We might ask why regulations are so putatively damaging to nuclear, when they aren't to civil aviation. One possibility is that aircraft are simply easier to retrofit when design flaws are found. If there's a problem with welding in a nuclear plant (for example) it's extremely difficult to repair. Witness the fiasco of Flamanville 3 in France, the EPR plant that went many times over budget.
What would this imply for fusion? Nothing good. A fusion reactor is very complex, and any design flaw in the hot part will be extremely difficult to fix, as no hands on access will be allowed after the thing has started operation, due to induced radioactivity. This includes design or manufacturing flaws that cause mere operations problems, like leaks in cooling channels, not just flaws that might present public safety risks (if any could exist.) The operator will view a smaller problem that renders their plant unusable nearly as bad as a larger problem that also threatens the public.
I was struck by a recent analysis of deterioration of the tritium breeding blanket that just went ahead and assumed there were no initial cracks in the welded structure more than a certain very small size. Guaranteeing quality of all the welds in a very large complex fusion reactor, an order of magnitude or more larger than a fission reactor of the same power output, sounds like a recipe for extreme cost.
For comparison, utility-scale solar with 16 hours of storage is 21 cents: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/higher-renewable-energy-cos...
Just raw solar without storage can be as low as 2-3 cents per kWh.
Yes, but solar power panels are also mostly produced in China, where engineers still get less than 1/3 of the US/Europe salary.
European power plants will be more expensive, but even with the LCOE of 12 (twice that of Rooppur) it's still going to be way cheaper than storage for areas that get cold weather (Midwest, Germany, most of China).
Anything south of California? Yeah, just get solar+wind, no need to bother with nuclear.
Storage is another matter here, but even there costs for batteries have simply collapsed. Understand that massive storage is needed even in a nuclear-powered economy. If all the 283 million cars and trucks in the US were replaced with 70 kWh BEVs, the storage would be enough to power the US grid (at its current average consumption) for 40 hours. That's a lot of batteries. So the demand is there to continue to drive them down their experience curves. In China, they're already around $50/kWh for installed grid storage systems (not just cell price).
The final storage problem, the only reed that nuclear can be clinging to at this point, is long term/seasonal storage. That's needed either to smooth wind variability (~ week scale) or to move solar from summer to winter (~6 months). There are at least two different ways this could be solved: hydrogen and heat. As mentioned elsewhere in these threads, the latter is very promising, with capex as little as $1/kWh of storage capacity and a RTE of about 40%. Should that work out anywhere close to that nuclear would be in a hopeless position anywhere in the world, even at very high latitudes.
Sure. Solar is easy to scale when you don't care about reliability, nobody is arguing with that. But it's another issue entirely when you need a stable grid.
I'm not aware of any countries (even tropical ones) that managed anything close to 100% renewables with solar. E.g. Hawaii has to pay for extremely expensive diesel generation even though they have plenty of solar potential.
In a fair grid, solar and wind get built out, and the residual demand has no baseload component. Unless nuclear is given the right to force other sources off the grid it becomes inappropriate.
In Texas now there is no chance of new nuclear construction. ERCOT is a competitive market and new nuclear simply doesn't make sense.
Not really? Nuclear is not any different from coal. And plenty of countries have coal generation in the mix. France also is majority-nuclear.
And so far, nuclear is the second known technology (after hydro) that actually demonstrated close to 100% fossil-free grid.
So far, there is nothing similar for solar. Even though it's supposed to be oh-so-cheap.
> In Texas now there is no chance of new nuclear construction. ERCOT is a competitive market and new nuclear simply doesn't make sense.
Well, yeah. Because they can just allow the grid to die during the next Arctic air blast.
First, coal has a much larger share of its cost as variable cost which is avoided if you don't run the plant. 40% for coal, only 10% for nuclear. This makes integrated a coal fired plant into a renewable grid easier than a nuclear plant. China is increasingly doing this with its coal plants.
