Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan houses world’s first ABWR (advanced boiling water reactor), built in record time
New nuclear plants shouldn’t have to be expensive, writes David Hess of the World Nuclear Association. To reduce nuclear costs – and project times – three things need to happen: access to cheap financing should be facilitated, regulatory barriers should be lowered, and industry should improve its performance.
The recent construction performance on reactor projects in Europe and the USA has clearly rocked confidence in the industry and sown doubt in opinion leaders, such as Michael Liebreich, about the ability of nuclear energy to contribute further to reducing carbon emissions. This loss of faith is unfortunate as the underlying problems are entirely fixable and given that the technology has long proven itself to be one of the fastest and most effective options for decarbonising electricity supply.
Many have pondered the question of how to get nuclear costs down. Last year analysts at policy organisation Third Way argued that commercialising advanced reactors as soon as possible is the key, while Environmental Progress laid out the case for the series build of proven standardised designs. Both these ideas have merit and deserve deeper appraisal, but there are things even more fundamental to improving nuclear economics which must be achieved in either case.
There are also places where reactor projects are being delivered more-or-less on time and budget and in fact an increasing number of countries are starting programmes based on today’s reactor tech. Building new reactors is an unquestionably competitive option in many parts of the world. The question is how to create these conditions for success everywhere.
The costs of nuclear are quite simply dominated by what owners expect to receive for it, or need to repay
There is an industry saying that with nuclear economics only two numbers matter, the capital costs and the costs of capital. The construction costs of nuclear energy are high compared to other sources – on the order of 2-6000 US dollar per kilowatt. Modern reactors come in sizes of greater than 1 gigawatt so huge sums of money need to be secured up front. In the UK, the construction cost of the two EPRs destined for Hinkley Point C is estimated at £18 billion, and when financing costs are included the capital costs come to about £24 billion.
By contrast, the fuel and operating costs of nuclear plants are low (compared to most fossil fuel generators) making them ideal flexible base generators and profitable long-term investments once the financing costs are repaid. A third number therefore also matters a lot – the time taken to build the plant and start earning money.
These basics give us a clue as to what needs to happen first.
Step 1: Cut financing costs
The first step to reducing the delivered costs of nuclear electricity has little to do with reactor technology or standardisation and everything to do with the cost of financing. Figure 1 shows just how significantly the projected costs of new nuclear plants are affected by the discount rate, a measure of the expected financial return. The costs of nuclear are quite simply dominated by what owners expect to receive for it, or need to repay.
| Projected levelised cost of energy from nuclear plants by region (US$/MWh). | ||||
| Country | At 3% discount rate | At 7% discount rate | At 10% discount rate | |
| Belgium | 51.5 | 84.2 | 116.8 | |
| Finland | 46.1 | 77.6 | 109.1 | |
| France | 50.0 | 82.6 | 115.2 | |
| Hungary | 53.9 | 89.9 | 125.0 | |
| Japan | 62.6 | 87.6 | 112.5 | |
| South Korea | 28.6 | 40.4 | 51.4 | |
| Slovakia | 53.9 | 84.0 | 116.5 | |
| UK | 64.4 | 100.8 | 135.7 | |
| USA | 54.3 | 77.7 | 101.8 | |
| China | 25.6-30.8 | 37.2-47.6 | 48.8-64.4 | |
Figure 1: Projected levelised cost of energy from nuclear plants by region (US$/MWh). Source: OECD, Projected Costs of Generating Electricity, 2015 Edition (Table 3.11, assuming 85% capacity factor)
Some would respond to this by pointing out that if there was better evidence that nuclear power plants could be constructed on time and budget then private capital would become accessible on better terms.
While true, this answer is not particularly insightful. It overlooks the fact that nuclear power plants are mega-infrastructure projects of national importance, carrying large risks to investors but also important benefits to society – like enhanced energy security, cleaner air, regional economic growth and sustainable development.
Policy risk adds to the financing cost of nuclear projects as investors invariably factor in a risk premium
Added to this is that governments are themselves the source of some of the biggest risks facing these projects. There are many examples throughout history of regrettable political interference into nuclear energy: cases where completed plants were never permitted to operate, cases where operating plants were ordered to close despite being in compliance with regulatory requirements, and cases where nuclear-specific taxes became so great an imposition that they factored in the decision by owners to retire plants prematurely.
No amount of engineering prowess or entrepreneurial genius can overcome opportunistic politicking. Policy risk adds to the financing cost of nuclear projects as investors invariably factor in a risk premium.
Strong, consistent and vocal political support for reactor programmes is the only way these risks can be reduced. Governments may need to reinforce this through direct involvement, providing loan guarantees or taking a share of the project for example. They should also set the market design to ensure that externalities are internalised and long-term investment stability is provided. In a world responding to the realities of climate change, where electricity demand is growing and countries are seeking a greater degree of energy security such interventions are fully justified.
What about financial institutions? They should be seeking to fund nuclear plants as environmental and social governance priorities. This is especially true for the development banks, many of which unjustifiably refuse to fund nuclear projects.
Which leads us to Step 2.
Step 2: Reduce regulatory risk
You are probably not surprised to see an industry rep bring up regulation. But let’s step back, take a deep breath and consider the wider context. Put simply, nuclear energy may be the most highly regulated technology (for civil use) on the face of the planet. It’s somewhat ironic that nuclear power plants are often expected to compete without assistance in ‘deregulated’ markets.
Nuclear projects typically:
- require approval at the national, regional and local levels;
- take years of planning and are unlikely to go ahead without a robust political consensus;
- require detailed environmental impact studies and lengthy public consultations;
- are licensed and regulated by independent safety authorities with the power to stop construction or operations at any time;
- are covered by international treaties and agreements concerning the trade and transport of nuclear materials, safety and liability, etc.
Safety regulators have contributed to delays on nuclear projects in sometimes unfortunate ways, such as when new requirements are introduced after construction has begun. Shifting regulatory goal posts needs to be avoided if there is any chance of delivering projects successfully.
Figure 2: US nuclear construction costs inflated dramatically as a result of new regulations introduced after the Three Mile Island accident. Source: Lovering et al: Historical construction costs of global nuclear power reactors
There is also a lot that can be done in terms of harmonizing regulations and codes and standards internationally. The nuclear industry was originally developed as a series of national enterprises, but projects are increasingly international in character.
Progress in harmonisation should help to reduce the design licensing burden (which can run to hundreds of millions of dollars), increase the diversity and quality of the supplier base, and reduce the possibility of mistakes happening during construction. All of these things should have noticeable impacts on the delivered costs.
The iron law of nuclear construction is that it’s vitally important to get things right the first time
At the same time there is an active discussion in many countries over the fitness of current regulatory approaches and which requirements really contribute to meaningful safety gains. This conversation needs to continue and practical changes take place, especially as innovative new technologies are brought forward which may be unfairly disadvantaged by the existing framework.
Evidence clearly shows that nuclear energy counts among the very safest of energy sources. It would be a poor outcome if regulation prevented new nuclear development instead of enabling it.
Nuclear regulation and codes and standards are tied tightly with nuclear performance, which leads us finally onto industry itself, and Step 3.
Step 3: Improve industry performance
The third step to lowering the costs of nuclear energy is, rather obviously, for industry to improve construction performance. This requires all the parties involved – utilities, vendors and contractors – to learn the lessons of nuclear project management from previous projects while also integrating cutting edge technologies and best practise. Mega-project construction is of course by its nature extraordinarily complex. This complexity creates many pitfalls but also, it has to be said, countless opportunities for optimisation.
