6 ms·

That is seemingly such an absurdly high number to get a nuclear planet up and running. Is the majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense

by edm0nd 2y ago

That is seemingly such an absurdly high number to get a nuclear planet up and running. Is the majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s?

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Is that majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s? One part this, two parts the economics of a novel technology platform being deployed in a large size, three parts American labor costs and inexperience with megaprojects. Similar to why we can't build ships [1]: high input costs, notably materials and labour, and a coddled industry that is internationally uncompetitive. With ships, it's the Jones Act and shipyard protectionism; with civilian nukes, it's misguided greenies. (Would note that we're perfectly capable of nuclear production if it happens under the military.) [1] https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant...
- rtkwe 2y ago
  IMO they only continue to exist because of the Jones Act not the way I think you're implying where Jones Act protectionism prevents them from flourishing. High material and labor alone are enough to explain why people wouldn't build ships in the US. What special capabilities could Us shipbuilders bring that would make the cost of labor here competitive with China or South Korea? Gone are the days when the US dominates on skill or capacity, and that's not because the US has lost something the rest of the world just caught up with us. Whenever we're looking at the 1900s and wondering why the US used to be so dominant as an industrial power I think it's incredibly important to remember our industry got all the upside (an absolute torrent of money and demand) and none of the downside (bombing) of two world wars. IMO the US industrial base was riding high on that easily into the 80s and people mistake that dominance for skill and prowess rather than the waning boon of WW2's mobilization and destruction of every other extant industrial power.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The rise of the US as an industrial power started in 1800. The US was already dominant before WW1.
    - msabalau 2y ago
      There is a huge difference between the US accounting for 20% of Global GDP and merely being "in first place" at the end of WWI and the USA having half of global GDP (and 80% of the world's hard currency reserves) at the end of WW2. While also say, having a Navy easily more powerful than the rest of the world combined, and being able to to focus on an upcoming surge in consumer consumption as opposed to desperately struggling to stabilize food production and rebuild cities and industries that had been ravaged by war. Britain, a victor that had never been occupied, wasn't able to lift many significant food rationing schemes until the 1950s. Bread, which wasn't rationed during the war, had to be rationed from '46 to '48. There is a meaningful distinction between being the leading industrial power and being the overwhelmingly dominant economic power.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        When the German soldiers first encountered the US doughboys, they were struck by their height, their excellent food, and their supplies. That was when Germany knew they had lost WW1. And this was despite having to ship all that stuff across an ocean. The US was an industrial powerhouse then.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    The point is there are downstream costs to our moribund shipping industry. We have a internally-navigable waterways we barely use, offshore wind power gets stalled due to lack of ships, et cetera. Post-WWII effects are one component. But another is that we want a protected shipbuilding industry for its own purposes, which is fine, but that curtails a lot of other production. > What special capabilities could Us shipbuilders bring that would make the cost of labor here competitive with China or South Korea? Energy. Our energy costs are much lower than theirs.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  Nuclear is still much more expensive than renewables in China, where there aren't too many "misguided greenies" setting policy. Environmentalists were successful in opposing nuclear construction because it was expensive and unprofitable, not the other way around. The faster people can internalize this lesson, the sooner we'll get to economically-viable nuclear power.
  - mbivert 2y ago
    > Environmentalists were successful in opposing nuclear construction because it was expensive and unprofitable As far as Europe is concerned, there seems to have been various political move and lobbying to affect energy independence (e.g. France): economy is transformed energy, so by nuking (…) energy independence, you're suffocating countries. The military role of nuclear is furthermore crucial; civil & nuclear must be correlated. That's to say, giving up nuclear is not something a sane, well-driven country should do lightly, regardless of ideologies. It's a tricky topic; what I regularly hear from economists is that wind & solar are still far from being able to compete with nuclear. And because of the previous two points, people can't but frown upon "green" arguments, even if the underlying intentions are honest and well-intended. (China may not have misguided greenies, but it has a strong incentive to sell whatever it's offering).
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      If China had a super cheap nuclear design they would be very happy to export that the same way they export their other technologies like EVs, high speed trains, solar panels, batteries, etc. But it simply does not exist.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > If China had a super cheap nuclear design they would be very happy to export that China "plans to export nuclear power reactors in the future" [1]. It's early stages, but being done through Belt & Road [2]. [1] https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-worlds-fastest-expanding-nuclear-power-producer https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-world... [2] https://www.cipe.org/resources/chinas-nuclear-dragon-goes-abroad-exporting-nuclear-power-infrastructure-through-the-belt-and-road-initiative/ https://www.cipe.org/resources/chinas-nuclear-dragon-goes-ab...
jimjimjim 2y ago
That right, blame the hippies. Nothing at all to do with nuclear power plants being the one thing that you really do want to be engineered well. But no, regulations are of course to blame!
- edm0nd 2y ago
  The anti-nuclear hippy movements of the 60s and 70s are pretty directly responsible for a lot of the slow down in expansion of nuclear power. >Between 1975 and 1980, a total of 63 nuclear units were canceled in the United States. Anti-nuclear activities were among the reasons, but the primary motivations were the overestimation of future demand for electricity and steadily increasing capital costs, which made the economics of new plants unfavorable. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Impact_on_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Impact_o... There was a lot scares and FUD about it at the time. To note, I am pro-nuclear.
  - jonas21 2y ago
    That says pretty much the opposite of what you claim.
slashdave 2y ago
The NRC is many things, but a front for "anti-nuclear hippy groups" is not one of them.
iknowstuff 2y ago
France, with all their nuclear base, just raised their estimate for new reactors (I'm so shocked!): > State-owned Electricite de France SA has raised its estimate for the future construction costs of six new atomic reactors in France by 30% to €67.4 billion ($73 billion) 6 reactors, 1650MW each, $7B per 1GW vs Vogtle's $17B. Planned. In 2 decades, after it's finally built, it will have doubled of course lmao.

