4 ms·

Lets just keep the blinders on and ignore the other projects in Europe: - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. Five times over budget

Lets just keep the blinders on and ignore the other projects in Europe: - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. Five times over budget - Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028, costs spiraling. n:th of a kind reactor. - Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023. - Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements. The problem with nuclear is the Baumol Effect [1]. The construction industry has barely become more efficient while labor costs has increased. Thus magically investing another trillion dollars in subsidies for nuclear is not certain to meaningfully make it cheaper. We have already had one massive round of subsidies, those didn't pan out. France famously experience negative learning by doing in their nuclear program. [2] Given the outcome of previous wind projects it is almost certain that it will be on time and on budget. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol_effect [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements. Hardly an opportunity to learn how to build reactors efficiently when they didn't build anything. > Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023. This isn't "other projects", it's the one they brought online in the last 15 years. > Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. Five times over budget > Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028, costs spiraling. n:th of a kind reactor. The newest of these was started only 3 years after Olkiluoto 3 and 15 years before it came online. The premise is that you can learn from past efforts, not that you can't make the same mistake concurrently in parallel projects. These are also each in a different country with a different regulator. > The problem with nuclear is the Baumol Effect > France famously experience negative learning by doing in their nuclear program. The Baumol effect would explain the negative learning, but then that isn't anything unique to constructing nuclear reactors. The cost of constructing wind farms or natural gas plants would be equally affected. So something else is going on here, and the something else has a cause that can be analyzed and addressed. If it was possible to do it in 1975 then it should be possible to do it now.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  The final investment decision came in 2017. Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Even worse is calling it acceptable to make nuclear sound feasible. Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. It is easy to see what happens when humanity finds an energy source cheaper than fossil fuels. We've dammed up almost every single river globally. Nuclear energy never became cheaper. Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. We are in for a ride as Jevons Paradox plays out its course. - CCGT plants take advantage of scale from the airline industry. - Coal is dead. - Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. Nuclear is attempting to be a more expensive coal in 2024.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Construction has a timeline. You can't install the pipes before you pour the foundation. If in year 15 you learn about a mistake you made in year 10, the plant which is three years behind you has already done the same thing. But the one that starts construction today doesn't have to do that. > Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. We built hundreds of nuclear plants that have been providing clean power for decades, and they cost significantly less to build than they do now. > Nuclear energy never became cheaper. The US and most of the world stopped building new reactors after the 1980s, largely as a result of political pressure. It can't become cheaper if you don't do it at all. > Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. And they're likely to do something interesting because their generation pattern is very different. But nobody seems able to answer what you're supposed to do if it's ever cloudy and still for a month, which actually occasionally happens. > Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. If this is all it takes then why is it limited to wind? Build reactors in a factory and put them on rail cars.
pyrale 3y ago
> France famously experience negative learning by doing in their nuclear program. [2] This article is flawed ; it mixes reactors from different generations. > Our results suggest that neither the scale-up nor cumulative experience induced cost reductions, but we have found a positive learning effect within similar types of reactors [1]: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00780566/document https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00780566/document
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  Given the outcome of Flamanville 3 measly intragenerational gains are irrelevant.
  - pyrale 3y ago
    How is that related to what I'm saying?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago

> Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements. Hardly an opportunity to learn how to build reactors efficiently when they didn't build anything. > Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023. This isn't "other projects", it's the one they brought online in the last 15 years. > Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. Five times over budget > Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028, costs spiraling. n:th of a kind reactor. The newest of these was started only 3 years after Olkiluoto 3 and 15 years before it came online. The premise is that you can learn from past efforts, not that you can't make the same mistake concurrently in parallel projects. These are also each in a different country with a different regulator. > The problem with nuclear is the Baumol Effect > France famously experience negative learning by doing in their nuclear program. The Baumol effect would explain the negative learning, but then that isn't anything unique to constructing nuclear reactors. The cost of constructing wind farms or natural gas plants would be equally affected. So something else is going on here, and the something else has a cause that can be analyzed and addressed. If it was possible to do it in 1975 then it should be possible to do it now.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
The final investment decision came in 2017. Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Even worse is calling it acceptable to make nuclear sound feasible. Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. It is easy to see what happens when humanity finds an energy source cheaper than fossil fuels. We've dammed up almost every single river globally. Nuclear energy never became cheaper. Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. We are in for a ride as Jevons Paradox plays out its course. - CCGT plants take advantage of scale from the airline industry. - Coal is dead. - Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. Nuclear is attempting to be a more expensive coal in 2024.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > Saying that they didn't learn anything from the 12 years in between is horrifying. Construction has a timeline. You can't install the pipes before you pour the foundation. If in year 15 you learn about a mistake you made in year 10, the plant which is three years behind you has already done the same thing. But the one that starts construction today doesn't have to do that. > Massive subventions made it possible in the 70s. What was sold never matched reality. We built hundreds of nuclear plants that have been providing clean power for decades, and they cost significantly less to build than they do now. > Nuclear energy never became cheaper. The US and most of the world stopped building new reactors after the 1980s, largely as a result of political pressure. It can't become cheaper if you don't do it at all. > Today we have found a new power source that is cheaper than fossil fuels. Renewables. Which barely have an geographical limitations. And they're likely to do something interesting because their generation pattern is very different. But nobody seems able to answer what you're supposed to do if it's ever cloudy and still for a month, which actually occasionally happens. > Wind turbines are productized with only the foundations being true construction. If this is all it takes then why is it limited to wind? Build reactors in a factory and put them on rail cars.

pyrale 3y ago

> France famously experience negative learning by doing in their nuclear program. [2] This article is flawed ; it mixes reactors from different generations. > Our results suggest that neither the scale-up nor cumulative experience induced cost reductions, but we have found a positive learning effect within similar types of reactors [1]: https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00780566/document https://minesparis-psl.hal.science/hal-00780566/document

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Given the outcome of Flamanville 3 measly intragenerational gains are irrelevant.
- pyrale 3y ago
  How is that related to what I'm saying?