3 ms·

Comparing the construction cost of nuclear with the lifetime cost of renewables gives wildly inaccurate cost estimates. Historically nuclear required ~500 high

by Retric 3y ago

Comparing the construction cost of nuclear with the lifetime cost of renewables gives wildly inaccurate cost estimates. Historically nuclear required ~500 highly skilled workers per GW for 50 years. Call it ~50 million / year * 50 years and labor alone is 2.5 Billion dollars. Fuel rods, replacement equipment, insurance, decommissioning, etc all add up. You want really cheap nuclear, find out how you can safely operate a nuclear power plant without 24/7 armed security, enrichment, etc. Lower construction costs alone just won’t cut it. We’re rapidly approaching the point where handing someone a fully built reactor for free and they can’t operate profitably without subsidies.

Manuel_D 3y ago
Quite the contrary, the cost of construction accounts 60-80% of the cost of nuclear power [1]. Operating costs of an individual nuclear plant may be large compared to an individual wind farm, but the former produces a lot more electricity. The operating costs of a nuclear plant are actually quite small compared to the amount of electricity they produce. That's why most of the talk is around reducing construction costs. 1. https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/ https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/
- Retric 3y ago
  That 60-80% number is a lie. They are comparing 3 costs for different power sources (construction, fuel, O&M) but decommissioning for example isn’t included and it’s far high for nuclear than the others. Risk is another. Several nuclear reactors including Three Mile Island suffered catastrophic failure and not only failed to produce power but added explosive cleanup costs.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    Decommissioning is not a major cost factor, amounting to a single digit percentage of the total cost. 400 million dollars may be a lot in nominal terms, but compared to nuclear plant costing tens of billions it's not a major factor [1]. Furthermore, in the US nuclear power plant operators are required to deposit into a fund to pay for future decommissioning [2]. It's factored into the cost, contrary to your assertions otherwise. 1. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/d... 2. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
    - Retric 3y ago
      400m is definitely big enough to show up on that chart but again it’s a misleading number. Out of ~200 commercial, experimental or prototype reactors permanently shutdown ~17 reactors have actually been fully decommissioned in the lifetime of the nuclear industry. And the costs haven’t been 400 million each. Nuclear regulators let operators create a fund to eventually pay for cleanup after letting a site sit for decades to let shorter lived isotopes decay. The industry has convinced regulators to essentially let them off bathe hook assuming significant positive returns will eventually supply ~1-1.5 billion for cleanup efforts, with the government covering any gaps. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520304067?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152...
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Your article discusses the cost of decommissioning in the UK and Europe, my link was for American nuclear policy. Regardless, even 2-3x increases in decommissioning costs don't appreciably change the total cost of nuclear power. Again, 1-1.5 billion is in the single digit range out of total costs in the tens of billions.
        Retric 3y ago
        Even single digit percentage demonstrates that 60% number is a lie, especially when you add another single digit for instance. Lumping all costs before the plant is operational into construction costs is similarly misleading. If your proposed solution drops physical construction costs by X%, but you talk about “construction costs” including land etc in other locations then the full X% savings isn’t there. IE: The maximum possible cost savings on construction is someone saying they will build it for you at zero cost. But if you’re forced to pay for the land and zoning etc to enable them to build then the “construction cost” bucket isn’t going to 0. Similarity when people say some tech like small modular reactors reduces the cost of building a reactor, but it still needs a cooling tower then it’s optimizing an even smaller bucket under construction costs dramatically reducing the actual benefit.

by Retric 3y ago

Manuel_D 3y ago

Quite the contrary, the cost of construction accounts 60-80% of the cost of nuclear power [1]. Operating costs of an individual nuclear plant may be large compared to an individual wind farm, but the former produces a lot more electricity. The operating costs of a nuclear plant are actually quite small compared to the amount of electricity they produce. That's why most of the talk is around reducing construction costs. 1. https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/ https://ifp.org/nuclear-power-plant-construction-costs/

Retric 3y ago
That 60-80% number is a lie. They are comparing 3 costs for different power sources (construction, fuel, O&M) but decommissioning for example isn’t included and it’s far high for nuclear than the others. Risk is another. Several nuclear reactors including Three Mile Island suffered catastrophic failure and not only failed to produce power but added explosive cleanup costs.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  Decommissioning is not a major cost factor, amounting to a single digit percentage of the total cost. 400 million dollars may be a lot in nominal terms, but compared to nuclear plant costing tens of billions it's not a major factor [1]. Furthermore, in the US nuclear power plant operators are required to deposit into a fund to pay for future decommissioning [2]. It's factored into the cost, contrary to your assertions otherwise. 1. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/decommissioning.html https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/d... 2. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
  - Retric 3y ago
    400m is definitely big enough to show up on that chart but again it’s a misleading number. Out of ~200 commercial, experimental or prototype reactors permanently shutdown ~17 reactors have actually been fully decommissioned in the lifetime of the nuclear industry. And the costs haven’t been 400 million each. Nuclear regulators let operators create a fund to eventually pay for cleanup after letting a site sit for decades to let shorter lived isotopes decay. The industry has convinced regulators to essentially let them off bathe hook assuming significant positive returns will eventually supply ~1-1.5 billion for cleanup efforts, with the government covering any gaps. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421520304067?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152...
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Your article discusses the cost of decommissioning in the UK and Europe, my link was for American nuclear policy. Regardless, even 2-3x increases in decommissioning costs don't appreciably change the total cost of nuclear power. Again, 1-1.5 billion is in the single digit range out of total costs in the tens of billions.
      - Retric 3y ago
        Even single digit percentage demonstrates that 60% number is a lie, especially when you add another single digit for instance. Lumping all costs before the plant is operational into construction costs is similarly misleading. If your proposed solution drops physical construction costs by X%, but you talk about “construction costs” including land etc in other locations then the full X% savings isn’t there. IE: The maximum possible cost savings on construction is someone saying they will build it for you at zero cost. But if you’re forced to pay for the land and zoning etc to enable them to build then the “construction cost” bucket isn’t going to 0. Similarity when people say some tech like small modular reactors reduces the cost of building a reactor, but it still needs a cooling tower then it’s optimizing an even smaller bucket under construction costs dramatically reducing the actual benefit.