by edm0nd 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> Is that majority of that cost dealing with regulatory and legal nonsense that stems from the anti-nuclear hippy groups and laws they got passed in the 60s and 70s? One part this, two parts the economics of a novel technology platform being deployed in a large size, three parts American labor costs and inexperience with megaprojects. Similar to why we can't build ships [1]: high input costs, notably materials and labour, and a coddled industry that is internationally uncompetitive. With ships, it's the Jones Act and shipyard protectionism; with civilian nukes, it's misguided greenies. (Would note that we're perfectly capable of nuclear production if it happens under the military.) [1] https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant-the-us-build-ships https://open.substack.com/pub/constructionphysics/p/why-cant...

rtkwe 2y ago
IMO they only continue to exist because of the Jones Act not the way I think you're implying where Jones Act protectionism prevents them from flourishing. High material and labor alone are enough to explain why people wouldn't build ships in the US. What special capabilities could Us shipbuilders bring that would make the cost of labor here competitive with China or South Korea? Gone are the days when the US dominates on skill or capacity, and that's not because the US has lost something the rest of the world just caught up with us. Whenever we're looking at the 1900s and wondering why the US used to be so dominant as an industrial power I think it's incredibly important to remember our industry got all the upside (an absolute torrent of money and demand) and none of the downside (bombing) of two world wars. IMO the US industrial base was riding high on that easily into the 80s and people mistake that dominance for skill and prowess rather than the waning boon of WW2's mobilization and destruction of every other extant industrial power.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The rise of the US as an industrial power started in 1800. The US was already dominant before WW1.
  - msabalau 2y ago
    There is a huge difference between the US accounting for 20% of Global GDP and merely being "in first place" at the end of WWI and the USA having half of global GDP (and 80% of the world's hard currency reserves) at the end of WW2. While also say, having a Navy easily more powerful than the rest of the world combined, and being able to to focus on an upcoming surge in consumer consumption as opposed to desperately struggling to stabilize food production and rebuild cities and industries that had been ravaged by war. Britain, a victor that had never been occupied, wasn't able to lift many significant food rationing schemes until the 1950s. Bread, which wasn't rationed during the war, had to be rationed from '46 to '48. There is a meaningful distinction between being the leading industrial power and being the overwhelmingly dominant economic power.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      When the German soldiers first encountered the US doughboys, they were struck by their height, their excellent food, and their supplies. That was when Germany knew they had lost WW1. And this was despite having to ship all that stuff across an ocean. The US was an industrial powerhouse then.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  The point is there are downstream costs to our moribund shipping industry. We have a internally-navigable waterways we barely use, offshore wind power gets stalled due to lack of ships, et cetera. Post-WWII effects are one component. But another is that we want a protected shipbuilding industry for its own purposes, which is fine, but that curtails a lot of other production. > What special capabilities could Us shipbuilders bring that would make the cost of labor here competitive with China or South Korea? Energy. Our energy costs are much lower than theirs.
