Why is Nuclear Energy So Expensive?

te:

are way past schedule and very over budget even to the point that in the l ast six months the remaining schedule gets extended by six more months, rep eatedly on some projects, clearly there is a common thread.

ng tobacco use to cancer.

actually accept the connection.

skimping on that part of the job isn't a good idea.

We aren't writing research papers here. This is about the financial issues . In this case there is more than enough indication that civilian nuclear reactors are a high risk for over runs and schedule delays which will deter investors and lending institutions. So for most purposes nuclear is all b ut dead.

In the UK they want to make the rate payers the underwriters and bill them for the overruns. We already seem to do that in the US in some situations. Dominion is billing their customers for the costs of licensing a reactor they may never build, to the tune of $500,000,000. At Vogtle in Georgia th e government is backing the loans, so a financial failure will come back to the tax payers.

builds in parallel instead

ssuance), and technical

The one

al example of why civilian nuclear power plants are so very difficult to bu ild. Out of five reactors, they were only able to bring one reactor online and at a cost of billions of dollars spent that produced zero electricity. What that money factored into the 2.3 cents per kWh cost cited? Sure, if you ignore the massive cost and risk of building a civilian nuclear power plant the remaining costs are not so high. But who will actually try to bu ild such a plant if there is only a 1 in five chance of the reactor ever co ming online?

It isn't 'chance', that was the long-term decision, and a profitable one. Crying over spilt milk (plants that were imagined but not commissioned) is beside the point.

Yes, as a business decision, that plant was a success.

The money spent DOES produce electricity, though not at all the planned sit es. The plan CHANGED.

No one ignores cost. Why do you suggest that? No one ignores risk. Why do you suggest that?

I suspect you have discovered that (in early planning) rosy projections are made, that are part of trying to be seen as the lowest-cost option, and would find tha t in wind farm and solar and hydroelectric projects as well. If you were lo oking.

m to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected re sults.

are in doubt because of the

illing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than m aking and selling the actual product.

It's a common tech issue; a recent example was in BART trains, the thyristo rs for their power conversion are no-longer-available items. I had to buy new wheels, once, when I needed a replacement tire (of a size no longer in production). And, a generation of CPUs used for auto computers is... long out of production. Where can you get an Int el 8096 nowadays? Intel says 'redesign'.

The full parts list for a wind generator can be VERY hard to secure for a 4

ur builds in parallel instead

issuance), and technical

), The one

tial example of why civilian nuclear power plants are so very difficult to build. Out of five reactors, they were only able to bring one reactor onli ne and at a cost of billions of dollars spent that produced zero electricit y. What that money factored into the 2.3 cents per kWh cost cited? Sure, if you ignore the massive cost and risk of building a civilian nuclear powe r plant the remaining costs are not so high. But who will actually try to build such a plant if there is only a 1 in five chance of the reactor ever coming online?

Crying over spilt milk

Not imagnined, REAL... real money, real time, real resources.

"In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 wh en total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion. Becau se these plants generated no power and brought in no money, the system was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds."

Yes, as I said, one out of five. A truly terrible track record.

ites. The

I didn't say anyone ignores cost or risk. I said this is why nukes are ver y, very hard to construct now, investors and loans are very hard to find. Without money they never get started... unless the rate payers are made to pay for it like at Dominion where the public service commission and even th e state legislature allow Dominion to charge the rate payers for the half b illion dollar costs of approval for a reactor that likely will never be bui lt due to the financial issues.

re made, that

hat

looking.

Except that wind and solar projects are built on time and under budget. I' d be willing to bet most wind and solar projects are fixed price, so if the y cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. These project s are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormous complexi ty and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

I just had dinner with a friend who designed large pumps and worked for a n uclear plant. At one point he had to sign saying a pump was approved for t he plant. A simple engineer. Then everyone above him rubber stamped the a pproval knowing any issues would fall back to my friend. He had no magic w ay of knowing for sure the pumps would work exactly as needed. The design info said it should, but until you build it, you can't know for sure. Seem s some aspects of pumps are non-linear and can bite you in the ass.

eem to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected results.

ts are in doubt because of the

willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

tors for their power

, when I needed

on of CPUs used

ntel 8096 nowadays?

Yeah, so? How does any of this apply to wind more than any other technolog y that will be in place more than five years? Again, you seem to be reachi ng.

GE and Siemens? I believe they have been around a long, long time, no?

One built, five planned/started, but NOT built, and 'loss' of money is not the net result, it's only true if you analyze five times instead of summing.

so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. The se projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormou s complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

Smaller, simpler projects and different financing. If economics makes hy droelectric dams and nuclear generation 'enormous', that's not a defect, just a feature.

nuclear plant. At one point he had to sign saying a pump was approved for the plant.... He had no magic way of knowing for sure the pumps would wor k exactly as needed. The design info said it should, but until you build i t, you can't know for sure. Seems some aspects of pumps are non-linear and can bite you in the ass.

