And it’s not even a nuclear fusion project.
intercst
2 Likes
At a total construction cost of $57 billion, the Hinkley Point C plants will come in at $17,485 per kilowatt. As a comparison, the recently completed Vogtle 3 and 4 plants in Georgia cost between $10,500 and $15,700 per KW, depending on whose numbers you use.
China recently put the Zhangzhou unit 1 nuclear power plant into commercial operation.
Zhangzhou-1 is the 10th power reactor to be put into service in China since the beginning of 2020. A partial list of China’s nuclear power fleet:
Year started Unit power production Tianwan-5 2020 Fuqing-5 2020 Tianwan-6 2021 Hongyanhe-5 2021 Shidao Bay-1 2021 Fuqing-6 2022 Hongyanhe-6 2022 Fangchenggang-3 2023 Fangchenggang-4 2024 Zhangzhou-1 2024
From the link above, the total cost of the 6 power plants at Zhangzhou is reported to be CNY100 billion, or $14 billion US. At 1126 MW per plant, this comes to $2072 per KW. The Zhangzhou plants are indigenously developed Hualong One designs, which are based on the western Westinghouse pressurized water reactor system.
China has developed an efficient and cost effective means of building nuclear power plants. $2072 per KW is quite low, and they can build these plants rather quickly, in around 5 or 6 years per project. The key is to build many plants, not just one or two. That way, experiences from one project can be applied to subsequent construction projects, and the lessons learned make everything more efficient. This is not something unique to the communist Chinese. We could do something similar in the west, if the motivation and commitment is there.
_ Pete
5 Likes
How much of that economy is the lower wage rates in China vs US, Canada or UK? Makes you wonder about the cost of building powerplants in Mexico, to send power to the north.
Steve
Isn’t that the idea behind Bill Gates’ small reactors (345 MW). Modular design built on an assembly line.
intercst
Hinkley Point C is currently estimated at $59 billion and 4 more years of construction left according to latest estimates. That makes the plant cost $18,098 per kilowatt currently, but the cost is sure to increase in the next 4 years just like Vogtle 3&4 did until it was completed.
Vogtle 3&4 cost $16,472 per kilowatt when all construction was completed. Vogtle Units 3&4 took 15 years to build and cost $36.8 billion, more than twice the projected timeline and cost.
I have no confidence in the Chinese cost and schedule numbers. There is a lot of Chinese government support for nuclear and we do not know the all the facts. Chinese do not consider the cost of money during construction as an example.
Except you do not know if the cement factory was paid for separately by the state. ETC ETC.
The number is make believe.
China is reporting no incidents.
But…that is not at all true.
1 Like
He’s making the same mistakes that plagued large scale nuclear. Probably won’t see these for a couple decades, if at all.
I can believe, but please provide a partial list or link of supportive evidence?
d fb
That’s the idea. Gates isn’t the only tech billionaire looking to build smaller nuclear power plants.
Amazon (Jeff Bezos) is working with X-Energy and Energy Northwest to install several SMRs in Washington state.
Meta (Mark Zuckerberg) wants to build up to 4000 MW of nuclear power capacity, and has asked the industry for proposals.
Google is also getting into the nuclear power game, working with Kairos Power for 500 MW of capacity. Kairos is currently building a small test plant in Tennessee to demonstrate the technology.
In a recent development, the states of Texas and Utah, plus small reactor developer Last Energy Inc., have filed a lawsuit against the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, accusing the federal agency of having an overly cumbersome, complicated, and expensive regulatory structure regarding smaller fission reactors. We shall see how this progresses through the courts, but I don’t see the NRC changing its ways or the courts reducing the NRC’s regulatory power.
_ Pete
1 Like
Oh, I see that. I see the entire regulatory structure of the feds being shut down and a ‘do as you please’ structure replacing it.
JimA
Sure. First look at where modular reactors are cost effective and why. It isn’t China and the reactors aren’t small. The country is South Korean and they build full size modular reactors in 4-5 years at a cost of about $2,500-3,000/kW. Compare with 15 years and $16,000/kW for Vogtle in the US. On top of that South Korean reactors are rated as good or better than western reactors by every metric you care to name. Fuel efficiency, operational efficiency, etc.
The way they do this is straight forward: A bit a brains, plenty of elbow grease, and intolerance of inefficiency. Reactors are of standardized designs, always built in pairs (usually as part of a larger group), meticulously planned, schedule adherence is a matter of doctrine, and importantly; as much as possible standardized modules are fabricated off-site in factory conditions and then assembled onsite, which greatly reduces construction time. Each reactor is composed of dozens of modules. Lessons learned from one reactor are applied to the next one.
That’s the blueprint to build cost-effective nuclear. Not necessarily easy, but straightforward.
I seldom make predictions, but I will in this case: Gates, et. al. plan for SMRs is a blunder. For one, despite the name, their SMRs are not modular. They are not very small either. They have to do everything a large reactor does, but with less economy of scale.
Remember, not long ago NuScale canceled its SMR project in Idaho in the early stages, because the costs were already way, way, way too high. Of course it did because they were building a novel, bespoke reactor. Now, if they were building four reactors in a row all of the same type in the same location, AND they used some modular techniques (like ordering four of the same part when possible) it isn’t crazy to presume that say, the fourth one would be something close to cost effective.
What Gates, et. all. should have done, is all sat down in a room together and hammered out which SMR design is the most promising, and all agreed to commit to that one design.
So instead of each company creating its own bespoke reactor with its own set of challenges there is just one. And instead of three or four different supply chains, there is just one. The lessons from one apply to the next. And the benefits of a standard design just keep compounding the more of them you build.
That’s the blueprint to build cost-effective nuclear. Not necessarily easy, but straightforward. And I suspect it is actually easier than the scattershot way we do it.
6 Likes
Thank you sykes for a full and useful lesson.
Specifically I had no knowledge of how effective and unusual the South Koreans have been in doing and implementing their design.
d fb
2 Likes
The cost for Vogtle was more like $10,500/kW. This is according to the cost figures from Southern Company, which is the largest owner and operates the plants through its Georgia Power subsidiary.
Georgia Power owns 45.7% of Vogtle. According to the 4th quarter 2023 earnings presentation on February 15, 2024, the total project capital cost forecast was $10,753 million (page 29 of the pdf). This is Georgia Power’s share of the project. By the time they made this earnings call, the plants were essentially finished. Unit 3 went into commercial operation in July 2023 and Unit 4 achieved initial criticality of the reactor in February 2024, so construction was complete.
$10,753,000,000 / 0.457 = $23,529,540,000
$23,529,540,000 / 2,234,000 kW = $10,532/kW
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
As for the 15 year construction time, note that the PRIS database shows the construction start date as March 2013 and commercial operation date as July 2023 for Unit 3. Looks more like 10 years, according to this measure. The COVID crisis hit in 2020, which disrupted supply chains and work schedules throughout the US, including the Vogtle construction force. It would be wrong to assume that every future nuclear project will take 15 years to complete.
_ Pete