I accidently posted this on the politics board (hard to get good help). Perhaps you will make new friends while you are there? }};-D
Tim
https://discussion.fool.com/finland-olkiluoto-3-connected-to-gri…
8 Likes
How many is that now that have been recommissioned or are going to be? It seems that war is doing what environmentalist have been unable to.
It took a looooong tiiiiime for it to be built by the French and it took ocean liners full of euros to pay for it.
We will never get climate change under control with this cost and schedule.
We could have built 20 times the MW in renewables in only 5 years with the money spent for this monster.
Jaak
1 Like
Jaak,
How do we cut the cost out of NPPs? Serious question.
You have the entire world’s support, but the plant must be safe and go through all the checks, holds and tests for safe operation.
2 Likes
How do we cut the cost out of NPPs? Serious question.
You have the entire world’s support, but the plant must be safe and go through all the checks, holds and tests for safe operation.
==========================================================
First answer: As large nuclear power plants costs several times more than natural gas, coal, solar, wind, hydro, biomass, or geothermal and take 10 years of more to build - the real question is why build large nuclear power plants.
Second answer: To cut the cost of NPPs, many companies/countries are working on designs of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). This is the right approach. These SMRs need to be cost competitive, easy to build components/equipment in factories, fail safe design, no decay heat problems, no station blackout problems.
Most SMR designs are small, but some SMRs are want to approach the size of large NPPs which is wrong because size introduces complexities that reduce safety, cost and schedule.
Some prototype SMRs are going to be built in the next 5-10 years. Once these SMRs have been built and operated safely for some months/years, their cost and schedule numbers can be established. It can then be determined if these SMRs are cost and schedule competitive. If they are not, then they need further work to reduce the cost and schedule while maintaining safety.
Jaak
2 Likes
GDavenport,
The biggest factor in the cost of larger NPP was the constant introduction of new designs by each operator. This was especially true in the US. It was far less true in France.
The first cyclical introduction of nuclear power was bound to be met with different designs by each successive group of engineers.
Parts for all of these unstandardized designs went through the roof both the cost of construction and the replacement parts with wear.
It really is not a matter of SMR. It is a matter of using our 103 sites with no more than three standardized designs. The problem with SMR or NPP camps is cheerleading. SMR will be cost efficient. NPP can be made cost efficient. Seeing as we can add a few sites away from water with SMR that should be one of the designs. The major 103 large sites with available water should see one or possibly two NPP designs. These standardized designs should be in operation for a minimum of 60 years. The costs need to be paid for in much less than 60 years including replacement parts for any of these designs to be profitable.
If the public was honest approached with profitable designs this would get off the ground much faster. It is a nuclear industry dereliction not to be very clear with the general public on profitable designs. It is like saying we do not care if we only lose money just give us the money. The public may not front and center take notice, but there is zero substantial support for the industry. There is a recognition nuclear is necessary. In the US with the bottom line being positive construction and operations are totally unexpected.
It is a nuclear industry dereliction not to be very clear with the general public on profitable designs.
adding, This is the difference between engineers who barely think about money matters in comparison to MBAs. The engineers are not fully tuned into hunting to make this honestly profitable. Or it is a total boondoggle and what do I know? The MBAs would lie like a rug and raise their own pay regardless of a complete corporate failure.
2 Likes
The biggest factor in the cost of larger NPP was the constant introduction of new designs by each operator. This was especially true in the US. It was far less true in France.
The first cyclical introduction of nuclear power was bound to be met with different designs by each successive group of engineers.
============================================================
That is bogus explanation and has been proven to only explain a small fraction of the costs. Even the French had several different designs - not all identical.
The French government funded and built their large NPPs, and they were expensive to build be just like in USA and the rest of Europe. But those costs were hidden from the public by the French government purposely. These costs were commingled with their nuclear weapons program.
And now we see that the French cut corners during the manufacturing of major components of the reactor coolant system and support systems with excessively high carbon steel used during manufacturing and other issues such as corrosion coming out after inspections. There have been months and months of testing and repair of about a third of the French reactors during the last 10 years, causing months and months of no electrical power generation from these reactors.
The French are not the model of integrity in the building of the NPPs.
Even now their flag ship EPR being built in France currently is tied up with manufacturing defects and repairs for over 10 years and billions of euros over budget. That is the same EPR that just got connected to the grid in Finland. What a bunch of lousy engineering and manufacturing on those two reactors. And now UK has bought and is building two French EPR reactors in UK which are already over budget and behind schedule.