So, engineering fails on 'non-linear' problems? Not in my experience. Engineering fails without multiple trials and learning from failures? Tha t was true when cathedrals were designed in the middle ages, but paper-design of a variety of structures and mechanisms has been generally successful; the first moon lan ding didn't take a lot of do-overs.

ng willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable th an making and selling the actual product.

a 40-year life span.

The GE division that makes wind generators? I hope they're better than the division that made my fridge, and had (at 12 years) out-of-stock on the starter component (which was easy to get from eBay, or Whirlpool, but really, GE claims to support all their appliances f or 20 years). Siemens used to make Osram incandescent light bulbs, didn't they? The one for my desk lamp is no longer available (from China there are replacements, but they fail ve ry quickly, and the 'halogen' recrystallization features is not apparent).

So, you found two examples of manufacturers that both DO NOT generally supp ort their own technology over the expected lifetimes of power generators (30-year bonds, so 30 -plus design life).

You either didn't read or ignored the text I quoted from an article.

"In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 wh en total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion. Becau se these plants generated no power and brought in no money, the system was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds."

Last time I checked "stopped construction" means construction was happening and it was stopped. Doesn't really matter. It DOES take a lot more effor t to plan multiple plants than it does to plan one plant. They weren't des igning battery chargers. These facilities are never cookie cutter. If not hing else the site is different.

But please stop denying the facts that construction was started, then stopp ed.

e, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. T hese projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enorm ous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

hydroelectric dams

No one cares that nuclear is large. The problem is the enormous COMPLEXITY . The risk to profits and schedules makes nukes untenable for most investo rs. That's why the UK is planning to make the rate payers responsible for future project overruns. Sounds great to me. Let the little guy take all the risk and have none of the say. Glad I'm not in the UK.

a nuclear plant. At one point he had to sign saying a pump was approved f or the plant.... He had no magic way of knowing for sure the pumps would w ork exactly as needed. The design info said it should, but until you build it, you can't know for sure. Seems some aspects of pumps are non-linear a nd can bite you in the ass.

hat was true when

y of

When non-linear computations are too complex to perform to *know* the resul t, then you have dozens of ways to estimate and approximate, but you won't

Even in the era of computers a major sky scraper was built in NYC that migh t collapse in a strong wind as the architect was informed by the work of a college student. Along with that building a large number of other building s would be taken down with it causing a catastrophe far greater than 911.

LOL! The first moon landing nearly ended in disaster when the guidance com puter had cascade failures and the pilot had to take over. The landing was finally accomplished with just seconds of fuel remaining.

eing willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

or a 40-year life span.

he division that made my

h was easy to get from

for 20 years).

e for my desk lamp

very quickly, and

pport their own

, so 30 -plus

LOL! I'm sorry your lamp went obsolete. I will send you my hanky to cry o n.

Now, do you have anything useful to say?

ice, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the eno rmous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

s hydroelectric dams

TY.

Silly; if the complexity isn't inside one plant, it's outside, where electr ic grids grow more complex as odd sites with large power (output or input) requirements are ad ded. Complexity isn't a way to differentiate between generation strategies.

omputer had cascade failures and the pilot had to take over. The landing w as finally accomplished with just seconds of fuel remaining.

Yep, redundancy is wonderful.

It was designed in, and trained for, and it worked.

price, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays . These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the e normous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

kes hydroelectric dams

e.

XITY.

tric grids grow more

added.

I never said it was. Complexity means risk. The people who would pay for building nuclear facilities are very risk adverse and so they don't want to build nuclear generation facilities. The few that get started universally fall far behind schedule, run up costs by many billions and in the end bec ome very difficult to operate profitably for the investors. Sooo... nuclea r energy may be a great option in other respects, but if you can't get plan ts built because they aren't economically viable, there's no much point.

It's like the joke about the engineer, the chemist and the economist who we re stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but coconuts. A crate f rom the shipwreck washed up. Inside the find cans of food. The engineer s ays they can rub sticks together to make a fire and heat the cans until the explode... but it will throw too much of the food onto the ground. The ch emist says they can soak the cans in the sea water and they will rust open. .. but the food will be spoiled by the salt and the rust. The economist sa ys, assume we have a can opener...

To say nuclear power is a good energy source we need to say... assume we ha ve financing...

In other words, give it up and try looking at renewable energy sources with an open mind. They are at the point where they make sense not not environ mentally, but economically.

-- mic drop --

Huh? Does that sentence make sense at all?

Investors choose what to invest in. People who 'would pay' are presumably investors. Why would they invest, but not want to build?

Who "would"... not who "do".

Too much risk, so they DON'T invest. That's why we see so few nuclear power plants being built.