Why is Nuclear Energy So Expensive?

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:45:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 3:10:16 PM UTC+11, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:28:09 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 2:11:09 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 8:50:14 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 2:06:04 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, October 13, 2019 at 12:50:07 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Saturday, October 12, 2019 at 3:29:33 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
snip

Correlation is not causation... but...

When 100% of civilian nuclear power plant projects in the last 20 years are way past schedule and very over budget even to the point that in the last six months the remaining schedule gets extended by six more months, repeatedly on some projects, clearly there is a common thread.

I don't believe anyone has found the smoking gun (so to speak) connecting tobacco use to cancer.
Yet we accept the connection.

Do you?

He'd probably need to know more about why they got expensive before he'd actually accept the connection.

Establishing correlation is much easier than establishing causation, and skimping on that part of the job isn't a good idea.

We aren't writing research papers here. This is about the financial issues.. In this case there is more than enough indication that civilian nuclear reactors are a high risk for over runs and schedule delays which will deter investors and lending institutions. So for most purposes nuclear is all but dead.

In the UK they want to make the rate payers the underwriters and bill them for the overruns. We already seem to do that in the US in some situations. Dominion is billing their customers for the costs of licensing a reactor they may never build, to the tune of $500,000,000. At Vogtle in Georgia the government is backing the loans, so a financial failure will come back to the tax payers.

--

Rick C.

--++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
--++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:95d93dbb-1720-47b2-8098-d138f8ade9fd@googlegroups.com:

snip

Really? You think the existential threat to wind farms is the
lack of repair components due to buy outs by competitors?

This seems like a serious reach.

Every industry has the same issues. Delivery companies bought a
bunch of Chryslers and Chrysler gets bought by Daimler-Benz. Then
Daimler-Benz sells it to Fiat. Funny how the companies using
Chrysler vehicles are still doing fine.

GE and Siemens wind turbines are the future and will not be going
away any time soon. And these guys know how to produce. There are
other makers as well.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 1:46:04 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 21:10:10 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:


In contrast, many other power projects, like solar and wind farms seem to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected results.

Is that so? I've heard that the long-term viability of some wind units are in doubt because of the
extended maintenance requirements (and parts availability).

Parts availability??? I have a hard time imagining a company not being willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

What if the manufacturer goes bankrupt or sold to a competitor ?

Such events may become more common when the subsidies to wind and
solar are finally removed and the wind operators have to work with
commercial terms. This means for instance that the price obtainable
varies daily, especially if there are gross overproduction during some
days. If operators can't afford expensive repairs but are forced to
shut down a turbine, this will also reduce the maintenance money to
the wind turbine manufacturer.

Really? You think the existential threat to wind farms is the lack of repair components due to buy outs by competitors?

This seems like a serious reach.

Every industry has the same issues. Delivery companies bought a bunch of Chryslers and Chrysler gets bought by Daimler-Benz. Then Daimler-Benz sells it to Fiat. Funny how the companies using Chrysler vehicles are still doing fine.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 12:10:16 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:28:09 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

A part-failed initiative (WPPSS) of years ago had management (rush four builds in parallel instead
of serially), financing (bonds in default because of nonauthoritative issuance), and technical
problems (that literally were set in concrete and hard to work around), The one
plant that they finished, though, generates power economically.

https://www.historylink.org/File/5482

So you see this one plant as a success story??? This is the quintessential example of why civilian nuclear power plants are so very difficult to build. Out of five reactors, they were only able to bring one reactor online and at a cost of billions of dollars spent that produced zero electricity. What that money factored into the 2.3 cents per kWh cost cited? Sure, if you ignore the massive cost and risk of building a civilian nuclear power plant the remaining costs are not so high. But who will actually try to build such a plant if there is only a 1 in five chance of the reactor ever coming online?

It isn't 'chance', that was the long-term decision, and a profitable one. Crying over spilt milk
(plants that were imagined but not commissioned) is beside the point.

Yes, as a business decision, that plant was a success.

The money spent DOES produce electricity, though not at all the planned sites. The
plan CHANGED.

No one ignores cost. Why do you suggest that?
No one ignores risk. Why do you suggest that?

I suspect you have discovered that (in early planning) rosy projections are made, that
are part of trying to be seen as the lowest-cost option, and would find that
in wind farm and solar and hydroelectric projects as well. If you were looking.