The iron law of nuclear construction is that it’s vitally important to get things right the first time. When a mistake is made or management (or regulators) decides that rework is required it can lead to triple damages. There is the cost of the original work and components, the cost of its removal and then of course the cost of replacement.
If this work is on the critical path of the schedule then this will lead to a delay in commissioning, and this is where it really begins to hurt as extra interest is accrued on loans that will now have to wait longer for any revenue from reactor operation. This confirms the perhaps counter-intuitive need to prioritise quality in nuclear project management over selecting lower price products or contractors, as this will likely save time and costs later on.
Figure 3: The time-quality-cost triangle. Conventional project management wisdom says you can expect to achieve any two. Picture source: Nuclear Quality Assurance Association
Other home truths about recent industry performance require a review of what actually happened in both the successful and less successful nuclear projects around the world. Serendipitously, this has recently been carried out by a task force convened under the World Nuclear Association.
The infamous delays to nuclear power plant projects in Finland, France and the USA have been compounded by the fact that they were first-of-a-kind (FOAK) for the reactor designs in question and the countries had not built reactors for decades, losing competencies as a result. Unfortunately, the term FOAK ends up functionally applying to nuclear projects even when the same technology is built in different countries because of the limited internationalisation mentioned above.
Improving nuclear construction performance and ultimately economics requires that countries not give up at the first stumbling block
It is worth noting that almost none of the issues encountered on these projects can be attributed to the basic reactor design (one caveat being that construction should not begin until a detailed design is developed). The choice of technology does not appear to be the source of the problem.
And yet technology offers the solution. After all, nothing stays the same forever and this is the age of technology. Innovations like digitisation and 3D printing are transforming the way that industry makes things and puts them together.
The manufacturing capabilities of the supply chains found in the most progressive nuclear countries are a quantum leap from the pioneering days. New techniques introduced in one country can be transferred to others if local industry is willing to learn and regulators are willing to accommodate.
The critical path
The key to bringing nuclear costs and project times down is facilitating access to cheap financing, lowering regulatory barriers, and improving industry performance on nuclear construction projects. Whether to commit whole-heartedly to realising advanced designs as soon as possible or to the series build of a fleet of standardised reactors is a secondary concern to all of these.
Ironically enough it is renewables advocates who often seem to object most strenuously to nuclear energy on grounds of “costs”. It is ironic because ten years ago you could have said the same thing about solar or wind, but that was reason for a consistent programme of government support intent on driving the price of these technologies down – not abandoning them. This programme of support was unquestionably justified as renewables offer distinct benefits and their potential for growth is promising. The same is true for nuclear energy.
Improving nuclear construction performance and ultimately economics requires that countries not give up at the first stumbling block. Industry can learn-by-doing, but this is clearly not possible if programmes are allowed to falter and expertise fade. Political commitment is essential.
It is possible to build nuclear plants quickly. Back in 1996 the FOAK, 1315 MW Kashiwasaki Kariwa unit 6 reactor was connected to the grid after just 3 years, setting the benchmark for nuclear construction performance. What fundamentally prevents this from being achieved again? If five, four or even three-year construction periods became the industry norm then surely no one could dismiss nuclear energy as being too slow or too costly to meaningfully contribute in the fight against climate change.
Editor’s Note:
David Hess is policy analyst at the World Nuclear Association. For more information see the report Lesson learning in nuclear construction projects published by the WNA in April 2018.
[adrotate banner=”78″]
The author correctly identified the problems and we can all point to examples everywhere, not just in the nuclear industry, of costs being driven up by over-regulation.
However even the best run real projects with the least political interference in the Emirates, Korea and Turkey? are still projecting power costs in excess of US$100 per MWh. When wind and solar are now being quoted at $20-25/MWh and solar + storage projects are $60/MWh or less and even offshore wind at US$65 where is the niche for nuclear, perhaps in some highly land constrained grids like Korea or the UK but certainly not as a widely used technology until there is a huge change in the economics.
In the meantime, self generation and micro-grids with rooftop solar and CHP plants, power to heat and batteries with increased emphasis on energy efficiency will drive down demand for centralised power of any sort.
The economic change won’t occur until someone can come up with a method of a) halving the build time, b) halving the cost and c) achieving flexible generation without significant maintenance penalty
I’m glad that you acknowledge over-regulation as a problem. Current regulations are way out of proportion with the hazard, even for large reactors. For SMRs, they are absurdly out of proportion.
Half the cost? No problem. Back in the ’70s, nuclear plants costs (as well as operations costs, and plant staffing levels) were ~1/3 of what they are today, in inflation-adjusted dollars. In some countries (Korea) they’re still that inexpensive. If anything, costs should have gone down with time, due to tech advances and operational lessons learned. The fact that costs instead tripled is a clear sign that it is mostly due to excessive and ever-increasing regulations.
Build time? SMRs offer the potential of substantially reduced build time, as well as greatly reduced project, fabrication, and financial risk, due to their small size and assembly line construction by experienced, dedicated staff in a central facility. In fact (esp. for the smaller, 50 MW, SMRs) one could even envision having an *inventory* of already-built modules that could simply be shipped when one is ordered. Zero fab time, zero fab risk (of delays, etc..) .
Based on what SMR developers are saying, not only do SMRs inherently have a several orders of magnitude lower meltdown probability (due to lack of need of active cooling, etc..), but their maximum potential release (even if a meltdown somehow occurred) would be so small that radiation levels above the natural range would occur nowhere outside the plant site boundary. Thus, they are essentially incapable of causing significant public harm. For this reason, SMRs should provide sufficient justification for a dramatic reduction in the extremely strict regulations and unique, standard-of-perfection fab QA requirements. Instead, the case can be made that they should face standard industrial requirements similar to what competing energy sources are held to.
The above reason (justification for greatly reduced requirements) is actually the main reason I am hopeful about SMRs’ economics. Something I may agree with you on is that if those changes are NOT made, SMRs’ economic competitiveness is in doubt. If they ARE made, however, nuclear power costs that are half or 1/3 of today’s are definitely possible. After all, they were in the past….
I am a strong proponent for the development of SMRs and I also share your hopeful economic vision of cost savings as a result of reduced construction times and off-site modular fabrication. Add to this the potential for significant learner reductions and also a reduced investment risk and improved affordability for these smaller, faster projects, and things look positive.
However the issue is, in the UK at least, that there just doesn’t seem to be the demand for SMR development and implementation at the utility level. Any progress that has been spurred on recently, has seen a response almost entirely from vendors. Without sufficient demand for this new proposed technology though, no economic benefits can be reaped!
Color me skeptical of your solar and wind cost claims, especially the part about cheap electricity storage.
How do you explain the fact that solar and wind development has generally lead to large *increases* in power costs, with electricity costs being strongly, *positively* correlated with solar and wind penetration levels (e.g., places like California and Germany having extremely high power costs):
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/23/if-solar-and-wind-are-so-cheap-why-are-they-making-electricity-more-expensive/#66818ba51dc6
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/04/25/yes-solar-and-wind-really-do-increase-electricity-prices-and-for-inherently-physical-reasons/#31040f2e17e8
Also, if wind and solar are so cheap, why are large per kW-hr subsidies and outright mandates for use (portfolio standards) still necessary? And yet those policies keep being extended or added.
