the tolerances requested in the piping design documents might be appropriate for a machine shop oriented manufacturing operation, but are totally unrealistic for field construction. """ via https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 https://rootsofprogress.org/links-digest-2023-12-15 The whole quote is worth reading/skimming. More importantly this zero risk approach has to be considered relative to all the other risks arising from building other types of power plants. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy (and of course a bit more on the problems with the process at the NRC https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regulatory-commission-eight-months-after-receiving-proposed-advanced-reactor-licensing-rule-commission-has-not-acted https://thebreakthrough.org/blog/waiting-on-the-nuclear-regu... )
- goodpoint 3y ago
  And yet... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accident...
  - Fatnino 3y ago
    Is there a similar list for coal plants? Also, skimming the list of USA incidents, there are a great deal of bullshit "incidents" in recent times. Most related to natural machanical breakdowns in non radioactive systems due to everything being operated decades past its expiration date. Wouldn't be happening if new NPPs had been built to replace these ancient designs.
    - cinntaile 3y ago
      Coal simply does not have the same risk profile so such a list does not exist. > Wouldn't be happening if new NPPs had been built to replace these ancient designs. That's possible but the economics have to make sense as well. You would do well to try and extend the lifetime of a NPP and run it as an LTO NPP, this maximises profits if it is possible to run the plant past the lifetime it was originally designed for. Incremental upgrades are the way to go in such a case.
    - imtringued 3y ago
      You can literally operate the coal power plant until it falls apart and burns down and nobody gives a damn. Try doing that with a nuclear power plant.
  - pas 3y ago
    And thus! This is how a good culture of safety looks like. Treat small stuff seriously to prevent the big bad things. Similarly with aviation, and with medicine, etc.

hef19898 3y ago

Considering the potential damage, nuclear is right up there with aviation, medical and life science when it comes to safety standards. Because each and every incident can be traced back to ignoring whatever safety standards and practices where applicable at the time these accidents happened. Someone would have to pay for those 1000 NPPs, and in the current market conditions no one is willing to, because the ROI isn't there. Even you said so, there is no NPP standard in place to begin with, so before those 1000 plants are ordered, this standard design has to defined, agreed upon and developed first. And that takes how long in your opinion?

pas 3y ago
Yes, and the safety conscious approach is great, and aviation and medicine are a pretty good examples, they can be safe and cheap at the same time. (Notwithstanding the usual [and rightful!] grumbling about the FDA, and the Boeing/FAA MCAS fuckup.) The ROI is not there because other forms of electricity generation didn't have to pay for most of their externalities[1], and people don't give a damn about actual safety profile, or mid-long term overall costs, it's simply the usual sentimentalism-theater. > Oh think of the nuclear waste, oh think of the poor little spent fuel rods leaking into our puppies' drinking water, oh think of all the horrible unspeakable tragedies we will get when every Monday Chernobyl repeats but worse, Fridays are for Fukushimas, and the rest of the weekdays are for all the usual GreenPeace-made-up dangers. But of course instead currently, of course, we enjoy the peaceful and prosperous energy abundance granted to us by ... checks notes ... the same geniuses who delivered the just one-more-lane will solve the traffic jams for sure hit comedy series, the single-family house exclusive rated 10/10 absolute heavens on Earth[2], healthcare as an investment [3], but muh guns [4], and so on. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy [2] https://www.google.com/maps/place/Largo,+FL,+USA/@27.9213946,-82.7848613,180a,35y,39.5t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m6!3m5!1s0x88c2f1a682630e5b:0x61bf2ea662c55d45!8m2!3d27.9094665!4d-82.7873244!16zL20vMHJyMWY?entry=ttu https://www.google.com/maps/place/Largo,+FL,+USA/@27.9213946... whatever the hell is going on here :o [3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773426 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38773426 private equity takeover is amazing for hospitals(' profitabilty) [4] https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2017/special-report/unlocked-loaded/stolen-guns/ https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2017/special-report/u... muh guns and muh freedum to leave guns in not-even-locked cars to get stolen