In contrast, many other power projects, like solar and wind farms seem to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected results.

Is that so? I've heard that the long-term viability of some wind units are in doubt because of the
extended maintenance requirements (and parts availability).

Parts availability??? I have a hard time imagining a company not being willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

It's a common tech issue; a recent example was in BART trains, the thyristors for their power
conversion are no-longer-available items. I had to buy new wheels, once, when I needed
a replacement tire (of a size no longer in production). And, a generation of CPUs used
for auto computers is... long out of production. Where can you get an Intel 8096 nowadays?
Intel says 'redesign'.

The full parts list for a wind generator can be VERY hard to secure for a 40-year life span.
How long has the builder been in business, do you think?

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:05:48 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 12:10:16 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, October 14, 2019 at 6:28:09 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

A part-failed initiative (WPPSS) of years ago had management (rush four builds in parallel instead
of serially), financing (bonds in default because of nonauthoritative issuance), and technical
problems (that literally were set in concrete and hard to work around), The one
plant that they finished, though, generates power economically.

https://www.historylink.org/File/5482

So you see this one plant as a success story??? This is the quintessential example of why civilian nuclear power plants are so very difficult to build. Out of five reactors, they were only able to bring one reactor online and at a cost of billions of dollars spent that produced zero electricity. What that money factored into the 2.3 cents per kWh cost cited? Sure, if you ignore the massive cost and risk of building a civilian nuclear power plant the remaining costs are not so high. But who will actually try to build such a plant if there is only a 1 in five chance of the reactor ever coming online?

It isn't 'chance', that was the long-term decision, and a profitable one. Crying over spilt milk
(plants that were imagined but not commissioned) is beside the point.

Not imagnined, REAL... real money, real time, real resources.

"In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 when total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion. Because these plants generated no power and brought in no money, the system was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds."


> Yes, as a business decision, that plant was a success.

Yes, as I said, one out of five. A truly terrible track record.

The money spent DOES produce electricity, though not at all the planned sites. The
plan CHANGED.

No one ignores cost. Why do you suggest that?
No one ignores risk. Why do you suggest that?

I didn't say anyone ignores cost or risk. I said this is why nukes are very, very hard to construct now, investors and loans are very hard to find. Without money they never get started... unless the rate payers are made to pay for it like at Dominion where the public service commission and even the state legislature allow Dominion to charge the rate payers for the half billion dollar costs of approval for a reactor that likely will never be built due to the financial issues.

I suspect you have discovered that (in early planning) rosy projections are made, that
are part of trying to be seen as the lowest-cost option, and would find that
in wind farm and solar and hydroelectric projects as well. If you were looking.

Except that wind and solar projects are built on time and under budget. I'd be willing to bet most wind and solar projects are fixed price, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

I just had dinner with a friend who designed large pumps and worked for a nuclear plant. At one point he had to sign saying a pump was approved for the plant. A simple engineer. Then everyone above him rubber stamped the approval knowing any issues would fall back to my friend. He had no magic way of knowing for sure the pumps would work exactly as needed. The design info said it should, but until you build it, you can't know for sure. Seems some aspects of pumps are non-linear and can bite you in the ass.

In contrast, many other power projects, like solar and wind farms seem to be easy to build on schedule, under budget and produce the expected results.

Is that so? I've heard that the long-term viability of some wind units are in doubt because of the
extended maintenance requirements (and parts availability).

Parts availability??? I have a hard time imagining a company not being willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

It's a common tech issue; a recent example was in BART trains, the thyristors for their power
conversion are no-longer-available items. I had to buy new wheels, once, when I needed
a replacement tire (of a size no longer in production). And, a generation of CPUs used
for auto computers is... long out of production. Where can you get an Intel 8096 nowadays?
Intel says 'redesign'.

Yeah, so? How does any of this apply to wind more than any other technology that will be in place more than five years? Again, you seem to be reaching.

The full parts list for a wind generator can be VERY hard to secure for a 40-year life span.
How long has the builder been in business, do you think?

GE and Siemens? I believe they have been around a long, long time, no?

--

Rick C.

-+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:05:48 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

Yes, as a business decision, that plant was a success.

Yes, as I said, one out of five. A truly terrible track record.