For example, in New Jersey, they just passed a law that provided small per kW-hr subsidies (~1 cent/kW-hr) to keep their nuclear plants operating, but to win support for the nuclear subsidies, they had to agree to vastly larger per kW-hr subsidies for solar and offshore wind (residential solar subsidies in particular being FAR larger).
Could it be that whereas wind and solar are cheap in some areas, in other areas (e.g., New Jersey) they are not? Could it be that, while they are cheap at low penetration levels, the overall costs increase dramatically as VRE penetration levels increase? As one of the article above discusses, the raw generation cost for intermittent solar and wind is a small fraction of the overall system cost (e.g., grid costs and fossil backup or battery costs).
As for storage, most experts say that large-scale storage (battery) costs remain extremely large. In that vein, it should be noted that the overall storage requirement for a mixture of nuclear and renewables is much smaller than what would be required for an all renewable system.
While the German rate is ~€28/MWh, electricity costs take lower share of the income of the av. German household than the av. US household.
The reason; consumption per household is much lower in Germany.
When you check for US states then you find that electricity costs are strongly related to the consumption of electricity. So Californians consume less, hence pay more per MWh.
Not strange as important part of the cost to provide power is more or less independent of the amount of electricity consumed.
Those MWh costs for German households include €70/MWh legacy payments for the Energiewende. Mainly due to guarantees given in the first decade of this century. Then e.g. new rooftop solar got guarantees between €62 and €25/MWh produced, fixed during 20years. But those are only ~25% of the total price per KWh. Those €70/MWh legacy payments are predicted to decrease gradually after 2023 when those 20years guarantees end.
Most of the other costs are general taxes (as in NL). Just as with petrol for your car, which is here also 2-5 times more expensive than in USA. The general idea; cars pollute, damage health, etc. and they should pay for the costs they cause society.
(If all costs are calculated car fuel should costs >€5/liter)
The German rate is ~€280/MWh.
I forgot a zero. Sorry.
One final point.
Suffice it to say that estimates of renewables’ relative economics vary wildly between different sources. Hard to make sense of it all.
All of that argues for putting in place market-based, technology neutral policies that put a price on emissions of CO2 (and other harmful pollutants) and let the market decide how to respond. That, as opposed to having dueling analysts try to show that a given set of generation technologies will be the best (e.g., lowest cost) approach, and then have the govt. decide (by fiat) to go with that set of generation sources.
Not only does such a market-based, tech-neutral policy automatically adjust to future technological or market changes, which affect the relative cost and effectiveness of various approaches, but it automatically covers the truth. For example, different sources tell me that renewables are cheap or very expensive (overall). Which is right? A market-based policy will reveal the truth.
Given your confidence in renewables’ economics, one would think that you *surely* would agree to such a policy. And also agree to eliminate all energy-source-specific policies, such as large per kW-hr subsidies for specific sources (and not for others), and literal mandates to use certain sources (portfolio standards). Let all clean sources, and more generally, all means of emissions reduction, compete on a fair, level, objective playing field.
A fair chance to compete is all nuclear advocates are asking for. Will new nuclear win out or do well? I’m not sure. It depends on how SMRs work out, and whether we can make the case for significant regulatory reform (IMO). But it is pretty clear that you would not see existing reactors close. And that makes sense. New renewable generation should be used to replace fossil generation, not nuclear. That should not be at all controversial.
Jim
I would definitely agree with you that a pollution tax is the key part of the solution and far fewer technology mandates, but you still have to have some safety regulation. How do you get a rational answer to that.
As for NJ, nuclear may be a good part of the solution there or maybe better interconnectors. On the latest European figures offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear but as you say neither figure is the full system cost. I have done the numbers for South Australia and even at NuScale’s target costs nuclear doesn’t add up and a Gen III plants are a complete financial catastrophe at the end of the grid
I’m not sure what energy policies like pollution taxes have to do with safety regulations. The two seem independent to me.
I don’t dispute that there should be some safety regulation. It’s a question of how much. It needs to be in line with the actual hazards, and more in line with what competing sources are subject to (strictness being measured, say, on a dollars spent per life saved basis). My view is that, given their MUCH lower level of potential hazard, the appropriate level of regulation and QA for SMRs would by much lower than current practices.
I’m not even sure I disagree with your cost data for large and small reactors. But my belief is that those high costs are due to excessive regulations and requirements (standard-of-perfection QA, etc..), the proof of that being that even large LWRs were ~1/3 of todays costs. many decades ago. I believe that costs could come way down (from your numbers), if reasonable requirements were applied. Especially for SMRs, I think.
As I said in one post, everyone (industry, politicians, regulators, etc…) have to sit down and basically decide if we’re going to do nuclear power or not. Insisting on maintaining the current policies and practices amounts of a decision to not do nuclear. You seem to agree that nuclear will not happen (unless things change).
Jim, like you, I fear that the ALARA principles used as the basis of current nuclear regulatory oversight will not allow SMR technologies to result in the hoped for cost reductions that seem otherwise reasonable to expect. We must overcome the radiophobia pervasive in western societies before risks can be placed in proper context.
Jim
I think we agree dollars per life saved or even better dollars per year of life. For example even if nuclear power generation could be shown to reduce everybody’s lifespan by a year but coal pollution reduced 10% of lives by 20 years then nuclear is still a far better bet.
I too would love to see SMR’s succeed because they fit into a distributed grid much better, but I worry that even with everything in place they will fall victim to internal economies of scale of most heat engines double the power only requires 30-50% more material and the inverse is probably true. 1,600 MW of SMRs probably embody even more labour material and energy than one EPR
Assuming you figures for early LWR’s are correct there have been large advances in efficiency of fabrication and construction outside the nuclear industry and huge advances in simplifying and improving reliability of control systems in chemical plants etc. so one would imagine that a fairly regulated 350-700 MW design could be built in reasonable enough numbers to optimise all the issues of grid integration, safety and cost.
Who is going to do it?
There is NO evidence that a properly run nuclear power plant even of the technically obsolete kind that had meltdowns at Three Mile Island and tsunami-smitten Fukushima-Daiichi, has killed or shortened the life of anybody.
UNSCEAR says that even Chernobyl, which was more a blunder by distant management than a disaster implied by how dangerous nuclear is, killed far fewer than
100 people.
A technology neutral market based policy would end nuclear power. Because nuclear needs the high implicit subsidies which nuclear laws, such as Price-Anderson in USA, grant to nuclear.
Consider that near 1% of nuclear power reactors ended in a disaster (or 4 reactors in ~18.000 reactor years) and that the costs of a disaster can easily be a trillion$.*)
Assume that:
– av. reactor is 1GW operating at ~90% CF;
– security improved factor 2 (stronger regulation);
then the ‘cost price’ of the insurance premium would become ~$15/MWh.
Consider also the nuclear waste liability limitations which nuclear laws grant (shifting most costs to future generations), etc. Those constitute $5/MWh.
Those $20/MWh ‘subsidies’ continue during the whole life of the reactor**) Those imply that near all old reactors produce against substantial losses.
[…}
**) Note that:
– we didn’t consider other subsidies such as loan guarantees, etc. (at Hinkley C worth ~$4/MWh for all electricity produced in first 35years)
– With renewable such subsidies are usually restricted to only the first years of operation (7 – 20years).
