One common and plausible argument against nuclear power is that it is too slow. The evidence offered is recent interminable builds in the US and Europe, Table 1. But is this inherent in the technology? The American Disaster In the USA, Figure 1 prior to 1966, the build times were 4 years or less, with two exceptions. Fermi 1 was a one off, a sodium cooled, fast breeder, basically an experimental reactor, in which the core overheated due to a last minute safety add to prevent a problem that later was proven impossible. The plant was shut down for four years to correct this. I do not know what went wrong at Indian Point 1.
"Those who are betting on the learning curve to markedly reduce current exorbitant nuclear costs and interminable build times, are very likely to be disappointed."
I take it you don't think SMR technologies will change that outlook ... presumably including the Thorcon concept.
It's a pity you couldn't get to the end of the article without insulting the people who actually do the work of building nuclear power stations. "EDF is a monopoly, beset by strong unions". "Beset" is a weasel word here and implies that nuclear power stations can only be built if the people who put in the work are not allowed to have meaningful input concerning their pay and condition. I'll bet you are a real fan of the way the workers who built the facilities for the Oman World Cup venue were treated!
It is very slow, but that's not the technology's fault. It could be much faster with regulatory reform and actual urgency and a real program of building multiple plants of the same kind in a row so that workforces and suppliers could go up learning curves and tool up.
Instead, if you don't build something for decades, you have few people trained, you forget past learnings because those people retire, you have to re-make old mistakes all over again, etc.
It's a policy question, it's a question of deciding to do it. But the tech isn't inherently anywhere near as slow as it is in the current context. China is building dozens of reactors, as did the French and US back when they had the will, back when they had slide rules.
In 1983 I hired a dozen former Bechtel engineers as contract and put them at Pontiac motors. They had all worked on nuclear power plants where the spec called for every single component to undergo finite element analysis. The told me a story.
A new design for a double walled containment vessel was put forward. the four inch gap between the walls was filled with a sheet of rubber. The trouble is that computer programs of the day could not deal with non-linear analysis. A sheet of rubber is modeled as a spring in compression but it does nothing as the vibrating walls move apart. Non-linear.
The plant could not be certified because they could not do a computer analysis of the rubber. Now any engineer would tell you that putting rubber between two rigid sheets would definitely improve the dynamic response of the containment vessel. But, because it could not be modeled they cut a big hole in the reinforced concrete wall and pulled the rubber sheet out.
A major problem is needing to move highly skilled workers to typically unattractive remote/isolated locations for extended construction periods. That worked OK 40-60 years back with single income families. But with dual income families it's a lot harder. Also from the 80's on we adopted an incredibly onerous approach to safety in the west (Chernobyl) and elevated the power of Nimbys. It's particularly a problem in Nuclear, but extends to essentially all new infrastructure development now - which has become nearly unaffordable throughout the west, with armies of shiny-arsed safety-elves outnumbering actual workers in many instances.
Factory or shipyard built modular reactors are the obvious solution - remove the labour issues and standardize design to reduce the regulatory burden. But what matters more than anything is political will to override Nimby impediments and (mostly) self-serving bureaucratic regulatory barriers that aren't actually making the world a usefully better or safer place. The global economic, climate and increased energy sector deaths (other generation is more dangerous) that come from making nuclear uneconomic being far higher than any insignificant 'safety' improvement delivered. Nuclear power has killed a miniscule number of people in the last 30 years compared to other types of power generation.
And Indian point 3 has been retired. One less operational facility.
SONGS 1 ~500MW built in just over 3 years- IN CALIFORNIA. Can you even imagine that today?!?
"Those who are betting on the learning curve to markedly reduce current exorbitant nuclear costs and interminable build times, are very likely to be disappointed."
I take it you don't think SMR technologies will change that outlook ... presumably including the Thorcon concept.
Not without a complete change in regulatory philosophy. That's why ThorCon had to go overseas.
But this site is not about ThorCon, and I will not respond to any questions about ThorCon here.
Very nice review
Jack, you've nailed it. So what is the hold up with Thorcon?
It seems someone like Elon Musk is needed to see progress
It's a pity you couldn't get to the end of the article without insulting the people who actually do the work of building nuclear power stations. "EDF is a monopoly, beset by strong unions". "Beset" is a weasel word here and implies that nuclear power stations can only be built if the people who put in the work are not allowed to have meaningful input concerning their pay and condition. I'll bet you are a real fan of the way the workers who built the facilities for the Oman World Cup venue were treated!
It is very slow, but that's not the technology's fault. It could be much faster with regulatory reform and actual urgency and a real program of building multiple plants of the same kind in a row so that workforces and suppliers could go up learning curves and tool up.
Instead, if you don't build something for decades, you have few people trained, you forget past learnings because those people retire, you have to re-make old mistakes all over again, etc.
It's a policy question, it's a question of deciding to do it. But the tech isn't inherently anywhere near as slow as it is in the current context. China is building dozens of reactors, as did the French and US back when they had the will, back when they had slide rules.
In 1983 I hired a dozen former Bechtel engineers as contract and put them at Pontiac motors. They had all worked on nuclear power plants where the spec called for every single component to undergo finite element analysis. The told me a story.
A new design for a double walled containment vessel was put forward. the four inch gap between the walls was filled with a sheet of rubber. The trouble is that computer programs of the day could not deal with non-linear analysis. A sheet of rubber is modeled as a spring in compression but it does nothing as the vibrating walls move apart. Non-linear.
The plant could not be certified because they could not do a computer analysis of the rubber. Now any engineer would tell you that putting rubber between two rigid sheets would definitely improve the dynamic response of the containment vessel. But, because it could not be modeled they cut a big hole in the reinforced concrete wall and pulled the rubber sheet out.
A major problem is needing to move highly skilled workers to typically unattractive remote/isolated locations for extended construction periods. That worked OK 40-60 years back with single income families. But with dual income families it's a lot harder. Also from the 80's on we adopted an incredibly onerous approach to safety in the west (Chernobyl) and elevated the power of Nimbys. It's particularly a problem in Nuclear, but extends to essentially all new infrastructure development now - which has become nearly unaffordable throughout the west, with armies of shiny-arsed safety-elves outnumbering actual workers in many instances.
Factory or shipyard built modular reactors are the obvious solution - remove the labour issues and standardize design to reduce the regulatory burden. But what matters more than anything is political will to override Nimby impediments and (mostly) self-serving bureaucratic regulatory barriers that aren't actually making the world a usefully better or safer place. The global economic, climate and increased energy sector deaths (other generation is more dangerous) that come from making nuclear uneconomic being far higher than any insignificant 'safety' improvement delivered. Nuclear power has killed a miniscule number of people in the last 30 years compared to other types of power generation.
Yet climate doomists continue to trot out this trope, supporting (I can't even say indirectly) the coal industry.