You will have to give me 10,000 to 1. Trump is a strong believer in fossil and has a short term focus, which is not necessarily bad. AFAIK, only two people in the new administration have said anything good about nuclear. That is Wright and Ramaswamy.
And only Ramaswamy has proposed getting rid of the NRC. Oops. Seems Ramaswamy has been shouldered out by a battery salesman. Make that 50,000 to 1.
The Canadian experience was a little different than the US. The Canadian regulator, the CNSC, was possibly less prescriptive than the NRC. The CNSC accepted that the early reactors like Pickering worked adequately. However, the CNSC became more and more unaccepting of new designs of components or systems. For example when Darlington tried to introduce a computer based shut down system, to replace a relay based hardware system, it became a billion dollar plus exercise. Everyone agreed this was a great idea, but try to get it accepted. People that went through the process stated they never wanted to do that again. Pickering got the rights and parts to rebuild a 1965 era large scale computer instead of replacing it with a tiny cheap computer because that was overall cheaper. This process of demanding ever increasing levels of QA and testing on new developments meant reactors could not take advantage of learning curves. In the end (2000-2007) we could not get a 10 MW thermal pool type reactor licensed.
Of course not. It would be superfluous and counterproductive. Nobody's going to spend $30 million on a immense highttemp, high pressure component without carefully testing it. All the hydrocracker vessel welds are 100% radiographed to ASMe standards.
An N-stamp just means the vendor has established and maintained an immense amount of paperwork. It says next to nothing about the components. Remember Shaw Industries had three N-stamps and the modules they manufactured for Vogtle and VC Summer were crap.
I'm curious, have you read the ETI Nuclear Cost Drivers study?
The authors claim learning curve effects in Japan, Korea, and China. However, I have spoken to some of the authors, and it seems most of that effect is due to building on the same site (what you call mobilization) versus across sites. They also attribute learning effects to long-term, politically-supported fleet programs in those countries, which certainly seems plausible, if not common sense. But such fleet programs also benefit from the regulatory certainty and dirigisme that you have written about previously. The US didn't need such a fleet program in the early days when the regulatory environment was favorable, and it outperformed all of these follow-on countries.
I have. It's mostly motherhood and projections. There is no statistical analysis of Japan, Korea, and China. There is no Figure 2. Just claims.
The exception is their analysis of Barakah. But they offer no backup for how they allocated total project costs across the four plants. This was a very high mobilization cost project. There was a one time cost associated with the first nuclear plant in a country and the setting up of the regualtory apparat which nuclear is deemed to require. There are some large unconventional, "commissions" required to do business inthe Middle east. Most of that money is spent up front. OK, allocate it to the first plant if you want. But their allocation is nearly a straight line decrease between each plant. That smells artificial to me.
At the end of the day.Barakah with all its special problems came in at around $3700/kW.
At the end of the day, Vogtle 3/4 came in at over $15.000/kW. No learning curve can explain that difference.
I can assure you fusion is nuclear. The difference is fusion, unlike fission, is not self-sustaining which means you must recycle most of your electricity back into the process. This has critical economic implications. Pls see
I said it was deemed non-nuclear by the “powers that be”. Also, it is hoped that the “net energy” of proton/ B11 fusion will be demonstrated in the next year. Still a long way to go, yet.
Fantastic post. Hey, given all these recent EOs, what’s your wager that this administration actually cuts the Gordian Knot?
Horseman,
You will have to give me 10,000 to 1. Trump is a strong believer in fossil and has a short term focus, which is not necessarily bad. AFAIK, only two people in the new administration have said anything good about nuclear. That is Wright and Ramaswamy.
And only Ramaswamy has proposed getting rid of the NRC. Oops. Seems Ramaswamy has been shouldered out by a battery salesman. Make that 50,000 to 1.
great article.
The Canadian experience was a little different than the US. The Canadian regulator, the CNSC, was possibly less prescriptive than the NRC. The CNSC accepted that the early reactors like Pickering worked adequately. However, the CNSC became more and more unaccepting of new designs of components or systems. For example when Darlington tried to introduce a computer based shut down system, to replace a relay based hardware system, it became a billion dollar plus exercise. Everyone agreed this was a great idea, but try to get it accepted. People that went through the process stated they never wanted to do that again. Pickering got the rights and parts to rebuild a 1965 era large scale computer instead of replacing it with a tiny cheap computer because that was overall cheaper. This process of demanding ever increasing levels of QA and testing on new developments meant reactors could not take advantage of learning curves. In the end (2000-2007) we could not get a 10 MW thermal pool type reactor licensed.
Extraordinarily well said and well explained. Even I can understand it.
I'd thought PWR pressure vessels were uniquely difficult to manufacture! But there's a hydrocracker supply chain. I wonder of it is N-stamped?
Of course not. It would be superfluous and counterproductive. Nobody's going to spend $30 million on a immense highttemp, high pressure component without carefully testing it. All the hydrocracker vessel welds are 100% radiographed to ASMe standards.
An N-stamp just means the vendor has established and maintained an immense amount of paperwork. It says next to nothing about the components. Remember Shaw Industries had three N-stamps and the modules they manufactured for Vogtle and VC Summer were crap.
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/nuclear-quality-the-ap1000-modules
All an N-stamp does is protect the holders from competition which allows their quality to deteriorate.
Thanks, Jack.
I'm curious, have you read the ETI Nuclear Cost Drivers study?
The authors claim learning curve effects in Japan, Korea, and China. However, I have spoken to some of the authors, and it seems most of that effect is due to building on the same site (what you call mobilization) versus across sites. They also attribute learning effects to long-term, politically-supported fleet programs in those countries, which certainly seems plausible, if not common sense. But such fleet programs also benefit from the regulatory certainty and dirigisme that you have written about previously. The US didn't need such a fleet program in the early days when the regulatory environment was favorable, and it outperformed all of these follow-on countries.
Power,
I have. It's mostly motherhood and projections. There is no statistical analysis of Japan, Korea, and China. There is no Figure 2. Just claims.
The exception is their analysis of Barakah. But they offer no backup for how they allocated total project costs across the four plants. This was a very high mobilization cost project. There was a one time cost associated with the first nuclear plant in a country and the setting up of the regualtory apparat which nuclear is deemed to require. There are some large unconventional, "commissions" required to do business inthe Middle east. Most of that money is spent up front. OK, allocate it to the first plant if you want. But their allocation is nearly a straight line decrease between each plant. That smells artificial to me.
At the end of the day.Barakah with all its special problems came in at around $3700/kW.
At the end of the day, Vogtle 3/4 came in at over $15.000/kW. No learning curve can explain that difference.
Fair enough, though I have read Barakah was closer to $4,500/kW.
Very nicely argued - a great obvious insight that is still - well not obviously understood- great work
Fortunately, the work on aneutronic fusion
Reactors has finally been ruled as “non-nuclear”.
This may save the SMR market in 10 years or so. See LPP Fusion, for concept.
Meredith,
I can assure you fusion is nuclear. The difference is fusion, unlike fission, is not self-sustaining which means you must recycle most of your electricity back into the process. This has critical economic implications. Pls see
https://jackdevanney.substack.com/p/the-trouble-with-fusion
I said it was deemed non-nuclear by the “powers that be”. Also, it is hoped that the “net energy” of proton/ B11 fusion will be demonstrated in the next year. Still a long way to go, yet.