Bas, your nuclear ‘disaster’ rates and waste costs are not relevant to new nuclear and reactors being commissioned today. Your data, assuming it is correct, is for plants designed in the 1960s. Today new nuclear designs are safer and produce much less waste than old plants.
Instead of attacking nuclear at every opportunity and promoting renewables as the sole panacea, why don’t you accept that the future is new nuclear and renewables? The world is not going to abandon nuclear power. Few share your extreme views on nuclear power being too dangerous.
I support renewables, but if you look at UK Grid Watch over the last month you will see that wind power performance has been poor for much of June across the UK. That’s why other low carbon generation sources are needed to support the UK grid.
Those disasters occurred with nuclear reactors which were then estimated by experts to have a chance of less than once in a million years to suffer such disaster. History shows roughly once in 4,500years (=1% chance for reactors with av. live period of 45years).
Despite safety improvements after Chernobyl.
The EPR and AP1000 have a lot of important safety improvements, however with limited effects. E.g.
Even the EPR with its double dome is only resistant against a collision with an unarmed low flying F-16 fighter (=16ton). AREVA refused to give any indication about a collision with a 9/11 200ton plane. We may assume that they performed simulation studies with those too…
Then we don’t talk about a more professional attack which e.g. IS may perform.
Note that the Indian Point NPP was on the target list of Al-Qaeda but Bin Laden took it off because of the risk that his unexperienced pilots would miss the small dome’s.
Those risks have been closed off by the latest designs. European designs now have multiple layers of defence to prevent releases to the atmosphere for all credible accident scenarios. Otherwise they wouldn’t be so expensive and would mean they were not licensable.
Also it’s no longer possible for passengers to enter the flight deck of a commercial jet. As proven by the German wings crash when no one on board could stop an insane pilot crashing the aircraft.
“AREVA refused to give any indication about a collision with a 9/11 200ton plane.”
That’s not correct. AREVA’s generic EPR design is proof against a large commercial jet. See slide 25 of this AREVA presentation:
https://www.iaea.org/INPRO/7th_Dialogue_Forum/AREVA_EPR_reactor_presentation.pdf
Nigel, thanks. So the situation may be better.
I based myself on a publication which stated that AREVA refused to comment on collisions of heavy airliners against the EPR.
While they stated in the past that the EPR could handle a low flying unarmed F16. Which suggests that their simulations showed that the EPR didn’t survive a diving unarmed F16 or an armed F16.
We may assume that they did also simulations regarding airliners.
So the right conclusion seems to be that the EPR may survive an airliner, depending on the weight/speed/angle/spot of attack.
Hence terrorists may need more advanced or additional weaponry for a successful attack on the EPR with its double dome.
The EU requires that new nuclear plant designs to be built in Europe demonstrate the capability to withstand an aircraft crash. This implies to provide a containment design that will be capable of withstanding an aircraft crash without a significant impact to the public health and safety.
The Russian Gen-III+ VVER1200 Nuclear Reactors are constructed to withstand the crash of a large passenger air plane. The same goes for the Gen-III+ Westinghouse AP-1000 Nuclear Reactor and the French Gen-III+ Areva EPR Nuclear Reactor…
Bas Gresnigt, Did you get the list of Bin Laden showing that the Indian Point NPP was on the target list of Al-Qaeda. Did Bin Laden send you a message that he took it off because of the risk that his inexperienced pilots would miss the small dome’s. LOL
You are such a straw-man builder. At every opportunity, you attack nuclear energy. Furthermore, you don’t qualify with having any nuclear industry knowledge on this discussions topic and therefor should be banned from discussions like this…
Thanks Peter. I’m not sure where you’re getting your “best run real projects” figure from, but South Korea at least is shown in Figure 1. UAE would also seem to be substantially lower than you suggest as the quoted price of about $20 billion works at $3,500/KW. Turkey appears to be in a similar ball park.
In this article I’m really more interested in exploring how nuclear costs can be reduced, rather than providing a definitive summary of where they are at now.
The falling costs of wind, solar and even battery storage are absolutely great news, but they should not be mistaken for evidence that the climate challenge is even remotely under control. Nuclear has an important role to play in a diverse and balanced electricity mix (and possible applications in heating and shipping too). An increasing number of countries are recognising this and making rapid progress with their programmes. When sun and oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt make the decision to introduce nuclear energy you can deduce that the economic proposition must at least be reasonable.
Tbh I think we largely agree on the prescription. What you say does not appear to be far off what I concluded
a) reducing build time should be an industry priority. It’s clearly possible but takes practise and commitment
b) component+installation cost reductions will come through a more robust and international supply chain, new technologies and practises etc. Financing cost reductions will need to be helped along by gov and establishing the right market framework
c) Ok I didn’t cover this, but you should check out what Jesse Jenkins has to say on this subject https://twitter.com/JesseJenkins/status/989204017325789184
” When sun and oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia, UAE and Egypt make the decision to introduce nuclear energy you can deduce that the economic proposition must at least be reasonable.”
Right. The fact that they have more cash to spend on whatever boondoggle they feel like means we should ignore the tsunami of data on the economic advantages of wind, solar, and geothermal in favor of the most expensive and dangerous carbon-free energy the world has ever seen.
Color me convinced. 🙂
All three countries are confronted with at least one potential enemy which has the know how to produce atomic bombs in a short period, or already has them.
So they need to build nuclear know how….
Having been involved in new product development for more than 40 years and fallen into the “Valley of Death” a few times I think that scaling up nuclear plant production to get manufacturing economy is more difficult than you think.
In a world where trust of large organisations from big business to government has declined where are you going to get sufficient customers to trust these organisations to build the volume of plants needed to get the costs down.
This is particularly true after the debacle of the AP 1000 and the EPR which were both touted as new straightforward low cost fast to build designs.
The Jesse Jenkins paper is unreal, and that is being kind. The three major costs on a nuclear power plant are capital costs, maintenance and personnel/security. Flexible output does not reduce the capital and staffing costs and increases maintenance the net result is that the cost of power from a nuclear plant goes up significantly if it is run in load following mode.
The sensible way to run nuclear plants is to run them in conjunction with large storage/hydro as the Japanese and French do but in the current environment it is far cheaper to charge the storage with more wind and solar.
I acknowledge that in some countries there may not be enough space for wind, solar and hydro but for those it may still be cheaper to import power in the form of electricity or hydrogen/ammonia to run in fuel cells than build nuclear plants.
A couple of points on costs: the costs I quoted are “fully absorbed” costs per MWh quoted by the developers. In fact they are not full costs because the state will cover long term waste storage, catastrophe insurance, security and in most cases the grid infrastructure. The environmental cost of water consumption/ heating is not included.
Batteries are a critical but minor part of the cost of a fully renewable system. My studies of the Australian system suggest that with effective power to heat/ice and flexible load management and smart charging of EV’s that a 100% renewable Australian grid could cope with perhaps no more than 20% capacity for 4-8 hours from batteries and additional pumped hydro. The total cost of storage would be equivalent to the cost of replacing about 10% of our existing coal fleet.
I know the equation is different for every country and I am not anti-nuclear. I would much rather have nuclear power than coal or gas and I think it is a tragedy to see nuclear plants retire early. I just don’t see how it can be made to work economically.
To that extent I think nuclear proponents are holding out false hope and delaying the necessary investments in energy efficiency and renewables
Well, this sounds a lot like the kind of the thinking I highlighted in my conclusions. I could have said the same about wind and solar a decade ago and if I had (I don’t think I ever did) now I would be accused of being unreasonably pessimistic. There are definitely challenges to nuclear economics but also very promising pathways by which costs might be reduced – in those countries where they need reducing.