One built, five planned/started, but NOT built, and 'loss' of money is
not the net result, it's only true if you analyze five times instead of
summing.

> .... I'd be willing to bet most wind and solar projects are fixed price, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

Smaller, simpler projects and different financing. If economics makes hydroelectric dams
and nuclear generation 'enormous', that's not a defect, just a feature.

I just had dinner with a friend who designed large pumps and worked for a nuclear plant. At one point he had to sign saying a pump was approved for the plant.... He had no magic way of knowing for sure the pumps would work exactly as needed. The design info said it should, but until you build it, you can't know for sure. Seems some aspects of pumps are non-linear and can bite you in the ass.

So, engineering fails on 'non-linear' problems? Not in my experience.
Engineering fails without multiple trials and learning from failures? That was true when
cathedrals were designed in the middle ages, but paper-design of a variety of
structures and mechanisms has been generally successful; the first moon landing
didn't take a lot of do-overs.

Parts availability??? I have a hard time imagining a company not being willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

The full parts list for a wind generator can be VERY hard to secure for a 40-year life span.
How long has the builder been in business, do you think?

GE and Siemens? I believe they have been around a long, long time, no?

The GE division that makes wind generators? I hope they're better than the division that made my
fridge, and had (at 12 years) out-of-stock on the starter component (which was easy to get from
eBay, or Whirlpool, but really, GE claims to support all their appliances for 20 years).
Siemens used to make Osram incandescent light bulbs, didn't they? The one for my desk lamp
is no longer available (from China there are replacements, but they fail very quickly, and
the 'halogen' recrystallization features is not apparent).

So, you found two examples of manufacturers that both DO NOT generally support their own
technology over the expected lifetimes of power generators (30-year bonds, so 30 -plus
design life).

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:18:48 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, October 15, 2019 at 2:05:48 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

Yes, as a business decision, that plant was a success.

Yes, as I said, one out of five. A truly terrible track record.

One built, five planned/started, but NOT built, and 'loss' of money is
not the net result, it's only true if you analyze five times instead of
summing.

You either didn't read or ignored the text I quoted from an article.

"In January 1982, the WPPSS board stopped construction on Plants 4 and 5 when total cost for all the plants was projected to exceed $24 billion. Because these plants generated no power and brought in no money, the system was forced to default on $2.25 billion in bonds."

Last time I checked "stopped construction" means construction was happening and it was stopped. Doesn't really matter. It DOES take a lot more effort to plan multiple plants than it does to plan one plant. They weren't designing battery chargers. These facilities are never cookie cutter. If nothing else the site is different.

But please stop denying the facts that construction was started, then stopped.

.... I'd be willing to bet most wind and solar projects are fixed price, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

Smaller, simpler projects and different financing. If economics makes hydroelectric dams
and nuclear generation 'enormous', that's not a defect, just a feature.

No one cares that nuclear is large. The problem is the enormous COMPLEXITY.. The risk to profits and schedules makes nukes untenable for most investors. That's why the UK is planning to make the rate payers responsible for future project overruns. Sounds great to me. Let the little guy take all the risk and have none of the say. Glad I'm not in the UK.

I just had dinner with a friend who designed large pumps and worked for a nuclear plant. At one point he had to sign saying a pump was approved for the plant.... He had no magic way of knowing for sure the pumps would work exactly as needed. The design info said it should, but until you build it, you can't know for sure. Seems some aspects of pumps are non-linear and can bite you in the ass.

So, engineering fails on 'non-linear' problems? Not in my experience.
Engineering fails without multiple trials and learning from failures? That was true when
cathedrals were designed in the middle ages, but paper-design of a variety of
structures and mechanisms has been generally successful;

When non-linear computations are too complex to perform to *know* the result, then you have dozens of ways to estimate and approximate, but you won't *know* the result until you build the million dollar pump for the first time.

Even in the era of computers a major sky scraper was built in NYC that might collapse in a strong wind as the architect was informed by the work of a college student. Along with that building a large number of other buildings would be taken down with it causing a catastrophe far greater than 911.

the first moon landing
didn't take a lot of do-overs.

LOL! The first moon landing nearly ended in disaster when the guidance computer had cascade failures and the pilot had to take over. The landing was finally accomplished with just seconds of fuel remaining.

