Figure 1. CAPEX for 1 GW plant. Nominal cost up 32 times. Real cost up 13 times, 1972 to 1983 completion date.\cite{crowley-1982} People find it difficult to believe that Navy/NRC style regulation can increase the cost of anything by multiples, by factors of five or ten. The thinking is: sure regulatory inefficiencies can increase costs by 25% or maybe even 50%, but not much more. And such cost increases may be acceptable in return for more "safety".
started to read your certification link but have to come back to it later.
But initial questions on Fed Role:
why #4 on military protection? what is the context or environment for this?
and perhaps I am a little fuzzy on guessing/ understanding why #2 on C tax is needed/ desired? Eventually force comparison to renewables & moving away from fossil fuels (even if CO2 is not a GHG contributor of any substance?
Excellent explanation !! Perhaps you could add one specific example for illustration. Here is one I encountered at Lawrence Lab. We needed an optical filter with a spec that probably couldn't be met, but we put it out for bid anyway. I wrote a brief RFQ. Our purchasing department drew up blueprints and many pages of specs, lots of detail on the bevel of the edges, etc. I put a circle around the one critical spec and added a note with my phone number - Call me if any questions. That got my first reprimand. The purchasing agent called me into his office and told me I should let him do his job. This was my first year at LLL, and I didn't want to rock any boats, so I let him delete my note. Sure enough, the parts arrived two months later, beautifully machined, no doubt to great precision. I took one to the lab and saw that they had ignored my one important spec. I could not sign that the parts met spec. This went round and round for about two months, at one point my boss chewing me out. I think eventually someone in purchasing signed the acceptance and the vendor got paid. The parts went to surplus at Camp Parks, a total waste of taxpayer money.
Nor having to take responsibility for lack of communication with the vendor. The purchasing division was under an entirely separate bureaucracy, all the way up to the Regents of the University of California. Lead times on an order were typically three months, which led to a lot of "just in case we might need it" orders. We had to submit our requests through a window with a sign "Your lack of planning is not our problem."
Citing specific examples without knowing the details is dangerous. But Lochbaum claims that about 1990, the Susquehanna plant installed a fifth 4000 kW emergency diesel generator at a cost of 100 million (1990) dollars.\cite{lochbaum-169} This generator was a backup to a backup. Lochbaum was a UCS employee at the time, but he usually had his facts right.
In 2000 in Korea, the cost of a marine diesel generator of this size was about 1.2 million dollars.
Darlington was the first commercial reactor that was fully computer controlled, including the safety systems. The quality assurance for the operating systems, which had been running these computers for years, did not meet with the regulator's approval. The project delay to re-qualify the software cost well over $1 billion. There were no significant errors found during the software re-qualification.
One problem with citing specific examples is that it suggests that the system is fixable. Just avoid this or that silliness. That cannot be done. The tragic silliness is built into a system which gives unbridled control to people whose incentives are quite different from society's.
[I see from a more recent comment that you know all this but did not live in a favorable environment ... ]
I came to respect the role of good procurement agents in my defense contractor employment, as they were there to help keep unnecessary objections from being filed during/after award. They had to ensure requesters maintained neutrality during the selection process,, not favoring one vendor over another. But I agree an excessively bureaucratically oriented jerk would reduce their value (that value) greatly. He should have circled that item with HIS phone number and a comment if there were questions on this particular element, he would put the caller in (joint and monitored) contact with a suitable technical person (hopefully you). Then he could communicate the results of that query to all of the other contenders so all bids came in with a (more or less) "level playing field". In an ideal world ....
I've been saying that nuclear could be done in the USA at a quarter of the current cost. Clearly, I've been too pessimistic. (At least in principle. In the real world, regulators and activists may prevent us realizing most of those potential savings.)
Incentives!! Can't live with them; can't live without 'em - just like women. Trick is to find and pick the rights ones!! Basically an exercise in identifying and applying the (correct) external social impacts (externalities) to the direct generators of those externalities, and indirectly by extension to the consumers demanding mitigations or protections from those externalities. Honesty all around helps when it can be found.
From the 5/22 Cert link read:
I like your recommendations for local levels of control/influence. They could be abused, just like a local HOA full of jackwads. "But do you want 10 cents/KWHR electricity or $15 cents/KWHR electricity? You can build a new hospital two miles away, one even with a dedicated radiation assessment/ treatment ward, for the difference in cost."
one nit? from the 5/22 post: "The only requirement is the agreement is irrevocable for the life of the plant." I presume you mean pending open and honest renegotiation of terms? I am thinking there will be growth in cost numbers like taxes, but perhaps even new technology that local folks would prefer be implemented after initial startup? Even terms with inflation adjustments or similar might become out of date given our fiscal practices. :-(
Trying to better understand your prior post on dosages, cost reimbursements, etc., then are the units of evaluation mSv/day or mSV - person/days for an exposed population or some other metric?? Say: 3000 mSV-person days = 300 people exposed to 10 mSv/day, or some other combo thereof. More people at lower exposure gives them reduced insurance reimbursements vs. fewer people at higher dosages receiving greater $ amounts and more medical attention, etc.?? Concentric rings of sensors located at 200 yard ring spacings around the plant? How is that done now?
started to read your certification link but have to come back to it later.