I believe the Jenkin’s paper covers the considerations you have listed (although there is indeed a reasonable question over fuel and maintenance costs – this is not a thesis killer). Funnily enough you mention how France run its nuclear plants but forget to mention that they routinely load follow.
As for system costs (externalities and grid), think I’ll just point to the most recent OECD report on the subject https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2018/7298-full-costs-2018.pdf And as I said above, advances in wind, solar and storage are great developments but they don’t obviate the need for a flexible-base low carbon energy source. There are still major unresolved challenges left in tackling climate change – something Liebreich mentions often. Nothing should be off the table and especially not practical and proven technologies.
As an Australian I lament the carbon intensity of our mix, and think that it’s a great pity that one of the most promising technologies is banned by law. I’m afraid it’s not a question of false hope, but no hope the way things are looking at the moment. If you’re really not anti nuclear I hope you’re willing to join the campaign to remove the ban.
Australia is the only G20 nation without nuclear power. In spite of having about 31% of the world’s uranium deposits and being the world’s third largest producer of uranium. I fully support, that the legally enforced prohibition on the construction or operation of a nuclear fuel fabrication plant, or a nuclear power station, or an enrichment plant, or a reprocessing facility should be removed. Furthermore, the carbon tax should be brought back again. The on-time-on-budget construction of Gen-III+ NPP’s should not be an issue in Australia. There is plenty of project management expertise available gained from the construction of very large modular mineral processing and LNG projects undertaken in Australia.
Australia had cheap coal gas and hydro it didn’t need nuclear.
In all of the worlds democracies, a total of 9 reactors are being built and about two dozen are scheduled to close in the current decade.
Because of Australia’s high hydro capacity (25% of peak demand) high wind and solar availability and opportunity for pumped hydro (22,000 potential sites), there is no economic case for nuclear in Australia.
Even if nuclear power was legalised tomorrow it would be 2030 before the first watt was generated.
In the meantime China’s economy is 10 times as big as ours and they are installing 80 GW of renewables per year. If we install 8 GW of renewables and 0.5 GW of storage per year by 2025/26 we would have a 95% renewable grid.
Putting it another way. This year Germany will generate 200 TWh from non hydro renewables across 350,000 sq km. Modern solar panels in Australia will generate 2.7 times as much annual energy as the average German solar panel. Modern wind turbines generate 3-6 times as much energy as the average German wind turbine. That means that within the 1.2 m square km of the NEM and at half the density of panels and turbines they have, we should be able to generate 195 TWh from solar and 700-1400 TWh from wind i.e. 5-8 times our current electrical demand.
There is no need for expensive nuclear until the cost falls by at least half
Yep, cheap gas and coal are definitely a problem – especially as far as climate is concerned. I believe that Australia could have good value nuclear too, if it played its cards right, and thereby get serious about reducing emissions. 2030 is a while off, but the need to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of CC is going to persist way beyond that. Plus, the energy sector is going to continue to evolve come what may. This will almost certainly involve increased electrification. 2030 at earliest is simply not a good reason for inaction on introducing nuclear – and certainly does not justify keeping draconian policy in place.
It is not democracies (public acceptance is a different issue) but rather deregulated electricity markets which cause headaches for the economics of new nuclear. And it’s no secret that deregulated markets have many flaws (examples of market failure really) which have long been the subject of policy attention and have certainly held back renewables. Speaking bluntly, supporting nuclear energy needs to be considered as part of the solution.
China is indeed doing a great job with expanding renewables. But is also currently leading the world with its domestic reactor programme. Often nuclear even gets lumped into the same category as renewables when they do reporting. You can read about recent Chinese nuclear progress in this Energy Post article from my colleague Francois Morin https://energypost.eu/china-is-still-on-track-to-become-the-worlds-leading-nuclear-power/
But the Chinese plan is for nuclear to be no more than 15% of generation and it is behind schedule. Solar in particular is racing away.
The cancelled plans for nuclear in India 40 GW reduction is more than all the Saudi, Egyptian, Emirates, Turkish and Korean plants put together
Australia’s pumped hydro 22,000 potential sites, remains a pipe dream. They still have not given the green light for the required feasibility study for the snowy mountain ii project.
By 2030 the Chinese share of nuclear will have grown from 3,56% in 2015 to 10%. This means that about 2/3 of China’s nuclear power plants in 2030 will be new ones, an addition of about 200 GW in just over 10 years. And by the end of the century Russia a country that has zero commercial wind and solar power, will be generating 80% of it’s electricity with nuclear energy.
Your claims on those supercharged wind turbines and PV solar panels lack confirming data. What is happening today you can see here in real time. Today South Australia is doing fine, but there are plenty of days that they have to import electricity from Victoria.
On a global scale there is not much wind & solar power being generated. When it comes to Carbon Intensity France stands with head and shoulder above the rest with 30g(CO2eq/kWh). Germany sits in the shadow of it’s clouds produced by it’s coal fired electricity generation with on a good day lucky to see it’s Carbon Intensity at 349g(CO2eq/kWh).
http://data.reneweconomy.com/LiveGen
Re Snowy II, I don’t include Snowy II in my estimates of pumped hydro. There are five on grid plants being studied in SA for example, all with better business cases than Snowy II.
SA exports more power than it imports https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/annual-interregional-trade-as-a-percentage-of-regional-energy-consumption and it is building another 300 MW of wind and at least 500 MW of solar so by about then end of 2022 it should be both 75% renewable and a net exporter.
It is true that Germany has a strong attachment to Lignite but that is falling. YTD coal has produced 30% more energy than wind and solar. In 2015 coal was about 210% of wind and solar
On a global scale wind and solar last year produced almost as much as nuclear. In the EU Nuclear produced 25% of power and wind and solar about 15%. In China, wind and solar produced 107 TWh in the first quarter of this year vs 61 TWh from nuclear. In India last financial year wind and solar produced about 70 TWh but less than 38 TWh from nuclear and as they are rapidly expanding both wind and solar, they will be producing 100 TWh in 2019/20
In the US, France. Korea and Russia nuclear produces about 3 times that of wind and solar however nuclear generation is static or falling as old plants are retired faster than new ones are built but even the US produced 340 TWh from wind solar last year, by no means not much
Russia has some of the worlds best scientist and engineers, they have no commercial wind and solar farms. Russia was the first country to bring to operation a Gen-III+ 1200 MWe Nuclear Reactor. Their energy policy shows that by the end of this century 80% of their electricity will be produced by Fast Neutron Breeder Reactors operating with the closed nuclear fuel cycle, especially under the Proryv (Breakthrough) project. The other 20% will be from Hydro.
There are two key differences between wind and solar economics and nuclear.
It was always known that early wind and solar projects were running at 10-20% of theoretical output so that improved performance has been a combination of eliminating operational inefficiencies. and production learning curve.
1.The annual output of a modern wind turbine is about 10,000 times that of the first “commercial” windfarm turbines. With solar panels, the amount of silicon per watt has declined by a factor of 4. No such technical performance gains are expected from from nuclear even though I agree they are theoretically available in terms of fuel use. However there is little scope for improving the thermal efficiency, so the investment and fuel cost per MWh from Nuscale’s plant is still in the same order as KEPCO and Rosatom large scale plants.
