Nuclear power

[nwdiver]

MIT really want to make nuclear power cheaper. Looks like it will be difficult.

Study identifies reasons for soaring nuclear plant cost overruns in the U.S.

The authors also found that while changes in safety regulations could account for some of the excess costs, that was only one of numerous factors contributing to the overages.

“It’s a known fact that costs have been rising in the U.S. and in a number of other locations, but what was not known is why and what to do about it,” says Trancik, who is an associate professor of energy studies in MIT’s Institute for Data, Systems and Society. The main lesson to be learned, she says, is that “we need to be rethinking our approach to engineering design.”

Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.

This was my 'favorite' part...

'Among the surprising findings in the study, which covered 50 years of U.S. nuclear power plant construction data, was that, contrary to expectations, building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant.'​

Reminded me of the SNL skit where GM was asked how they expected to ever be profitable if they're losing money on every car sold and the response was 'We'll just have to sell more cars.... wait.... I don't know.'

I really think it's a systemic problem. The industry is geared toward safety not profit. I'll never forget a company meeting where a co-worker complained that the admin process was 'too hard'. The CEO bluntly responded that he didn't care of something is 'hard'.... that's a problem. 'Hard' = 'Expensive'. Culturally they just don't care about cost. If a proposal decreased cost by 99% but also increases risk by 0.001% it's a no-go...

One of my jobs was to spend an hour walking around the plant recording readings BY HAND and writing them down. Values that were available remotely in the control room that were recorded every 15s by a computer. But we didn't trust the computers.... because a human reading a digital display and writing the number down is somehow more reliable????

 

[SageBrush]

The industry is geared toward safety

I'm ok with that; and if it makes the industry a loser to other less expensive technology, so be it.

After all, it is not like the nuclear power industry has an enviable safety record so asking to cut safety corners is a BAD idea

 

[Merrill]

A good way to cut costs is to not build any more plants.

 

[SageBrush]

@nwdiver was the first to point out here that even if we ignore the issues of safety (at our peril), cost has killed nuclear. Less there be any doubt that no amount of cost cutting is going to save nuclear, take a look at the cost of utility PV in Spain

About ONE PENNY per kWh
Mix in equal amounts of wind at ~ 2 cents per kWh
And about 20% battery at 10 cents a kWh

And you end up with reliable, renewable energy at 2.27 cents a kWh generation cost. Some areas will require large geographic sharing via energy transmission. Add another 0.5 - 1.0 penny/kWh

Nuclear is deader than dead, at ~ 12 - 20 cents levelized cost per kWh (and the taxpayer picking up the costs of accidents, maintenance and waste disposal)
Coal is dead, at 4 - 8 cents levelized cost per kWh
NG is dead, at 4 - 6 cents levelized cost per kWh

Good riddance !

 

[SageBrush]

And you end up with reliable, renewable energy at 2.27 cents a kWh generation cost.

Arithmetic error -- should be 2.5 cents per kWh weighted average

 

[mspohr]

EDF confirms Hinkley Point B to be shut down earlier than planned

EDF had expected the shutdown to take place after the start-up of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power plant being built in the UK in a generation, which was originally due to begin generating electricity “well before 2020”.

However, the scheduled start date has been delayed to between 2025 and 2026 owing to slow progress in agreeing with the government a guaranteed price for the electricity produced.

 

[SageBrush]

However, the scheduled start date has been delayed to between 2025 and 2026 owing to slow progress in agreeing with the government a guaranteed price for the electricity produced.

Has the UK taken a lesson from India and decided to 'renegotiate' the cost, after construction has started ?
It would be interesting if the UK has the contractual right to eat its sunk costs and walk away

 

[mspohr]

Has the UK taken a lesson from India and decided to 'renegotiate' the cost, after construction has started ?
It would be interesting if the UK has the contractual right to eat its sunk costs and walk away

I think this is "too big to fail" regardless of cost.
They already have cost overruns with a generous subsidy.
The project has a government contract that guarantees a set price of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of electricity produced and was “designed with the risks of a first-of-a-kind project in mind”, he said.

The set price is high enough for EDF Energy to remain in line for healthy shareholder returns from the Hinkley Point project despite its rising costs.

The Guardian understands that the latest cost increase brings EDF Energy’s internal rate of return down to between 7.6% and 7.8%. The project originally offered a 9% return on investment, which slipped to 8.5% after its 2017 cost review.

However, the rising costs have raised questions over plans to fund a follow-up nuclear project at Sizewell C using a different financing model to Hinkley, which would put taxpayers on the hook for rising costs.
Hinkley Point nuclear plant building costs rise by up to £2.9bn

 

[SmartElectric]

Ontario confirms its commitment to nuclear technology development - Nuclear Engineering International

• A study into the next 50 years of the Bruce Power site, the world’s largest operating nuclear facility;
• Examination of the role of new nuclear and fusion energy technology as part of a clean energy future alongside existing Bruce Power nuclear production. This will include grid-scale SMRs with Ontario-based Terrestrial Energy and micro reactors;
• A Hydrogen Unity Project - the Centre will evaluate mass production of hydrogen using nuclear technology and opportunities for alignment with the oil and gas, transportation and electricity generation sectors.

