Hacker News Reader

Comment by instagib | Hacker News Reader

“China and Russia are building the most reactors. But their state-owned model of development is at odds with the European and US emphasis on private capital. That will likely need to change if Western economies want to maintain nuclear’s market share.“

The government or a wealthy investment group would need to subsidize building and cover significant cost overruns to make a private nuclear power plant financially viable for banks to invest in them in the future. Their models fail because recent plants are years late to finish and up to billions over budget. Or make it state owned and eventually prove it to be profitable for them to divest from renewables.

“The newest reactor in the European Union — Olkiluoto 3 in Finland — started generating power last year, more than a decade late and three times over budget. Similarly in the US, Southern Co.’s Vogtle facility came in seven years behind schedule and $16 billion over estimates.“

View on HN

I find it strange these types of articles never mention UAE's Barakah nuclear power plant (which did not source reactors from a nation unfriendly to the U.S.) and experienced only 4 year delay from the originally projected commercial operation start date and relatively limited cost overruns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant

Using slave and indentured servitude labor certainly helps UAE contain costs!

Nice banger comment that doesn't address the lower cost imposed of regulatory tripwires.

Regulatory red tape often comes with very good reasons, particularly regarding safety.

Authoritarian regimes don't need to concern themselves with such pesky things as nature protection or people dying in accidents, especially if the workers are basically modern slaves.

If you want an example for what happens when you cut corners in nuclear, just look at Sellafield (UK) or La Hague (France). This shit is why regulations are so tight, and yet even that didn't prevent people from cutting corners which is why a lot of France's nuclear power plants were down for safety maintenance (corroded pipes) last summer, made worse by the drought that forced a lot of the remaining NPPs out of operation.

> China and Russia are building the most reactors.

Are there good estimates for the cost of nuclear power in China and Russia? The estimates we see for the US and Europe show it to be relatively expensive, but it seems likely that it might be much more cost competitive in an environment with less regulatory overhead.

This article (https://archive.ph/nhdr2) agrees with that: "China keeps the exact costs a state secret, but analysts including BloombergNEF and the World Nuclear Association estimate China can build plants for about $2,500 to $3,000 per kilowatt, about one-third of the cost of recent projects in the U.S. and France."

It attributes most of the cost difference to differences in interest rates, but I'd think that construction standards, regulation, and cost of labor would offer potential savings too. I guess these can help with other renewables as well, but nuclear seems likely to benefit the most.

>>> The government or a wealthy investment group would need to subsidize building and cover significant cost overruns...

If you think that cost and cost over runs stop this sort of lending your dead wrong. Commercial lending loves to hand out money assuming that a) it can get a high enough rate of return and b) that if you fail it gets all its money back.

The latter portion, the insurance portion, is where these deals fall apart. NO one wants to take on the bonds to insure these deals. No one. The risks of nuclear are unpalatable to those markets post Fukushima.

And you don't even get an asset you can sell. You own an expensive pile that needs nuclear engineers to dismantle.

Who says you can't sell a nuclear power plant?

If the project is successful then it makes money and doesn't have to be sold. If it doesn't make money then there is no reason to buy it. The business model is locked in regardless of who owns it on paper.

Just because someone owns a thing that makes money doesn't mean they don't need to ever sell part or all of it. They could need money somewhere else in their dealings. Generally utility providers have stable values but that is beside the point.

I am talking about a situation where a developer is unable to repay their debts due to an unsuccessful project. The assets may still have some value, but probably far less than the debt. And any buyer would have to believe that they can succeed where the original developer failed. That may still be possible but the list of potential buyers is very limited.

Also, the amounts of money are so vast that they would stretch most companies. Without massive cash reserves you are back to raising capital and the problems discussed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com