There is also an argument that you can have high thermal efficiency at high temperatures or thermal cycling at lower peak temperatures but not both so a flexible nuclear plant will be less efficient
2. Solar panels and indeed wind turbines are produced by the thousands and small incremental gains in manufacturing efficiency happen every few months or if you like very two or three production cycles. Product safety is a relatively minor issue because the products are not inherently dangerous so a change in manufacturing procedure can be implemented in days to months
Because nuclear plants are very large and production cycles long and the safety concerns mean that changing procedures takes much longer. For example a proposed change in welding procedure of a wind turbine might tale a week to six months depending on the importance of the part. In a nuclear reactor even a small one it will take 3 months and changes to the containment vessel might takes 3-5 years to have all the boxes ticked.
Therefore process improvement cycle is 5-10 years not 12-24 months
Re load following in France. In the first half of the refuelling cycle, French nuclear plants do modulate their power down to about 60%. In the second half of the fuel rod cycle life, daily modulation is much more difficult, so while nuclear power does vary daily it does not really follow the load. Close load following is done by gas and hydro and there is considerable lag and ramp smoothing for the nuclear. This is also aided by large exports to Italy, in turn balanced by Italian hydro, so saying French nuclear plants load follow is something of an exaggeration.
If Australia already had nuclear plants I would not be campaigning for their closure but I will not campaign for their introduction either. Even if Nuscale’s machine works the first 50 MW would be installed after 2025
Italy installed about 50 million solar panels in one year in 2012. If we installed 12 million panels per year for the next seven years that would generate about 35% of electrical demand. Scotland has installed one wind wind turbine a day for the last 5 years. Our economy is 5 times as large. If we only installed 3 wind turbines a day by 2024 wind would be supply 40% of our power.
If we install behind the meter batteries as fast as we are installing solar systems by 2025 we will have 8 GW of behind the meter batteries. Combine that with a dozen 200-400 MW small pumped hydro plants and existing hydro, there is enough despatchable non FF power to meet the baseload without coal, gas or nuclear. Overbuilding wind or solar by about 10% combined with four or five solar thermal plants and retaining the existing gas plants as backup means that for far less political effort than it could take seven to eight years for Australia to become 90-95% renewable
Peter’s comments are spot on, especially his comments on how nuclear’s costs are not variable with production. It’s a very complex calculation with aspects that vary depending upon the local environment of other available resources such as storage capacity. I think the answer lies in an approach that looks at the integrative aspects of a set of possible elements and not picking one at the expense of others. Perhaps on the long run, the concept of baseload generation will be abandoned with DERs and a new commercial market model that provides service rather than production.
Sure, some of the economic and technical drivers and barriers for nuclear, wind and solar are different. No surprises there. But your summary above really is an overly negative assessment of the nuclear situation. Just a couple of points…
France gets approximately 80% of its electricity from nuclear energy. Many reactors load follow although yes, other energy sources do some of the work. A more complete (and concise) description of nuclear flexibility capabilities are spelt out here http://www.framatome.com/customer/liblocal/docs/KUNDENPORTAL/PRODUKTBROSCHUEREN/Brosch%C3%BCren%20nach%20Nummer/340-Flexible%20Power%20Plant%20Operation_en-Web.pdf
There’s a tonne of *VERY* promising stuff happening in the nuclear innovation space. Improvements offer greater efficiency, longevity, flexibility, lower environmental impacts as well as better safety and economics. I wrote about it here http://www.theenergycollective.com/6point626/2417613/nuclear-innovation-hedging-bets
Once more for the record, I’m both impressed at and grateful for the VRE additions that many countries are now achieving. But the available evidence shows that it is simply not enough. It also shows that serious barriers seem to exist once easy additions are tapped out https://twitter.com/Ikemeister/status/970988985219731456 While quality research now casts substantial doubt on overly restrictive technology system pathways and models https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315745952_Burden_of_proof_A_comprehensive_review_of_the_feasibility_of_100_renewable-electricity_systems
Countries (and especially those with deregulated markets) simply must work on overcoming both sets of barriers (nuclear and VRE) simultaneously. It is utterly misguided to purposely neglect one of the most effective tools – and especially for reasons (perceived cost) that govs can indeed largely control
1. I understand that nuclear can be modulated, but the more you modulate it the higher the average costs because most of the costs are fixed, even with SMRs.
2. I also understand that there is a heap of work going on for new solutions and if I were the ruler of the world I would encourage that because the only thing I do know, is that in 5 years time all of us will be wrong so we need a plan B and C, D… etc.
3. My concern is that particularly coal supporters say we shouldn’t invest in renewables now because new nuclear plants will be better in 10-15 years thus slowing or preventing de-carbonisation in the meantime so being over optimistic about nuclear actually makes the emissions situation worse.
4. The topping out issue referenced by Botema is not a hard limit it is a function of technology and cost. For example in Australia, China and India solar is accelerating again even though in every case the value of government support per MWh has fallen.
5. While France gets about 72% of its generation from nuclear, it provides only half the system peak so in effect it uses imports and exports as balancing capacity. That works when you have more nuclear than everyone else, not so well when everyone has a similar amount of baseload.
6. As most countries with an average amount of hydro can balance a grid with wind, solar and hydro with at least 60% renewables without storage my approach would be work as fast as we can to get there while working on all the above R&D. If nuclear makes up zero or the vital last 15% or even 25% in some cases I don’t know nor care. In Australia where we have vast amounts of wind and solar, I can’t see that even if nuclear was half the current cost that we need any
I like your example of the weld procedure. Levels of weld inspection and the reaction if (heaven forbid) there is a tiny weld flaw being other examples. It clarifies the reason for nuclear’s high relative costs. Fundamental differences in regulatory and QA burdens.
Where I disagree is your apparent belief that such burdens are necessary for nuclear, and not for other energy sources, because nuclear (only) is “inherently dangerous”. That is not true, especially for SMRs. Those uniquely burdensome requirements need to go away, certainly for SMRs.
Fukushima showed that even a full meltdown of three large reactors causes no deaths and has no measurable public health impact, ever (in a world where fossil generation causes ~1000 deaths every single day, along with global warming). Most of the impact on people’s lives is due to unjustified over-reactions (e.g., long-term relocation was never justified, as no areas around Fukushima are as unhealthy a place to live as most of the world’s large cities, such as Beijing).
And with SMRs, the hazard is many orders of magnitude smaller still. Developers are saying that they are incapable of causing radiation levels above the natural range, anywhere outside the site boundary, under any circumstances. If true, SMRs are simply incapable of causing any significant public harm. They should be regulated accordingly.
The industry basically needs to sit down with regulators, and politicians, etc.., and ask “are we going to do nuclear power or not?” Insisting on standard-of-perfection requirements for nuclear only is essentially a decision to not pursue nuclear power. It’s basically the decision we’ve been making.
And if regulators, etc.., say that their answer is (essentially) “not” (i.e., we refuse to change the standards), then we need to demand a rigorous justification for that position. Given how much larger the impacts of fossil generation are, saying that nuclear should not be used unless it is held to a standard of perfection is indefensible. If those strict standards result in reduced nuclear use, and the use of fossil instead, those overly-strict regulations are actually *increasing* public health risks and climate change, and are thus indefensible. This is all especially true for SMRs, given their lack of potential hazard.