matthewdgreen 2y ago
Nuclear is still much more expensive than renewables in China, where there aren't too many "misguided greenies" setting policy. Environmentalists were successful in opposing nuclear construction because it was expensive and unprofitable, not the other way around. The faster people can internalize this lesson, the sooner we'll get to economically-viable nuclear power.
- mbivert 2y ago
  > Environmentalists were successful in opposing nuclear construction because it was expensive and unprofitable As far as Europe is concerned, there seems to have been various political move and lobbying to affect energy independence (e.g. France): economy is transformed energy, so by nuking (…) energy independence, you're suffocating countries. The military role of nuclear is furthermore crucial; civil & nuclear must be correlated. That's to say, giving up nuclear is not something a sane, well-driven country should do lightly, regardless of ideologies. It's a tricky topic; what I regularly hear from economists is that wind & solar are still far from being able to compete with nuclear. And because of the previous two points, people can't but frown upon "green" arguments, even if the underlying intentions are honest and well-intended. (China may not have misguided greenies, but it has a strong incentive to sell whatever it's offering).
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    If China had a super cheap nuclear design they would be very happy to export that the same way they export their other technologies like EVs, high speed trains, solar panels, batteries, etc. But it simply does not exist.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > If China had a super cheap nuclear design they would be very happy to export that China "plans to export nuclear power reactors in the future" [1]. It's early stages, but being done through Belt & Road [2]. [1] https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-worlds-fastest-expanding-nuclear-power-producer https://www.iaea.org/bulletin/how-china-has-become-the-world... [2] https://www.cipe.org/resources/chinas-nuclear-dragon-goes-abroad-exporting-nuclear-power-infrastructure-through-the-belt-and-road-initiative/ https://www.cipe.org/resources/chinas-nuclear-dragon-goes-ab...

jimjimjim 2y ago

That right, blame the hippies. Nothing at all to do with nuclear power plants being the one thing that you really do want to be engineered well. But no, regulations are of course to blame!

edm0nd 2y ago
The anti-nuclear hippy movements of the 60s and 70s are pretty directly responsible for a lot of the slow down in expansion of nuclear power. >Between 1975 and 1980, a total of 63 nuclear units were canceled in the United States. Anti-nuclear activities were among the reasons, but the primary motivations were the overestimation of future demand for electricity and steadily increasing capital costs, which made the economics of new plants unfavorable. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Impact_on_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement#Impact_o... There was a lot scares and FUD about it at the time. To note, I am pro-nuclear.
- jonas21 2y ago
  That says pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

slashdave 2y ago

The NRC is many things, but a front for "anti-nuclear hippy groups" is not one of them.

iknowstuff 2y ago

France, with all their nuclear base, just raised their estimate for new reactors (I'm so shocked!): > State-owned Electricite de France SA has raised its estimate for the future construction costs of six new atomic reactors in France by 30% to €67.4 billion ($73 billion) 6 reactors, 1650MW each, $7B per 1GW vs Vogtle's $17B. Planned. In 2 decades, after it's finally built, it will have doubled of course lmao.