Parts availability??? I have a hard time imagining a company not being willing to make and sell parts when that is typically more profitable than making and selling the actual product.

The full parts list for a wind generator can be VERY hard to secure for a 40-year life span.
How long has the builder been in business, do you think?

GE and Siemens? I believe they have been around a long, long time, no?

The GE division that makes wind generators? I hope they're better than the division that made my
fridge, and had (at 12 years) out-of-stock on the starter component (which was easy to get from
eBay, or Whirlpool, but really, GE claims to support all their appliances for 20 years).
Siemens used to make Osram incandescent light bulbs, didn't they? The one for my desk lamp
is no longer available (from China there are replacements, but they fail very quickly, and
the 'halogen' recrystallization features is not apparent).

So, you found two examples of manufacturers that both DO NOT generally support their own
technology over the expected lifetimes of power generators (30-year bonds, so 30 -plus
design life).

LOL! I'm sorry your lamp went obsolete. I will send you my hanky to cry on.

Now, do you have anything useful to say?

--

Rick C.

-+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:19:21 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:18:48 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

.... I'd be willing to bet most wind and solar projects are fixed price, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays. These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

Smaller, simpler projects and different financing. If economics makes hydroelectric dams
and nuclear generation 'enormous', that's not a defect, just a feature.

No one cares that nuclear is large. The problem is the enormous COMPLEXITY.

Silly; if the complexity isn't inside one plant, it's outside, where electric grids grow more
complex as odd sites with large power (output or input) requirements are added.
Complexity isn't a way to differentiate between generation strategies.

the first moon landing
didn't take a lot of do-overs.

LOL! The first moon landing nearly ended in disaster when the guidance computer had cascade failures and the pilot had to take over. The landing was finally accomplished with just seconds of fuel remaining.

Yep, redundancy is wonderful.

It was designed in, and trained for, and it worked.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

> The people who would pay for building nuclear facilities are very risk adverse and so they don't want to build nuclear generation facilities.

Huh? Does that sentence make sense at all?

Investors choose what to invest in. People who 'would pay' are presumably investors.
Why would they invest, but not want to build?

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 3:11:07 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 2:19:21 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:18:48 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 12:52:25 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

.... I'd be willing to bet most wind and solar projects are fixed price, so if they cost more than they should, it is the contractor who pays.. These projects are much, much simpler to design and construct than the enormous complexity and severity of the issues involved in building nukes.

Smaller, simpler projects and different financing. If economics makes hydroelectric dams
and nuclear generation 'enormous', that's not a defect, just a feature.

No one cares that nuclear is large. The problem is the enormous COMPLEXITY.

Silly; if the complexity isn't inside one plant, it's outside, where electric grids grow more
complex as odd sites with large power (output or input) requirements are added.
Complexity isn't a way to differentiate between generation strategies.

I never said it was. Complexity means risk. The people who would pay for building nuclear facilities are very risk adverse and so they don't want to build nuclear generation facilities. The few that get started universally fall far behind schedule, run up costs by many billions and in the end become very difficult to operate profitably for the investors. Sooo... nuclear energy may be a great option in other respects, but if you can't get plants built because they aren't economically viable, there's no much point.

It's like the joke about the engineer, the chemist and the economist who were stranded on a desert island with nothing to eat but coconuts. A crate from the shipwreck washed up. Inside the find cans of food. The engineer says they can rub sticks together to make a fire and heat the cans until the explode... but it will throw too much of the food onto the ground. The chemist says they can soak the cans in the sea water and they will rust open.... but the food will be spoiled by the salt and the rust. The economist says, assume we have a can opener...

To say nuclear power is a good energy source we need to say... assume we have financing...

In other words, give it up and try looking at renewable energy sources with an open mind. They are at the point where they make sense not not environmentally, but economically.

-- mic drop --

--

Rick C.

-++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 5:44:34 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, October 17, 2019 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

The people who would pay for building nuclear facilities are very risk adverse and so they don't want to build nuclear generation facilities.

Huh? Does that sentence make sense at all?

Investors choose what to invest in. People who 'would pay' are presumably investors.
Why would they invest, but not want to build?

Who "would"... not who "do".

Too much risk, so they DON'T invest. That's why we see so few nuclear power plants being built.

--

Rick C.

-+++ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209