4 ms·

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 permanent

by 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.
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    I'm still confused as to why you think the 60-80% figure is a lie. Even if you reallocate 1 billion out of the construction cost into the operational cost, that's still a single digit percentage out of a plant cost of $35B. Land is not a big factor in nuclear power plant cost. Not even remotely.
    - Retric 3y ago
      It’s a lie because they calculated 60% of a smaller number than the total costs. There’s no well it’s not actually that big a deal if it’s really 58% or whatever no it’s just a lie. The upfront land cost isn’t that big I think that 1980 estimate had 0.2%. Except lands gone up a lot faster than inflation and loans are setup so you pay interest on that land for several years of construction and only after operating do you start paying down those loans. Land costs and plant sizes vary wildly let’s suppose you’re going to spend 100m on land and you’re paying 6%. Construction takes say 7 years from purchase though it can get a lot worse. By the time you have an actual power plant that’s 150m, but you still haven’t actually paid for the land you take another 30 years to pay off the loan so it’s more like 330 million. Not a huge number, but many different not huge numbers add up. Again, I am not saying land costs themselves are that significant, just that lumping those in when you talk about saving money on construction is misleading.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        Again, 60-80% of projects that cost tens of billions is in construction. 100m on land is trivial and doesn't budge this figure. The interest on financing has nothing to do with the actual cost of construction. That depends on how much working capital the builder has and how much they're taking out via loans. And it applies to any big construction project, not just nuclear power plants. Furthermore it means that improvements that hasten the completion of nuclear plants have an outsized effect because it means you pay off the load sooner. There is nothing of substance in your comments that contradicts the claim that 60-80% of nuclear power's cost is in construction.
        3y ago

by Retric 3y ago

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.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  I'm still confused as to why you think the 60-80% figure is a lie. Even if you reallocate 1 billion out of the construction cost into the operational cost, that's still a single digit percentage out of a plant cost of $35B. Land is not a big factor in nuclear power plant cost. Not even remotely.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s a lie because they calculated 60% of a smaller number than the total costs. There’s no well it’s not actually that big a deal if it’s really 58% or whatever no it’s just a lie. The upfront land cost isn’t that big I think that 1980 estimate had 0.2%. Except lands gone up a lot faster than inflation and loans are setup so you pay interest on that land for several years of construction and only after operating do you start paying down those loans. Land costs and plant sizes vary wildly let’s suppose you’re going to spend 100m on land and you’re paying 6%. Construction takes say 7 years from purchase though it can get a lot worse. By the time you have an actual power plant that’s 150m, but you still haven’t actually paid for the land you take another 30 years to pay off the loan so it’s more like 330 million. Not a huge number, but many different not huge numbers add up. Again, I am not saying land costs themselves are that significant, just that lumping those in when you talk about saving money on construction is misleading.
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      Again, 60-80% of projects that cost tens of billions is in construction. 100m on land is trivial and doesn't budge this figure. The interest on financing has nothing to do with the actual cost of construction. That depends on how much working capital the builder has and how much they're taking out via loans. And it applies to any big construction project, not just nuclear power plants. Furthermore it means that improvements that hasten the completion of nuclear plants have an outsized effect because it means you pay off the load sooner. There is nothing of substance in your comments that contradicts the claim that 60-80% of nuclear power's cost is in construction.
      - 3y ago