this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
1599 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
58303 readers
16 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The good news - it's online, generating clean power, and hopefully demonstrating the safety and benefits of modern nuclear plants.
The bad news - it's $17B over budget (+120%) and 7 years behind schedule (+100%). Those kind of overages aren't super promising for investors, but perhaps there are enough lessons learned on this one that will help the next one sail a little smoother.
Either way, good to see it can still be done in the US.
What's the normal amount of over budget and behind schedule?
Ideally zero? But given this is the first US reactor in decades, it is by definition normal I suppose.
That would be ideal, but people always underestimate the cost and difficulty of things.
Those amounts there. For comparison for example another recent plant Olkiluoto 3 in Finland was 13 years late on a 5 year original construction timeline (18 years total construction time) and ~~10~~ 8 billion euros over budget on original budget of 3 billion euros. (Final estimate it cost constructor ~~13-14~~ 11 billion euros to build. Technically its fixed price contract so customer price is still 3 billion. However it did bankrupt the builder Areva and litigations are ongoing about, if the French can extract more money from he customer TVO)
So doubling the price budget and doubling the build time is not at all unreasonable first estimate on the announced numbers of the builder and customers at start of project.
Also, according to the story, power costs will go up as a result of this reactor coming online.
True, BUT the cost increase was relatively small (~$3.50/mo) - can't speak for everyone as I know people's budgets can be quite tight right now, but that's a price I'd be willing to pay for more nuclear on my grid.
I wouldn't call it "clean power". We still don't have a good solution for the nuclear waste.
Edit: Downvotes because I am not religiously defending a technology and pointing out that there are downsides (EVERYTHING HAS DOWNSIDES!). Too many people from reddit here already.
In finland we have this big hole that goes half a kilometer into stable bedrock. The storage solution is engineered to withstand the next ice age.
It's Finland, haven't you been in an ice age for the last 1000 years?
I guess this is a joke, but regardless. The current climate is quite different from having an ice sheet 3km thick on the ground. This summer we were nearing 30°C/85°F on some days.
Compared to the downsides of virtually every alternative energy source, the downsides of nuclear are peanuts.
Sure we do, put it in the holes we took the other stuff out of. Soon our whole planet will be nuclear powered.
Nuclear power plant waste doesn't significantly contribute to climate change or pollution? So it's "clean" by most metrics.
Nuclear waste can generally be stored on-site without issue. Reprocessing would be nice, but not even necessary. Just because you don't understand the problem, doesn't mean others are "religiously defending a technology."
Coal was also considered clean in the beginning because they didn't have to sacrifice forests anymore.
We may not consider the waste a problem now, but that may very well look differently in 50 or 100 years.
Again: I am completely fine considering nuclear power as one of the best options we have. I am not so fine pretending it's without tradeoffs, because that would ignore how any other form of energy generation in the past/ever finally turned out.
False analogy fallacy
Argument from ignorance fallacy
No one is saying it's free energy or perfect energy. I myself would argue it's clean and solves some of our current energy problems, while renewables still can't. Unfortunately it suffers from a bad reputation and misinformation.
Aha ... : https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/france-seeks-strategy-nuclear-waste-site-risks-saturation-point-2023-02-03/
Burrying waste is not exactly clean. Yes, they reduce the waste. But they are also hitting limits and have challenges in increasing capacities.
That is also not really cool. I also find it a bit shady that something is only doable in Russia. That sounds a bit like it's only possible there, because they ignore safety rules any other country would have in place and we don't care because "now it's their problem".
But we don't have that solution yet (see above). That's like hanging on the idea of having nuclear fusion available. Yes, theoretically nice, but until they are practical, we shouldn't count on it.
Yes, theoretically the "waste" of current reactors still has energy to be harvested. But practically we can't use them to a degree where there is no waste afterwards.
For the past decades and sitll ongoing, fission reactors are not clean (also decomissioning them leaves a lot of unusable waste; and they have to be decomissioned at some point).
Also from what I know, extracting the nuclear material from the earth and preparing it for use in a fission reactor is not very environmentally friendly either.
Is nuclear better than coal? Very likely. But it's not clean.
Reprocessing already exists and it's been done for decades. I can't imagine reprocessing fuel for recycling the usable components is that compelling in the US and it would be more geared to waste reduction. 99% of spent fuel by mass could be reused or otherwise treated differently for disposal as it's radioactivity is much much smaller than the portion that has been transmuted during power production.
Every atom has energy in it, regardless of whether it is radioactive or not. Radioactiveness just makes it relatively easy to extract that energy. But even then, it's not that simple, not every radioactive material is good for a nuclear reactor. If the fuel absorbs too many neutrons without fission, or produces elements that do, then it can become poison for the reactor. And if it, or the elements it produces, emit very few delayed neutrons and very quickly then it makes it harder to keep the reactor in a sub-critical state (i.e. it makes it harder to not make it explore). Often for these reasons you can't fully use reprocessed fuel, and instead you have to mix it in low percentages with normal fuel. Reprocessed fuel is also harder (thus cost more) to produce since you have to work with highly radioactive materials.
Yes, we do. Burying it works just fine.
That's not a solution. That's a workaround.
And why is that exactly? Decay means the problem will solve itself, all we need to do is keep the waste away from the outside world until then.
This would be a great solution if nuclear waste was a one-time non-reoccurring problem. More waste will be produced continually, and if more nuclear power plants are built to match energy demand, a lot more waste, multiple times more. Eventually we will run out of places to put it, and then of course also deal with the fact that every abandoned old mine or cave in the world is full of radioactive material.
The closest "bury it in a hole" can come to a permanent solution is if the hole is on the moon or something. Even then there are downsides. Do you know how expensive it is to dig giant holes?