I quite like your argument, however the political reality is that the nuclear industry has over-promised and under delivered for many years as far as cost and delivery are concerned so recovering credibility is a huge task.
I suppose the answer is how do you eat an elephant, one bite at a time. So getting one or two SMR designs licenced and built on time and on budget would be a huge step forward.
The industry is not helped by some evangelists. Some running around saying that running gas spinning reserves for windfarms actually increases GHGs, Others promise to run at temperatures over 700 C when no-one builds a steam boiler that runs at those temperatures. Again destroying credibility.
We know that both a nuclear dominant and a renewables dominant system need a lot of storage and/or flexible demand. Nuclear proponents working on the optimum combination of those elements would gain a lot more traction than those who feel that they have to compete with renewables.
I agree that the nuclear industry has over-promised, but perhaps not (mainly) in the ways that you are thinking.
They basically promised a standard of perfection. A zero risk source. No pollution, ever.
When nuclear opponents suggested that any release of nuclear pollution, ever, is absolutely unacceptable, the industry basically said “yes, we agree, it must never happen, and we will do, and spend, whatever it takes to make sure it never does.”
When nuclear opponents and others (falsely) suggested that nuclear waste represents a unique long-term hazard (whereas all other waste streams, apparently, do not), the industry essentially agreed and committed itself to an unprecedented standard of proving that the waste will never cause any harm for as long as it remains hazardous (a standard that no other waste streams are held to). The real truth being that the long-term hazard from nuclear waste is far *smaller* than many if not most other waste streams, many of those (carelessly buried) waste streams containing toxic elements that remain toxic forever.
And you’re right that those promises of perfection were inevitably “broken”. And how does the industry (or, at least, many nuclear advocates) respond? Instead of putting things in perspective (risks/impacts compared to other energy sources), they promise perfection yet again. Instead of pointing out how small those “problems” actually are (e.g., pointing out that Fukushima’s total eventual impact is ~1/10 of fossil generation’s DAILY impact), they talk about some amazing new reactor design that will *never* meltdown. In other words, “trust me, NEXT time, we will deliver perfection, the perfection that is *necessary* for nuclear (only).
Two problems with the above. The industry (or advocates) are basically validating opponents’ claims that anything less than perfection is unacceptable for nuclear (only). Second, when their promise of perfection is inevitably broken (again), it results in yet another loss of trust. In response to a plane crash, does the airline industry respond by declaring that any crash is “unacceptable” and promising that there will never be another crash?
I often wonder what possessed the industry to make such promises, to essentially agree that nuclear must be held to a standard of perfection, and allow regulations to be ratcheted to an absurd level w/o fighting back. I’m at the point where I cynically believe that they actually hyped these small “problems” in order to justify research grants and to actually make money (fixed margin) on the huge costs. Apparently, they thought that nuclear was inevitable (fossil fuels running out, renewables never amounting to anything) and that it therefore could have such high costs and continue to exist.
Well, now nuclear finds itself facing genuine competition, even from other non-polluting sources. This puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to walk all those statements and commitments back (if nuclear is to survive). In other words, “we lied about nuclear releases (or very-low-level radiation exposure) being unacceptable or a real problem, and we lied about nuclear requiring perfection, and all those impeccable standards”.
If you say that it will be impossible to walk that all back, and to make the changes (reductions) to the regulatory regime that will necessary for nuclear’s future survival, you may be (or are probably) right. I respect that opinion.
One final comment about your last paragraph. Renewables proponents are far more guilty of what you’re talking about than most nuclear proponents are. They militate against nuclear having any role at all, whereas most nuclear advocates are merely arguing that nuclear will need to play *some* role.
Some very good points are being made here. I especially appreciate the objective discussion. One thing to add is the role of regulated markets which allow reimbursement of “prudent” costs and a guarantee of a rate of return. Combine this with the aforementioned strive for excellence and perfection and you will see costs increase over time for no addtional benefit. For example, at one nuclear plant near me, the staff, excluding security, is three times the size of the staff that originally started operations in 1981. As I wrote in an article on LinkedIn, “Nuclear’s Fork in the Road”, the search for excellence has become the “Age of Excessilence”.
Thankyou all for this very enlightening discussion, I only wish that even 10% of discussions on energy were half as informed.
I know I will be slightly more supportive of nuclear than I used to be.
We should all remember that there is no perfect system and a diverse system is probably safer cheaper and more reliable than a focus on any single technology
Jim, just to clarify, new nukes are designed with multiple layers of defence to contain the active material. The risk of an accident is not zero, but recent designs have reduced the probability of a serious accident to near zero. Also incorporating lessons learnt over the decades. Note that the serious accidents that have occurred are associated with plants designed in the 1960s. Today new nuclear plants are designed to higher standards and acceptable risk levels lower. Indeed there may never be a serious accident with the new designs now being commissioned – only time will tell.
This level of safety comes at great cost. E.g. in the west new nukes are being built with an aircraft crash protection shell which increases significantly the civil works scope and cost. But one could argue civil aircraft flight decks are now so secure crash protection is not needed.
However, winding back safety standards is likely to be unacceptable in Europe. Similarly, in Finland, France and the UK separate state controlled regulators impose specific country requirements. So a nuke designed in France needs heavy redesign for the UK to meet ONR requirements.
The main focus on cost reduction today is modular construction techniques. SMRs would be factory built. Also, larger reactors are moving towards modular construction to shorten schedules and hence reduce project costs.
I am very familiar with the approaches used in nuclear design having been in industry for 45 years in the U.S. and the U.K. The opportunity for advanced designs isn’t layers of defense in depth, but designs which are “antifragile” and do not need those added functions (and capital costs). There is promise in modular approaches and smaller designs but this focuses on initial capital construction costs and schedules. There is a first-of-a-kind risk with any new approach.
Jim, my comments were really in response to Jim Hopf’s post.
I too have held senior roles in nuclear, recently in development in the UK.
“Defence in depth” involving layers of protection around the main hazards is one of the key principles applied by the ONR during the design review process for a new reactor.
Yes, future reactor designs that are not such a hazard compared to light water reactors might be licensable with lower levels of protection. But for current designs being built in Europe regulators require multiple layers of defence.
Convincing regulators to lower standards will not be an easy task. Also, until the safety of new reactor designs is thoroughly proven, the ONR approach is usually very cautious, e.g. involving remote siting criteria. Not very helpful if the economics of SMRs means they need to be sited close to cities!
In what sense are nuclear advocates delaying or reducing investments in renewables? Are you begrudging a small amount (a few hundred million) of govt. money to develop SMRs, or to explore ways of reducing nuclear costs? Especially given that, for the last several decades, even R&D money for renewables has greatly exceeded nuclear, and that overall subsidies for solar and wind has been vastly greater than any given to nuclear?
As the author stated late in the article, back when solar and wind were much more expensive than nuclear, nuclear advocates could have argued that money spent on their R&D and development is a distraction, and a waste that takes money that could have been more effectively on nuclear. Or, to paraphrase your remark, “renewables proponents are holding out false hope and delaying the necessary investments in nuclear…”
In another example of just how much more support and market intervention solar and wind have received, consider your statement that scaling up SMR fabrication will be difficult, as they will be expensive (initially) and therefore there may not be a market for them. How did solar and wind get by that problem, and manage to scale up production and reduce costs? Oh yeah, govts. massively subsidized them or (more importantly) literally mandated their use. Examples include German subsidies of ~50 cents/kW-hr for solar, or ubiquitous mandates for renewables use (such as California’s 50% renewables requirement!!). States like CA had other mandates to drive nascent technologies, such as a (1%?) mandate for zero-emissions vehicles. Nothing like a guaranteed market, to get past the hump and achieve large scale production volume and low cost.
