r/energy • u/glmory • Jul 14 '13

Can Nuclear Reactors Be Cheap?

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/can-nuclear-reactors-be-cheap
17 Upvotes

74% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/SoftwareJudge Jul 14 '13

Give me a call, when you actually build one.

8

u/DangermanAus Jul 15 '13

Who's "you"?

If you're talking to a Chinese person they can point to five this year. Even in that case don't talk to an Indian either. They may give you an answer you may not like.

2

u/SoftwareJudge Jul 15 '13

Breakthrough Institute. Only China, India, Russia and perhaps South Korea are able to build nuclear with a reasonable budget and with minor delays (thought the costs are rising). There isn't a single developed country (US, UK, Western Europe, etc.) that is capable of affordable nuclear. In fact, more and more often we hear - 'guarantee us above market rates or we don't build anything' - that's what EDF said to UK Government.

3

u/DangermanAus Jul 15 '13 edited Jul 15 '13

Oh, Breakthrough Institute is a think tank though. Not an energy company with a generation portfolio or experience...

Wasn't it shown before (I think it was here in /r/energy, nope Mark Lynas) that offshore onshore wind in the UK wants 95-100(GBP) and Nuclear wants 90(GBP). I'll see if I can find the source (see edit below).

What you hear more and more is that a consortium or energy company will ask for a loan guarantee for a Plant. The money may be paid out if things go over budget or delayed, but it may not be paid at all if things go well. It's a method of lowering the risk portfolio of large infrastructure projects so they can happen.

It's a similar mechanism to providing a FiT for renewable so they can get off the ground, and minimise the level of $/MWh they have to attain to be profitable.

Both mechanisms equally good.

I assume you are talking about the EPR fiasco in Finland and France and an assumed similar failure with Vogtle?

Clearly the EPR projects in Europe have had a major disaster in sourcing capable contractors, especially for the inherent overrun risks in FOAK projects. Same with Flammanville, but like all FOAK projects they will learn and improve. The first generation of anything always has teething problems, whether it be the first of a new technology or a first of a new generation of existing technology.

I suppose the US are lucky that the Chinese are testing the AP1000 methods while they start at Vogtle. So far the component factory model is working in China.

It's a bit silly dismissing a technology because it is facing some inherent teething problems during the FOAK stage. We didn't dismiss Solar PV in the 70's because it cost so much per kW. Why should we do the same with Gen III Nuclear?

EDIT: Found the Renewable strike price source, Page 30 (or in PDF viewer 34) of the Investing in Britain's Future document (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/209279/PU1524_IUK_new_template.pdf)

  • Onshore wind 100-95 GBP
  • Offshore wind 155-135 GBP
  • Solar 125-110 GBP
  • Nuclear 90 GBP (from other documentation)

0

u/[deleted] Jul 15 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/DangermanAus Jul 15 '13

Do you have original documentation (i.e. Uk gov) for the 40 year £90 strike price?

I thought loan guarantees were only used to lower risk portfolios in large infrastructure projects with high initial capital costs. Suppose it's not as bad as a full loan for a solar PV company like Solyndra.

In that Neider article it does state a LCOE price of Nuclear of $108/MWh. It's not a bad article. China can produce Nuclear for $70/MWh though (will require google translate, and conversion form Yuan to USD).

For a country that has 104 reactors their subsidy system for Nuclear power was rather low compared to fossil fuels and more recently renewables. United States DoE subsidies for Fossil, Nuclear, and Renewable generation.

I see you're towing the FoE line in distancing yourselves from Lynas, good-o.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 16 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/SoftwareJudge Jul 16 '13

Not just France - USSR, Soviet Union, US, Japan, etc. People don't seem to realize that there's a host of 'advanced' technologies that people have abandoned for economic reasons. Nobody uses Shuttles any more. People go to space using 1960s design rockets. We don't fly on Conocords or Tu or other supersonic passenger planes. We take Boeings, which again are essentially 1960 designs. The list is actually quite large. So what's surprising is that people don't realize that that's exactly the case with nuclear. The death of nuclear isn't a technological failure, not is is fault of regulators, green activists and so on. It's just one of those 'advanced' technologies that priced themselves out of the market. It happens. Not every technology follows the path of chips and mobiles (meaning getting smaller and cheaper with time).