4 ms·

The UK decided to build a nuclear power station as well in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

by pjc50 2y ago

The UK decided to build a nuclear power station as well in 2010: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... It is still not operational. Nuclear is too slow. As well as not especially cheap either. There's also a lot of market stupidity in the UK: the marginal price for the most expensive generation sets the price for all generation. In some cases this results in weird situations like wind farms paying back the government because the electricity price was too high for their CFD.

cyberax 2y ago
Nuclear power plants can be built much faster. 6 years from the first concrete to completion is possible. The key is to not design each reactor as a unique snowflake.
- loeg 2y ago
  Churn out more nothing-special AP1000s.
  - pjc50 2y ago
    How many of these have been built?
    - cyberax 2y ago
      Twelve AP1000s are in operation or are in the final construction steps. 20 more are in the planning stages. Russia's Rosatomexport is building roughly similar VVER-1200 power plants within about ~6 years from the first concrete. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant They are indeed "nothing special" plants.
      - loeg 2y ago
        Also the Chinese CAP1000 design is largely just an AP1000, and China plans to go from shovels down to operation in five years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianjiang_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianjiang_Nuclear_Power_Plant
johngladtj 2y ago
Nuclear is not too slow, bureaucracy and political ill will is. How many nuclear power plants has china built during a similar period? How many did France when they were building out their grid? This isn't a technical problem.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  France is currently wholly unable to build new nuclear power. Their latest plant is 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. The EPR2 program is continuously being delayed, with the most recent news being a absolutely massive subsidy program and hopefully final investment decision in mid 2026. With the current target date being the first reactor finished by 2038. China is also massively scaling back their nuclear power ambitions. Since 2020 they have been averaging 4-5 construction starts a year leading to something like a 3% nuclear share of the grid at saturation. Compare with 15 years ago when they were targeting a French like 70%.
- rstuart4133 2y ago
  > How many nuclear power plants has china built during a similar period? About 1/40th of the amount of renewables they built in the same period.
ximus 2y ago
Hinkley Point is the premier example of how badly slow a nuclear development can be. Reactors are often built in 5-7 years.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Which modern western reactor was built in 5-7 years? It feels quite strange to base our data on half a century old data because you don’t like the recent data experience.
- philjohn 2y ago
  And also the ruinous planning regulations in the UK, which thankfully the current Labour government have signalled they're going to reform (which hopefully means gutting a lot of them).
- myrmidon 2y ago
  Vogtle 3/4 (USA): 10 years. Shin-Hanul (Korea): 12 years. Olkiluoto (Finland): 18 years. Flamanville (France): 17 years. I did not even need to cherry pick those. Your estimates are wildly unrealistic. Also note: Those times are from begin of construction, not start of planning (!!).
  - epistasis 2y ago
    This sort of numerical deception is endemic in nuclear advocacy dicsussions. I don't know if it's intentional, the best explanation I have is that somebody proposes an (unrealistic) number as a goal, and then it's accepted by advocates as the reality. But if reality was known, the person probably would not be an advocate. I have not yet met an advocate that will talk about the real, existing, challenges to nuclear the same way that renewable energy advocates talk about the challenges. Go and listen to a podcast on renewables, and it's all about what's not working, what's working, where the opportunities are, and what needs to be changed with the tech. Go listen to a nuclear energy podcast and all you get is wishful thinking, rose-colored glasses, and papering over the real problems that face the real projects. Edit: for example of the podcasts, here's Jigar Shah on Decouple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN1MCtBkVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN1MCtBkVk giving the hosts a dose of reality. And Shah is far more optimistic than nearly any realistic person on nuclear, the Liftoff plan (https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear-2/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear-2/) that his department produced starts from an unrealistic current position and then assumes massive gains somehow to get to a competitive position. It's rose-colored glasses in itself, but at least it shows a plan of how to make nuclear realistic.
ZeroGravitas 2y ago
There is some market (and regulatory) stupidity but both your cited ones have reasonable cases to be made for them. If you order the bids low to high then pay the highest bid then a) you encourage honest (i.e. lower) priced bids and drive expensive/inefficient plants out the market while encouraging new low price entrants who can guarantee they'll get used (because low bid) and make money, driving the market price lower. The problem is the expensive gas caused by Russian invasions and planning a market pricing mechanism around such events is kind of silly when you can just windfall tax to fix the problem quickly and easily if the energy companies aren't all run by your mates from private school. But also generation ain't the whole cost, there's the grid fees and taxes. The latter made sense when burning coal and now are looking likely to be shifted to gas. Collar prices on wind farms are actually a genius bit of financial engineering, guaranteeing minimum funding in a volatile market at low cost by capping the profits.