So, what to do about the possible lack of a market for SMRs? Simple, literally mandate the use of SMRs, for some fraction of overall power. Or, how about a large subsidy, at least at first. No need for 50 cents (like solar). How about 20 cents, or even 10? If these proposals sound “ridiculous” to you, well, it’s a sign of just how extreme govts.’ support of renewable energy has been. Nuclear *never* had that level of support.
Jim,
The issue is that wind turbines & solar panels always had the prospect that they will produce for a cost price of ~1cnt/KWh, once the products are fully developed and full production economies-of-scale apply.
That phase may be reached after 2030-2050. Present products are still primitive, produced in low numbers.
An ambitious deal with the nuclear sector to ensure that nuclear energy continues to power the UK for years to come through major innovation, cutting-edge technology and ensuring a diverse and highly-skilled workforce, was announced last Thursday (28 June 2018) by the Business and Energy Secretary Greg Clark as part of the modern Industrial Strategy. The deal, worth over £200 million, follows the government’s recent announcement that it is to enter into negotiations with Hitachi over the Wylfa Newydd project. The deal will spearhead Britain’s move towards cleaner economic growth, while promoting new opportunities in the sector including a focus on innovation to develop the technology and skills needed to maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s leading nuclear countries.
RE UAE, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. You might note
1. None are democracies,
2. The Saudi plans seem to be about as concrete as their 200 GW solar farm.
3. The UAE’s new energy plan does not include any further nuclear
4. Egypt is already importing gas and cutting gas deliveries to industry and in a very unstable part of the world so therefore they are desperate to reduce import dependency
None of these conditions apply with the same force to many other countries
There are quite a few good points and differing opinions here. As a 45 year veteran of the nuclear industry, I would also point out that it isn’t a series of independent factors but the integrative effects of multiple events occurring during a span of very different environments.
There are cases worthwhile of examination that are exceptions. For instance, Unit 2 of St. Lucie was the last best example of good project execution under Bill Derrickson. In fact, those lessons learned were adopted by the Japanese in their plans for Kashiwazaki.
In reply to that; “French nuclear plants load follow is something of an exaggeration”. As a matter of fact; the French Nuclear Fleet can be modulated by 21,000 MW in less than 30 minutes. Furthermore, using the AREVA NP Cruise Control System, the Swiss nuclear plant Goesgen and the German nuclear power plants: Philippsburg 2, Isar 2, Brokdorf and Grohnde load-follow.
The new advanced Gen-III+ and Gen-IV Nuclear Reactors can load follow. A good option for maximising on nuclear economy is to use an advanced melt-down proof 600 MWe HTR-PM helium cooled nuclear reactor with electricity generation based on a closed Brayton cycle. Furthermore, such a reactor can be used to produce hydrogen, seawater desalination, and process heat. They don’t need water to remove heat from the nuclear reactor core, and eliminate the need to make steam to produce electricity. Such a reactor would be ideal for Australia’s remote location energy needs where electricity and industrial process plant heat is required.
Unlike in China, the Nuclear industry in India currently lacks the funding, a reliable supply chain that can handle a huge increase in orders, and a trained workforce to build and operate the plants at the previous planned level of activity. Nuclear reactors that will likely be completed by the mid-to-late 2020’s are two Areva EPR’s slated for Jaitapur on India’s west coast and two Westinghouse AP1000’s planned for Andhra Pradesh on its east coast. However, Russia’s Rosatom will complete four more VVER-1000 MWe units at Kudankulam in Tamil Nadu on India’s southern tip.
China continues to promote the development of nuclear power this year and will bring five reactors online in 2018, with the start-up of the Sanmen 1 and Haiyang 1 AP1000’s, the Taishan 1 EPR, the Tianwan 3 VVER-1000 and the Yangjiang 5 ACPR1000.
Preparatory work was started last year for eight new units. These included units 3 and 4 of Sanmen, units 5 and 6 of Ningde, and two units each at new plants at Zhangzhou in Fujian province and Huizhou in Guangdong province.
China should have some 58 GWe of nuclear generating capacity in operation by 2020, up from the current capacity of almost 35 GWe. In addition, a further 30 GWe of nuclear capacity will be under construction by 2020. Furthermore here is some insider information on China from my Dutch TMSR friends. it was learned that the Chinese are planning to add about 200GW of new nuclear power to the Chinese grid between now and 2030. Meanwhile, they are developing thorium MSR’s as fast as they can, to save on future uranium imports. https://articles.thmsr.nl/why-chinas-600-fte-msr-program-wants-to-cooperate-with-delft-tu-and-nrg-in-petten-7e103414a861
Chinese nuclear power expansion is stagnating.
Reuters (March 7, 2018): “China has not approved a new reactor project for more than two years…”.
Confirming earlier publications by WISE.
Nuclear capacity in 2020 will be ~52GW. So they fall ~6GW short of their 58GW 5yrs plan target.
Your linked document shows that their Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) project continues with major delays (a 2MWth prototype would operate in 2017). They apparently reduced the workforce from 650 towards 400 scientists.
Probably because they couldn’t develop:
1- a more wear resistant steel than Hastelloy-N, which was developed 60years ago at ORNL under Weinberg.
2- a fluoride salt that allows to operate the MSR at 650°C, being 50°C lower than the MSR at ORNL in the sixties.
Interesting to note; “Others promise to run at temperatures over 700 C when no-one builds a steam boiler that runs at those temperatures. Again destroying credibility”. […]
In the Chinese (melt-down proof) Gen-IV 210 MWe HTR-PM helium cooled nuclear reactor, the helium is heated up in the active reactor core and then is mixed to the average outlet temperature of 750oC and then flows to the Steam Generator. The steam generator consists of 19 separate helical tube assemblies; each assembly has 5 layers and includes 35 helical tubes. To ensure two-phase flow stability, throttling apertures are installed at the entrance of all helical tubes. The rated inlet steam temperature is 566°C. With it’s fuel loaded, final commissioning of this power plant is currently progressing well toward connecting to the grid.
Specification on the Chinese manufactured steam turbine type Type N211-13.24/566 can be found in this document. https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/HTR-PM.pdf
What about using Management Controls Inc. There software reduces contractor spend for labor, equipment, and materials by 8-15+%. They put the contractually compliant invoicing in the hands of the nuclear site rather than the vendors. Similar to what they are doing for Exxon, Shell, US Steel, and many more. What is 8-15+% of hundreds of millions of dollars? Worth looking into.
If it works for the oil+gas and steel sectors, there’s no reason (I can think of) why it shouldn’t work for nuclear. These kind of cross sector innovations are very important.
Yes, the most advanced project management controls are used in the Oil, Gas and Mining/Mineral Processing sectors and they work very well with US multi-billion dollar projects being completed on time and on budget. Those projects also make use of modular component off-site shipyard style manufacturing Technics. China, Japan and South Korea are well experienced in this. This article showed at the top the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan. This is the worlds largest plant with a generating capacify of 7965 MWe. Yes Unit 6, a 1325 MWe Hitachi/ Toshiba/GE ABWR (advanced boiling water reactor), was built in record time. Despite being the first ever build, it took only 39 months to complete.