You are vastly overestimating the amount of waste a reactor produces. Look up some figures on the internet. There is no way we will ever run out of space to put it.
I have looked this up, thats why I already know this. You are underestimating how long nuclear waste lasts, and I would guess also underestimating just how many reactors we would need to meet power demands with nuclear as our main power source.
Also never forget energy demand increases constantly, and the rate it increases also goes up.
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what people want to use nuclear power for. Nobody wants to power 100% of the planet with nuclear power indefinitely. It should only be used to replace fossil fuels as quickly as possible until we are able to fully satisfy our needs with renewables.
I never said 100% of the power demand. I said most of the power demand. As of now nuclear is a smaller part of the energy produced, and making it a significant part of the path away from fossil fuels would be a wildly expensive, slow, emission filled endeavor, not to mention the nuclear waste. But, people with opinions like yours act like it is a magic power battery we have failed to plug in out of stupidity. There is nothing quick about nuclear. You want quick, you go with wind and solar.
You could have just admitted that you don't know what I was proposing instead of making such strange assumptions.
So what is it you are proposing if I'm making "assumptions"? Some half measure that both isn't good enough AND wastes time, money, and space? Pound for pound nuclear isn't worth it except in specific places where wind AND solar are completely non-viable. It has it's place in those kindof places, but they will hardly make up a significant portion of energy demand.
Yeah, this is one of those topics where any mention of the downside of storing spent fuel safely for 50-100,000 years gets you bombed on. Just like reddit.
Let it run 5 months and the money is back in.
Not really. All costs considered, nuclear is one of the most expensive energy sources.
Darn all those superfluous safety regulations. If only we could make them cheap and fast and not worry about radioactive contamination like the coal industry.
Seriously though, start enforcing adequate regulation on the other sources of life threatening power generation and watch the costs even out.
Coal isn't the cheapest though. For new build power renewables + storage are. That is to say, the incremental cost of running a coal plant isn't that massive, but cost to build + fuel one amortised over the lifetime is more than renewables + storage.
So yes, you can enforce "adequate regulation" and nuclear will still be the most expensive.
Yes, but nuclear scales the best, requires lower geological footprint than renuables, and is safer than fossil fuels. Price is not the only metric of value.
This is really only one facet and not even the main driver in cost. MIT did a study a few years ago looking at this (https://news.mit.edu/2020/reasons-nuclear-overruns-1118). Turns out it's complicated.
In short, in the US, lacked of skilled labor and large scale project management are big drivers also, not just regulations.
Oh I think we should shut down coal as soon as possible. But if energy prices can go down by having the cheaper energy production of renewables instead of up because of nuclear the transition can happen faster.
Yes nuclear power plants are very expensive. But the energy density is phenomenal.
Energetic armortisation is far quicker on a nuclear plant than on solar panels.
And the argument of subsidies is usually a fake one, since governments also pour millions into renewable energies.
Broken down to lifetime cost to the cost of comparable technologies, nuclear is still on the same level as solar and wind.
Since I am from Germany, and German sources might not be ideal to share, let me explain it this way: People are not stupid. They will never choose the financially unwise option, if the other one would seriously be the better one.
I see you've never been to the U.S.
Ok. Valid argument.
But while Germany quit nuclear power, the rest reinforced their standpoint.
Thousands of scientists from different countries all agreed upon nuclear power to be a reasonable source of energy. Even a Japan is still going forward with nuclear power. It is only Germany, which made an emotional choice, Merkel wanted to please the masses. And here we are now. Burning coal, as if we were thrown back into the industrial time, forced to use primitive methods to produce energy.
Can you find any recent analysis that supports your claim that nuclear costs are at the same level as solar?
The only one I’ve seen suggest this was from a nuclear industry lobby group, and it inflated the costs or solar by insane amounts.
In Australia this is a bit of a hot topic and all impartial estimates suggest that nuclear will not get close to renewables in any way, even taking into account storage and grid costs.
In the 10 years since this single reactor was built, one of our states has transitioned to almost 100% renewables. Wholesale costs have plummeted, but renewable projects are still profitable in the market. I was involved in a reactor project in a western nation some time ago (it’s still being completed unsurprisingly), and the lock-in wholesale price to support that project was simply extortionate. Solar generation prices are a whole magnitude smaller.
This is a German source that incorporates many studies and presents their results. Some agree with my statement, some with yours. But fact is, that the financial difference is very small.
https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/887090/1867659c1d4edcc0e32cb093ab073767/WD-5-005-22-pdf-data.pdf
Page 23 for example suggests my statement.
On page 32 you can see the development that suggests that you are right.
But considering the costs for the expansion of the energy grid, battery storage systems, and the rising production costs of everything, I believe Nuclear to be the cheaper option and the far more reliable one.
People do often act stupid, but you are seeing it from what I consider to be an incomplete perspective. Nuclear could be financially unwise overall, but someone would still get a payday. That 17B over budget wasn't burned and unmade, it went into the pockets of the people organizing and building the power plant.
All this to say, the huge majority of the people involved in making the power plant a reality weren't motivated by the efficiency of the power production on a cost basis. Most of them were probably making more money while it was still being subsidized, planned, and built. And while I think subsidies are generally useful and good, they can be a vector of financial abuse when it comes to unprofitable industries.
Lastly "lifetime cost" is a bit of a useless metric when the majority of that lifetime comes too late. No point to a power source that will cleanly produce power after it has meaningfully contributed to pushing us over the edge and past the breaking point for a climate that can support agriculture as we know it. There isn't enough time or margin for error in emissions left available to build all the nuclear plants needed to meet energy demands.