this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
2164 points (94.4% liked)

World News

39011 readers
2770 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.

Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.

Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.

Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it's already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I've heard.

It's no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.

A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.

Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren't included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.

[–] Ertebolle@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y'know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.

[–] Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I'm not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

We do both. This isn't a binary choice.

[–] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

So what happens when you finish pouring the concrete in 15 years and the demand has already been satisfied by renewables? Concrete production alone accounts for ~8% of global emissions.

I am not anti-nucleur, I wish we invested more decades ago.

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well demand isn't going to go down, and we're going to have to replace all of the old power plants anyways, even if they are solar or wind. Everything that we build has a lifespan, and the United States has a heck of a lot of legacy power plants that are going to be decommissioned over the next 100 years regardless of what type of plants these are. Solar, wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear... Nothing lasts forever.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 1 year ago

We could build them in a lot less time than 15 years, we'd just need to summon up the political will for it. I'm not saying we should stop building Wind or Solar either.

[–] gmtom@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Money and manpower are not infinite. Any money spent on one is a choice not to spend it on the other.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Money and manpower are not infinite.

Functionally they are because different Capital Groups will chase different projects. For instance Bill Gates / TerraPower is heavily backing both Fusion and SMR Fission technology.

Meanwhile other Capital Groups like Anschutz are piling money into Wind Farms then there's yet other groups like Silicon Ranch pouring money into Solar Farms.

It seems to have escaped the notice of most Netizens but the big money Capitalists have finally come out to play in the Green / Renewable Energy space. Sure there's an absolute limit on the money and manpower that even they can afford but practically speaking those limits are so high that we're unlikely to reach them.

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except throughout the history of nuclear power it has always gotten more expensive, regardless of time period, learning curve, adoption curve, or any other variable you care to consider. Solar, wind, and batteries have always gotten cheaper and continue to do so.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Is there some reason for that? What makes nuclear power fundamentally different from all other human undertakings?

[–] PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago

Yes that is exactly what would happen. To do that though, you really need state funding, state approval, and a secure supply chain as well as experienced engineers, management and construction and supply chains.

[–] Plantee@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.

I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don't dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I'd rather have some more solid solutions.

Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).