I was working on a piece on what nuclear should-cost and why, when some disturbing news came across my desk. In the Flop book I argue that military style procurement results in ships that cost thirty times what they should. It appears the US nuclear is now up to one third of that multiplier.
Please always link to original articles. I have found "Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor" and it is even cited figure seems to assume rosy assumptions.
They assume 2% inflation and claim that it is due to material inflation over past two years (along with some numbers) and finally financing costs (interest rates are rising).
It appears there is a complete misunderstanding as to how big projects should be organised. Rather than enable innovators and entrepreneurs to get on with spending their money, or money they have borrowed, governments feel it is for them to guess what is wanted and dictate the requirements - when they (politicians and civil servants) have no actual understanding of how business works, and they also put utterly onerous legal or technical burdens onto new tech (especially anything perceived as dangerous ie nuclear). Levelling the playing field for energy, by putting the same burdens onto the all power providers - whether it be waste management or pollution - is a much better and, in the medium term, cheaper option.
And the specific requirements should be supply reliable electricity, 24/7/365. That is what we need.
Don't necessarily remove regulations associated with nuclear, just apply similar regulations to the other energy suppliers BUT separate the licensing body from the safety body - if they are one body (as at the moment) the 'safety' aspect will always trump the 'licensing' aspect, certainly for new and improved designs, and as one body, there is only down-side for them, to allowing a new design through, as if it 'goes wrong', the body is blamed, but they get none of the credit when all goes well.
Jack's Thorcon is Gen4 and is pushing well below $2k/kW capex, and that is where we need to be. Pressurised water SMRs like NuScale aren't Gen4 reactors.
As far as Gen3/3+ goes, I expect the UAE's KEPCO/Barakah figures to set the (new) "new benchmark" for G3 reactor builds. That is 4 reactors built in 11 years, 5.4GWe total, cost $25B. They have 3 of the 4 commercial already with the 4th finished and due this year. No reason to suspect otherwise, so the numbers, albeit G3, are good indeed by recent comparable completions (excluding perhaps China).
Given the insane cost of electricity now, the UAE is on a huge winner. Compared to Jack’s chart above, Barakah is $4,650/kW (capex) and an average build time of 8 years each. And, they will have completed 4 in 11 years at $6.25B each. Not bad for Gen3 technology and really decimates the LW-SMR cost pitch.
But it is the Gen4 reactors - specifically the MSRs like Thorcon - that will be the game changers. From their website, Thorcon intends to be able to build and deliver 20GWe per year per "factory" at less than $2k/kW ! By any comparison, that is astonishing. Why isn't the US pouring billions into this technology?
PS being lazy today, my source for Barakah data is wiki.
Well said. More competition is needed throughout the energy sector. (And the health sector.)
This is baffling to me. What is the point of their SMR then?
9.3 billion for a swimming pool? These guys must be trying to recoup all of their development costs in a single build?
I never thought Nuscale would make an AP1000 look like a bargain.
Please always link to original articles. I have found "Eye-popping new cost estimates released for NuScale small modular reactor" and it is even cited figure seems to assume rosy assumptions.
They assume 2% inflation and claim that it is due to material inflation over past two years (along with some numbers) and finally financing costs (interest rates are rising).
It appears there is a complete misunderstanding as to how big projects should be organised. Rather than enable innovators and entrepreneurs to get on with spending their money, or money they have borrowed, governments feel it is for them to guess what is wanted and dictate the requirements - when they (politicians and civil servants) have no actual understanding of how business works, and they also put utterly onerous legal or technical burdens onto new tech (especially anything perceived as dangerous ie nuclear). Levelling the playing field for energy, by putting the same burdens onto the all power providers - whether it be waste management or pollution - is a much better and, in the medium term, cheaper option.
And the specific requirements should be supply reliable electricity, 24/7/365. That is what we need.
Don't necessarily remove regulations associated with nuclear, just apply similar regulations to the other energy suppliers BUT separate the licensing body from the safety body - if they are one body (as at the moment) the 'safety' aspect will always trump the 'licensing' aspect, certainly for new and improved designs, and as one body, there is only down-side for them, to allowing a new design through, as if it 'goes wrong', the body is blamed, but they get none of the credit when all goes well.
Seems like government, the servant, hates competition.
Jack's Thorcon is Gen4 and is pushing well below $2k/kW capex, and that is where we need to be. Pressurised water SMRs like NuScale aren't Gen4 reactors.
As far as Gen3/3+ goes, I expect the UAE's KEPCO/Barakah figures to set the (new) "new benchmark" for G3 reactor builds. That is 4 reactors built in 11 years, 5.4GWe total, cost $25B. They have 3 of the 4 commercial already with the 4th finished and due this year. No reason to suspect otherwise, so the numbers, albeit G3, are good indeed by recent comparable completions (excluding perhaps China).
Given the insane cost of electricity now, the UAE is on a huge winner. Compared to Jack’s chart above, Barakah is $4,650/kW (capex) and an average build time of 8 years each. And, they will have completed 4 in 11 years at $6.25B each. Not bad for Gen3 technology and really decimates the LW-SMR cost pitch.
But it is the Gen4 reactors - specifically the MSRs like Thorcon - that will be the game changers. From their website, Thorcon intends to be able to build and deliver 20GWe per year per "factory" at less than $2k/kW ! By any comparison, that is astonishing. Why isn't the US pouring billions into this technology?
PS being lazy today, my source for Barakah data is wiki.
I suspect that this outrageous scandal might have greater impact if you confine the numbers to
CAPEX, and eliminate the powers-of-ten prefixes, kilo, mega and terra. Reactor CAPEX can and
should be 2$/W or less. The vertical axis in the plot from Lovering might be converted to $/W.
All the best, Art
We're not nuclear experts.
But it seems to us that new Nu technology requires a new NRC/CFR or else we end up with "NuScale" absurd costs/kwh and times to construct.
Absurdly simple. In concept only.