But initial questions on Fed Role:
why #4 on military protection? what is the context or environment for this?
and perhaps I am a little fuzzy on guessing/ understanding why #2 on C tax is needed/ desired? Eventually force comparison to renewables & moving away from fossil fuels (even if CO2 is not a GHG contributor of any substance?
Thx.
Excellent explanation !! Perhaps you could add one specific example for illustration. Here is one I encountered at Lawrence Lab. We needed an optical filter with a spec that probably couldn't be met, but we put it out for bid anyway. I wrote a brief RFQ. Our purchasing department drew up blueprints and many pages of specs, lots of detail on the bevel of the edges, etc. I put a circle around the one critical spec and added a note with my phone number - Call me if any questions. That got my first reprimand. The purchasing agent called me into his office and told me I should let him do his job. This was my first year at LLL, and I didn't want to rock any boats, so I let him delete my note. Sure enough, the parts arrived two months later, beautifully machined, no doubt to great precision. I took one to the lab and saw that they had ignored my one important spec. I could not sign that the parts met spec. This went round and round for about two months, at one point my boss chewing me out. I think eventually someone in purchasing signed the acceptance and the vendor got paid. The parts went to surplus at Camp Parks, a total waste of taxpayer money.
And his job did not include having to pay for defective parts.
Nor having to take responsibility for lack of communication with the vendor. The purchasing division was under an entirely separate bureaucracy, all the way up to the Regents of the University of California. Lead times on an order were typically three months, which led to a lot of "just in case we might need it" orders. We had to submit our requests through a window with a sign "Your lack of planning is not our problem."
Unless you can anticipate all possible problems we will not help you.
Citing specific examples without knowing the details is dangerous. But Lochbaum claims that about 1990, the Susquehanna plant installed a fifth 4000 kW emergency diesel generator at a cost of 100 million (1990) dollars.\cite{lochbaum-169} This generator was a backup to a backup. Lochbaum was a UCS employee at the time, but he usually had his facts right.
In 2000 in Korea, the cost of a marine diesel generator of this size was about 1.2 million dollars.
Darlington was the first commercial reactor that was fully computer controlled, including the safety systems. The quality assurance for the operating systems, which had been running these computers for years, did not meet with the regulator's approval. The project delay to re-qualify the software cost well over $1 billion. There were no significant errors found during the software re-qualification.
One problem with citing specific examples is that it suggests that the system is fixable. Just avoid this or that silliness. That cannot be done. The tragic silliness is built into a system which gives unbridled control to people whose incentives are quite different from society's.
[I see from a more recent comment that you know all this but did not live in a favorable environment ... ]
I came to respect the role of good procurement agents in my defense contractor employment, as they were there to help keep unnecessary objections from being filed during/after award. They had to ensure requesters maintained neutrality during the selection process,, not favoring one vendor over another. But I agree an excessively bureaucratically oriented jerk would reduce their value (that value) greatly. He should have circled that item with HIS phone number and a comment if there were questions on this particular element, he would put the caller in (joint and monitored) contact with a suitable technical person (hopefully you). Then he could communicate the results of that query to all of the other contenders so all bids came in with a (more or less) "level playing field". In an ideal world ....
I've been saying that nuclear could be done in the USA at a quarter of the current cost. Clearly, I've been too pessimistic. (At least in principle. In the real world, regulators and activists may prevent us realizing most of those potential savings.)
Incentives!! Can't live with them; can't live without 'em - just like women. Trick is to find and pick the rights ones!! Basically an exercise in identifying and applying the (correct) external social impacts (externalities) to the direct generators of those externalities, and indirectly by extension to the consumers demanding mitigations or protections from those externalities. Honesty all around helps when it can be found.
From the 5/22 Cert link read:
I like your recommendations for local levels of control/influence. They could be abused, just like a local HOA full of jackwads. "But do you want 10 cents/KWHR electricity or $15 cents/KWHR electricity? You can build a new hospital two miles away, one even with a dedicated radiation assessment/ treatment ward, for the difference in cost."
one nit? from the 5/22 post: "The only requirement is the agreement is irrevocable for the life of the plant." I presume you mean pending open and honest renegotiation of terms? I am thinking there will be growth in cost numbers like taxes, but perhaps even new technology that local folks would prefer be implemented after initial startup? Even terms with inflation adjustments or similar might become out of date given our fiscal practices. :-(
Trying to better understand your prior post on dosages, cost reimbursements, etc., then are the units of evaluation mSv/day or mSV - person/days for an exposed population or some other metric?? Say: 3000 mSV-person days = 300 people exposed to 10 mSv/day, or some other combo thereof. More people at lower exposure gives them reduced insurance reimbursements vs. fewer people at higher dosages receiving greater $ amounts and more medical attention, etc.?? Concentric rings of sensors located at 200 yard ring spacings around the plant? How is that done now?
Am I over thinking it?