Second, coal is much more forgiving of maintenance sloppiness, and even in the event of catastrophic malfunction the plant remains repairable.
Nuclear has been available in its current (and no longer competitive) state longer than solar/wind have been in their current economic state, so if you look at historical data you might conclude nuclear is better. But that's backward looking and says little about what's better in the future.
You are aware that a nuclear plant tripping offline was part of the cause of ERCOT's last winter cold problem?
Nuclear power plants have similar behavior to coal plants in another regard, they take approximately the same time to ramp up/down.
> You are aware that a nuclear plant tripping offline was part of the cause of ERCOT's last winter cold problem?
They just need to build more of them. Problem solved.
Anyway, nuclear power plants went from 0% to 70% generation in France within 20 years in 70-s. We don't see anything like this happening with solar, even in smaller island countries. Solar is successful only when it's backed by fossil fuels and government subsidies to keep that fossil fuel generation running.
The technical ability to ramp up/down is beside the point; it's the financial ability to do so that matters.
What nuclear did in France half a century ago is irrelevant. What matters is if nuclear makes sense today. It doesn't, even if it could be done.
Nuclear plants do not degrade at a constant rate, regardless of their power. By idling the plant, you extend its service life, essentially amortizing the capital cost over a longer period of time. And the capital cost is the main driver in the cost of the nuclear power, as you're pointing out yourself.
Nuclear can be made technically flexible. It can't be made economically flexible. The large fixed costs prevent the technical ability you are describing there from being useful. It's pyrrhic engineering, straining to achieve an outcome that's useless. Even France depends largely on the rest of Europe to deal with variations in demand rather than spooling their power plants up and down.
In the case of nuclear power plants, the expenses are front-loaded in the construction (and the future major maintenance, like reactor vessel annealing). The _running_ expenses are trivial by comparison. So a nuclear power plant saves a much smaller percentage of its cost on a per-month basis when it's not running.
Honestly, I looked at nuclear energy in a lot of details. It absolutely is a viable and economic path forward, but it stymied by the lack of political will. Nuclear projects take at least 8-10 years to complete, so politicians are less interested in pushing them. And commercial companies are hesitant to invest with such long repayment periods.
But there's no fundamental reason they _have_ to be one-off products. They just historically have been for at least partly regulatorily motivated reasons: because each reactor's approval process starts afresh (or rather, did until quite-recent NRC reforms), there's little advantage in reuse, and because many compliance costs are both high and fixed, there's an incentive to build fewer huge reactors rather than more small ones, which makes factory construction difficult to achieve and economies of scale hard to realize.
One doesn't need super high quality welding and concrete pours becuase of regulations as much as the basic desire to have a properly engineered solution that lasts long enough to avoid costly repairs.
Take for example this recent analysis on how to make the AP1000 competitive:
https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/11/DOE-Advanced-...
There are no regulatory changes proposed because nobody has thought of a way that regulations are the cost drivers. Yet there's still a path to competitive energy costs by focusing hard on construction costs.
Similarly, reactors under completely different regimes such as the EPR are still facing exactly the same construction cost overruns as in the rest of the developed world.
If regulations are a cost driver, let's hear how to change them in a way that drives down build cost, and by how much. Let's say we get rid of ALARA and jack up acceptable radiation levels to the earliest ones established. What would that do the cost? I have a feeling not much at all, but would like to see a serious proposal.
One approach would be to reduce the size of the containment building by greatly reducing the volume of steam it must hold. This would be done by attaching Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS) that strip most of the radioactive elements from the vented steam in case of a large accident.
The containment building is a significant cost driver, costing about as much as the nuclear island inside of it.
If such a system had been attached to the reactors that melted down at Fukushima exposure could have been reduced by maybe two orders of magnitude. And if the worst case exposure is that low, perhaps much more frequent meltdowns could be tolerated, allowing relaxation of paperwork requirements elsewhere.
Now, I have not checked if shorter lived radioisotopes would ruin the idea I'm suggesting. It's possible.