Doubling down.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) also announced resumption of planning activities for future nuclear power generation at its Darlington site, to host a Small Modular Reactor (SMR).

The Doug Ford conservative government here in Ontario literally forced some newly installed wind turbines to be removed and sites returned to original when they came into office, and cost $300M to break existing contracts for wind.

Now they are doubling down on Nuclear.

OPG plans SMR construction at Darlington : New Nuclear - World Nuclear News

700 jobs during project development; 1600 jobs during manufacturing and construction; 200 jobs during operations; and 160 jobs during decommissioning

200 jobs just to run an SMR ... so much for "small".

 

[SageBrush]

The Guardian understands that the latest cost increase brings EDF Energy’s internal rate of return down to between 7.6% and 7.8%. The project originally offered a 9% return on investment, which slipped to 8.5% after its 2017 cost review.

Perhaps I misunderstand -- is it EDF or the UK that wants to renegotiate the kWh cost ?

If it is EDF that now realizes they want more money, it offers the UK a slightly underhanded way to get out of their nuclear hole: just let the construction and regulatory costs balloon until EDF begs to walk away. EDF may be close to that point already barring a hike in the remuneration per kWh if a long term contract was signed without an inflation index.

Aside:
Boeing taught me the meaning of a 'cost +' contract. Any government that enters into that sort of deal with the nuclear industry is insane.

 

[mspohr]

Perhaps I misunderstand -- is it EDF or the UK that wants to renegotiate the kWh cost ?

If it is EDF that now realizes they want more money, it offers the UK a slightly underhanded way to get out of their nuclear hole: just let the construction and regulatory costs balloon until EDF begs to walk away. EDF may be close to that point already barring a hike in the remuneration per kWh if a long term contract was signed without an inflation index.

Aside:
Boeing taught me the meaning of a 'cost +' contract. Any government that enters into that sort of deal with the nuclear industry is insane.

I don't think they are asking to renegotiate now since they still have healthy margins. Of course, the way nuclear projects go is to continue to have increased costs and delays. If things get too tight, they may try to renegotiate. The UK government has been very generous to them in the past so they will probably cave.

 

[SageBrush]

I don't think they are asking to renegotiate now since they still have healthy margins. Of course, the way nuclear projects go is to continue to have increased costs and delays. If things get too tight, they may try to renegotiate. The UK government has been very generous to them in the past so they will probably cave.

Someone is unhappy with the kWh cost. Is it EDF or the UK gov ?

EDF had expected the shutdown to take place after the start-up of Hinkley Point C, the first new nuclear power plant being built in the UK in a generation, which was originally due to begin generating electricity “well before 2020”.

However, the scheduled start date has been delayed to between 2025 and 2026 owing to slow progress in agreeing with the government a guaranteed price for the electricity produced.

And as I said above, 7.6% ROI does not sound that great if inflation eats it away and revenue is anticipated to start 5 - 10 years late

 

[mspohr]

Someone is unhappy with the kWh cost. Is it EDF or the UK gov ?


And as I said above, 7.6% ROI does not sound that great if inflation eats it away and revenue is anticipated to start 5 - 10 years late

It should be ratepayers. They will be paying 92 GBP per megawatt hour. More than twice the cost of renewables.

 

[SageBrush]

It should be ratepayers. They will be paying 92 GBP per megawatt hour. More than twice the cost of renewables.

I agree, but my question remains unanswered

As an aside, I think 2x off-shore. 3x on-shore

 

[RubberToe]

Greentech Media News: MIT Study Lays Bare Why Nuclear Costs Keep Rising.
MIT Study Lays Bare Why Nuclear Costs Keep Rising

 

[S'toon]

The huge nuclear disaster hidden by the Soviets

 

[RubberToe]

US utility boss pleads guilty to fraud over failed nuclear construction scheme - News - GCR

 

[mspohr]

Entergy should pay $1B in refunds, damages to customers over faulty power plant, regulators say

Entergy Corp. wrongfully charged customers over eight years for a nuclear power station that often malfunctioned and was repeatedly deemed unsafe, according to allegations in a federal complaint filed by three of the utility's regulators.

The Louisiana Public Service Commission, the New Orleans City Council and the Arkansas Public Service Commission argued that $800 million Entergy spent to upgrade its problem-plagued Grand Gulf Nuclear Station in Mississippi hasn't improved the plant's safety record and subpar performance compared to other nuclear power plants.

The utility also charged customers over $361 million for power it had to purchase when the deficient station was offline, the regulators said in the complaint to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They argued that Entergy should refund customers the power costs as well as the cost of the 2012 upgrade, which was passed on to ratepayers.

 

[nwdiver]

Nuclear zealots kinda remind me of the Black Knight... 'It costs $15/w!' .... 'no it doesn't... '

 

[SageBrush]

If a proposal decreased cost by 99% but also increases risk by 0.001% it's a no-go...

I find it hard to fault that reasoning where nuclear is involved. But it sure does explain the high cost.