4 ms·

2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, and took decades to come online. China are currently building 27 reactors [1], and the average time is still 7 years for c

by grecy 2y ago

2GW of nuclear cost $34B in Georgia, and took decades to come online. China are currently building 27 reactors [1], and the average time is still 7 years for completion. [1] https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-china-in-nuclear-power/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/06/17/how-innovative-is-c...

mpweiher 2y ago
And electricity in Georgia is, after prices being raised to pay for this particular disaster, around half as expensive as electricity in California. Important point: even the most disastrous nuclear projects are better than "succesful" intermittent renewables. Nuclear power plants are big and take a while to build. They also reliably deliver truly stupendous amounts of electricity over an amazing amount of time. Totally worth it. Nuclear: an expensive way to generate cheap electricity. Intermittent renewables: a cheap way to generate expensive electricity.
Moldoteck 2y ago
Afaik china now builds 30+ reactors with additional 10+ approved. And completion time for many projects tends to be closer to 5 years Also vogtle was foak build, it's natural to be over time and budget. Still unit 4 was 30% cheaper than unit 3. The more you build the cheaper it gets
- mpweiher 2y ago
  Not just FOAK, they also had to rebuild the industry. And of course there was politicking of the industrial players. And they had some major f-ups. For example, they used a new licensing process, which is all-up-front. This is great, because it means you can get a single design approved and then just built that design over and over, instead of all these one-offs that then are all FOAK. Except. Their design wasn't actually done (correctly) when it was approved. So what got approved was safe (that's what the NRC checks). But it wasn't actually buildable, which is not the NRC's problem. So they had to go back to the NRC again and again to make changes, but within a process that wasn't meant to work that way. So sometimes it was cheaper just to tear down what they had built. COVID also didn't help. But now the Vogtles are built, and as you said the second AP-1000 was already 30% cheaper than the first. The next ones should be significantly better, not only for the usual FOAK stuff, but they have now built two of these, so they have plans that are actually buildable. Poland selected it, so did Ukraine.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    i'm extremely interested to see if vogtle experience will help polant/ukraine or if it'll be again some f-up because of building in other countries
    - mpweiher 2y ago
      I think both: there absolutely will be f-ups. And the Vogtle experience will have tremendous benefits to the AP-1000s that follow.

by grecy 2y ago

mpweiher 2y ago

And electricity in Georgia is, after prices being raised to pay for this particular disaster, around half as expensive as electricity in California. Important point: even the most disastrous nuclear projects are better than "succesful" intermittent renewables. Nuclear power plants are big and take a while to build. They also reliably deliver truly stupendous amounts of electricity over an amazing amount of time. Totally worth it. Nuclear: an expensive way to generate cheap electricity. Intermittent renewables: a cheap way to generate expensive electricity.

Moldoteck 2y ago

Afaik china now builds 30+ reactors with additional 10+ approved. And completion time for many projects tends to be closer to 5 years Also vogtle was foak build, it's natural to be over time and budget. Still unit 4 was 30% cheaper than unit 3. The more you build the cheaper it gets

mpweiher 2y ago
Not just FOAK, they also had to rebuild the industry. And of course there was politicking of the industrial players. And they had some major f-ups. For example, they used a new licensing process, which is all-up-front. This is great, because it means you can get a single design approved and then just built that design over and over, instead of all these one-offs that then are all FOAK. Except. Their design wasn't actually done (correctly) when it was approved. So what got approved was safe (that's what the NRC checks). But it wasn't actually buildable, which is not the NRC's problem. So they had to go back to the NRC again and again to make changes, but within a process that wasn't meant to work that way. So sometimes it was cheaper just to tear down what they had built. COVID also didn't help. But now the Vogtles are built, and as you said the second AP-1000 was already 30% cheaper than the first. The next ones should be significantly better, not only for the usual FOAK stuff, but they have now built two of these, so they have plans that are actually buildable. Poland selected it, so did Ukraine.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  i'm extremely interested to see if vogtle experience will help polant/ukraine or if it'll be again some f-up because of building in other countries
  - mpweiher 2y ago
    I think both: there absolutely will be f-ups. And the Vogtle experience will have tremendous benefits to the AP-1000s that follow.