Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikeyouse | Hacker News Reader

Blaming environmentalists for the complete and utter failure of nuclear power plant EPCMs to actually build nuclear power plants seems pretty misguided.

Edit;

Environmentalists didn't bankrupt multiple international conglomerates and blow their construction schedule and budget by >100%. What part of this did Greenpeace influence; https://www.reuters.com/article/us-toshiba-accounting-westin...

View on HN

Then why is the US one of the few nuclear countries that hasn’t build in years?

I saw a calculation that suggested that anti-nuclear campaigning has resulted in 1/3 of current emissions because it resulted in increased coal and gas use. That wouldn’t have happened if the environmental movement wasn’t so anti-nuclear.

That comes down to capacity factor + minimal increase in electricity demand.

The US can operate nuclear at 90+% capacity factors because it’s such a small fraction the overall grid. Seasonal, daily, and weekend dips in demand mean you just don’t want that much base load power. France could export power to other countries and still only hit 70% capacity factor which means your paying the exact same capital, and nearly identical operating costs driving up cost per kWh by about 30% on average except that cost isn’t spread evenly the marginal costs go up much faster.

To simplify if you hypothetically built 50GW and you’re paying 8c/kWh, the next 10GW is at 9c/kWh, the next 10GW at 10c/kWh, and it just keeps getting worse. Sure on average that’s 70GW for 8.42c/kWh but each new project just keeps looking like a worse deal.

> Seasonal, daily, and weekend dips in demand mean you just don’t want that much [nuclear] base load power

One problem is that the US regulatory agency doesn’t like load-following - apparently only one nuclear reactor in the states does it.

It is common in France to do load following i.e. using Nuclear not only for base load but varying load too:

  This means that RTE can depend on flexible load following from the nuclear fleet to contribute to regulation in these three respects:
  * Primary power regulation for system stability (when frequency varies, power must be automatically adjusted by the turbine).
  * Secondary power regulation related to trading contracts.
  * Adjusting power in response to demand (decrease from 100% during the day, down to 50% or less during the night, and respond to changes in renewable inputs to the grid, etc.).

  PWR plants are very flexible at the beginning of their cycle, with fresh fuel and high reserve reactivity. An EdF reactor can reduce its power from 100% to 30% in 30 minutes. But when the fuel cycle is around 65% through these reactors are less flexible, and they take a rapidly diminishing part in the third, load-following, aspect above. When they are 90% through the fuel cycle, they only take part in frequency regulation, and essentially no power variation is allowed (unless necessary for safety). So at the very end of the cycle, they are run at steady power output and do not regulate or load-follow until the next refueling outage.

From https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... and click on “Load-following with PWR nuclear plants” in the right-hand menu.

NuScale is supposed to be able to vary output too “plant incorporates unique features that enhance its ability to load follow” https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Example-of-NuScale-modul... and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295114246_Integrati...

Load following is economic suicide when most of the costs are fixed, which is why nuclear plants tend to shy away from it.

Yep, load following designs cost more to build and operate, and operating at even lower capacity factor means fewer kWh/year to pay back those costs. The advantage is if your forced to curtail output less as you can more closely follow the demand curve, but that’s already a losing proposition without drastic decreases in power plant operating and construction costs.

I didn’t think about US grid isolation as a factor. I always imagined it as similar to Europe (lots of cities over the whole continent with lots of customers).

But in terms of cost, we need to compare to carbon neutral alternatives. Nuclear might be expensive, but that’s only compared to the status quo of coal and gas. I know renewables are getting better but storage is still an unsolved problem (financially speaking)

I'd love to see a source for that number, because you "seeing a calculation" isn't really enough to go by.. The US isn't "one of the few that hasn't built" either -Korea's had moderate success but nobody else outside of China can build the things, which doesn't bode well for what's being built in China.

Look at how Flamanville[1] and Hinckley[2] are going..

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de... - "The Flamanville EPR reactor, which is already a decade behind schedule and has been dogged by repeated cost overruns, is now expected to start operations in the first quarter of 2024 and cost 13.2 billion euros, EDF said."

[2] https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3210705/cost-... - "Electricite de France said the cost of building its flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in the UK is set to spiral further to £32 billion (US$38.5 billion) [..] The revised estimate is the latest indication of surging costs after the start of plant was delayed last year. In May, EDF raised the price tag to build the two reactors at Hinkley to £25 billion (US$30 billion) and £26 billion (US$31 billion). The plant is due to start in June 2027, but there is a risk of an additional delay of around 15 months."

> I saw a calculation that suggested that anti-nuclear campaigning has resulted in 1/3 of current emissions because it resulted in increased coal and gas use

Seems like a pretty extraordinary claim, funny you didn't share the calculation with us to support the suggestion.

You’ll note that the US can’t build subways or high speed rail either. Large construction projects tend to be disasters in the US, it’s not just nuclear plants.

When you only build them every few decades, you tend to consistently find yourself with managers who have no experience in the field.

New York builds quite a bit of subway. They've basically been doing it non stop for like a century now. Has only gotten more bogged down by bureaucracy and politics.

> Then why is the US one of the few nuclear countries that hasn’t build in years?

They haven't opened a new nuclear power plant in France in 20 years. Canada hasn't opened a new reactor in 30 years. UK in 28 years.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com