by pjc50 2y ago

cyberax 2y ago

Nuclear power plants can be built much faster. 6 years from the first concrete to completion is possible. The key is to not design each reactor as a unique snowflake.

loeg 2y ago
Churn out more nothing-special AP1000s.
- pjc50 2y ago
  How many of these have been built?
  - cyberax 2y ago
    Twelve AP1000s are in operation or are in the final construction steps. 20 more are in the planning stages. Russia's Rosatomexport is building roughly similar VVER-1200 power plants within about ~6 years from the first concrete. E.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant They are indeed "nothing special" plants.
    - loeg 2y ago
      Also the Chinese CAP1000 design is largely just an AP1000, and China plans to go from shovels down to operation in five years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianjiang_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lianjiang_Nuclear_Power_Plant

johngladtj 2y ago

Nuclear is not too slow, bureaucracy and political ill will is. How many nuclear power plants has china built during a similar period? How many did France when they were building out their grid? This isn't a technical problem.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
France is currently wholly unable to build new nuclear power. Their latest plant is 7x over budget and 13 years late on a 5 year construction schedule. The EPR2 program is continuously being delayed, with the most recent news being a absolutely massive subsidy program and hopefully final investment decision in mid 2026. With the current target date being the first reactor finished by 2038. China is also massively scaling back their nuclear power ambitions. Since 2020 they have been averaging 4-5 construction starts a year leading to something like a 3% nuclear share of the grid at saturation. Compare with 15 years ago when they were targeting a French like 70%.
rstuart4133 2y ago
> How many nuclear power plants has china built during a similar period? About 1/40th of the amount of renewables they built in the same period.

ximus 2y ago

Hinkley Point is the premier example of how badly slow a nuclear development can be. Reactors are often built in 5-7 years.

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Which modern western reactor was built in 5-7 years? It feels quite strange to base our data on half a century old data because you don’t like the recent data experience.
philjohn 2y ago
And also the ruinous planning regulations in the UK, which thankfully the current Labour government have signalled they're going to reform (which hopefully means gutting a lot of them).
myrmidon 2y ago
Vogtle 3/4 (USA): 10 years. Shin-Hanul (Korea): 12 years. Olkiluoto (Finland): 18 years. Flamanville (France): 17 years. I did not even need to cherry pick those. Your estimates are wildly unrealistic. Also note: Those times are from begin of construction, not start of planning (!!).
- epistasis 2y ago
  This sort of numerical deception is endemic in nuclear advocacy dicsussions. I don't know if it's intentional, the best explanation I have is that somebody proposes an (unrealistic) number as a goal, and then it's accepted by advocates as the reality. But if reality was known, the person probably would not be an advocate. I have not yet met an advocate that will talk about the real, existing, challenges to nuclear the same way that renewable energy advocates talk about the challenges. Go and listen to a podcast on renewables, and it's all about what's not working, what's working, where the opportunities are, and what needs to be changed with the tech. Go listen to a nuclear energy podcast and all you get is wishful thinking, rose-colored glasses, and papering over the real problems that face the real projects. Edit: for example of the podcasts, here's Jigar Shah on Decouple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN1MCtBkVk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwN1MCtBkVk giving the hosts a dose of reality. And Shah is far more optimistic than nearly any realistic person on nuclear, the Liftoff plan (https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear-2/ https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear-2/) that his department produced starts from an unrealistic current position and then assumes massive gains somehow to get to a competitive position. It's rose-colored glasses in itself, but at least it shows a plan of how to make nuclear realistic.

ZeroGravitas 2y ago

There is some market (and regulatory) stupidity but both your cited ones have reasonable cases to be made for them. If you order the bids low to high then pay the highest bid then a) you encourage honest (i.e. lower) priced bids and drive expensive/inefficient plants out the market while encouraging new low price entrants who can guarantee they'll get used (because low bid) and make money, driving the market price lower. The problem is the expensive gas caused by Russian invasions and planning a market pricing mechanism around such events is kind of silly when you can just windfall tax to fix the problem quickly and easily if the energy companies aren't all run by your mates from private school. But also generation ain't the whole cost, there's the grid fees and taxes. The latter made sense when burning coal and now are looking likely to be shifted to gas. Collar prices on wind farms are actually a genius bit of financial engineering, guaranteeing minimum funding in a volatile market at low cost by capping the profits.