Jaak
How many is that now that have been recommissioned or are going to be? It seems that war is doing what environmentalist have been unable to.
===========================================
The Finnish reactor is a new build (not recommissioned) that took 15 years and over 10 billion euros to get built.
Jaak
NPP can be made cost efficient. Seeing as we can add a few sites away from water with SMR that should be one of the designs. The major 103 large sites with available water should see one or possibly two NPP designs. These standardized designs should be in operation for a minimum of 60 years. The costs need to be paid for in much less than 60 years including replacement parts for any of these designs to be profitable.
There are two standardized large scale reactor designs in the west: The French EPR, which is what the Olkiluoto is, and the other is the Westinghouse AP1000. There is no scenario where any new reactors of these designs will begin construction in the US or Europe. So that leaves SMRs as the future of nuclear in the west.
How do we cut the cost out of NPPs? Serious question.
The cost is reduced by building nuclear power plants! The more plants that are built, the better the construction organization gets at building them, and the cost per unit comes down.
A simple analogy: If Elon Musk only built one Tesla car per year, the cost of that one automobile would be astronomic, even for the people who normally buy Teslas. Also, the quality probably wouldn’t be first rate, because each car would essentially be custom made. Costs come down with an assembly line.
I am not suggesting we start building thousands of nuclear power plants, but I think a hundred or so is doable, over time.
China has put into service 37 nuclear power plants in the last 10 years. Most of these are in the 1000 MW range, and based on western PWR designs of the same size. China is also starting to export their nuclear power. The construction of these plants has lately been coming in around 6 years, which is certainly less than the 20 years I always hear from the nuclear power haters. China’s transparency on costs is naturally a question mark, but from the sources I have read, the cost per unit is quite reasonable. They keep building them, so the economics can’t be too bad.
https://pris.iaea.org/pris/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails…
Chinese plants put into service since 2012.
Ningde - 1,2,3,4
Hongyanhe - 1,2,3,4,5
Yangjiang - 1,2,3,4,5,6
Fuqing - 1,2,3,4,5,6
Fangjiashan - 1,2
Fangchenggang - 1,2
Changjiang - 1,2,
Tianwan - 3,4,5,6
Taishan - 1,2
Sanmen - 1,2
Haiyang - 1,2
Shidao Bay - 1
One example showing construction time of one plant. By this reporting method, was about 6 years.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails…
I am also not saying this must be done in a central authority system like China. Here in the US, around 90 nuclear plants were built between 1970 and 1990. Now that we have standardized designs, a large scale construction program could be started. That is, if the will is there. Of course, the haters will be against it every step of the way.
- Pete
5 Likes
waterfell: China has put into service 37 nuclear power plants in the last 10 years.
===============================================================================
In 2020 China had 54 operating reactors producing 4.9% of the electricity.
https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails…
In 2020 China had renewables producing 29.02% of the electricity.
Wind 6.12%
Solar 3.42%
Hydro 17.78%
Other 1.70%
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-electricity-renewab…
Jaak
1 Like
The cost is reduced by building nuclear power plants! The more plants that are built, the better the construction organization gets at building them, and the cost per unit comes down.
A simple analogy: If Elon Musk only built one Tesla car per year, the cost of that one automobile would be astronomic, even for the people who normally buy Teslas. Also, the quality probably wouldn’t be first rate, because each car would essentially be custom made. Costs come down with an assembly line.
==========================================================================
Cost reductions for building many reactors have shown that the saving will be on the order of 10% to 20% for the N-th reactor after about 20 reactors or 10 NPPs with 2 reactors have been built. The SMRs are supposed to cut these costs by 100% - 200% for the N-th reactor built. This needs to be proven for SMRs.
Comparing Tesla cars which are all factory built to NPPs is a fallacy. A Tesla cars of one model are all essentially identical whereas NPPs are not all factory built nor identical.
NPPs are not all alike because of site specific conditions which will determine design requirements for natural hazards and site conditions determining construction details.
NPPs need major non-factory efforts in site selection, soil analysis, excavation, backfill, rebar placement and concrete pours at far flung sites. Then there are also requirements for water, electricity, sewers, and other services required to build and operate a NPP.
Along with these site specific activities, manufacturing of the reactor components, mechanical/electrical equipment, and all support systems must done at far flung factories and shipped to the site.
Jaak
1 Like