Does nuclear power cost massive billion gov subsidies?

[gmax137]

...For perspective, Palo Verde NGS in Arizona had to bring its new reactor from Korea, I believe, by ship to Mexico and then overland. Hugely expensive...

This is almost complete rubbish. PVNGS doesn't have any 'new reactor,' rather, the steam generators were replaced. Those units were manufactured by Ansaldo in Milan, Italy, not in Korea. Yes, they were hauled overland through Mexico. Hugely expensive? I don't know how much of the cost went into transport, but I suspect it wasn't a 'huge' proportion of the total fabrication cost. And it probably wasn't a lot more than the transport cost of the original SGs, which were built in Chattanooga. There is no river or barge canal to Buckeye, AZ, so hauling overland is required no matter where they are built.

 

[QuantumPion]

Dry storage casks are manufactured overseas (Japan, Germany) and shipped to plants all over the country on a regular basis. And they are quite large, comparable to a reactor vessel.

 

[mheslep]

Infrastructure costs. The US does not have any existing capacity to build commercial reactors.

I believe that's largely overstated. The lack of capacity as I understand it extends only to the large steel casting for the reactor vessel itself, a significant but still small fraction of the entire nuclear facility.

Given the much lower reported nuclear plant costs in China, I attribute much of the US high costs to regulatory hurdles, legal challenges,and a lack of a coordinated waste containment plan, all of which delay and extend US plant concept-to-production time out over ten years.

 

[talk2glenn]

This is almost complete rubbish. PVNGS doesn't have any 'new reactor,' rather, the steam generators were replaced. Those units were manufactured by Ansaldo in Milan, Italy, not in Korea. Yes, they were hauled overland through Mexico. Hugely expensive? I don't know how much of the cost went into transport, but I suspect it wasn't a 'huge' proportion of the total fabrication cost. And it probably wasn't a lot more than the transport cost of the original SGs, which were built in Chattanooga. There is no river or barge canal to Buckeye, AZ, so hauling overland is required no matter where they are built.

You are correct; it was steam generators, not reactors, that were shipped from Milan for Palo Verde. But the Koreans contributed reactor vessel heads for a separate project, not the reactors themselves - sorry for the mistake. And even if you could make them here, the steel is all over the world (Pittsburgh isn't what it once was), which creates its own set of problems.

My point still stands - nobody can make either the reactors or the supporting structures domestically. The cost of shipping them, importing them, licensing them etcetera is extremely high (practically prohibitive). It would be substantially cheaper to acquire them domestically, or even from the Canadians, but the startup costs are a huge entry barrier unless you can guarantee significant long-term demand.

This is a huge part of the startup costs in any new site construction, and was a controversial aspect of the Palo Verde expansion project at the time it first crossed the AZ Corporation Commission. Given the industrial scale of nuclear projects, they may not be practical in the post-Industrial US without dramatic circumstance changes.

 

[QuantumPion]

You are correct; it was steam generators, not reactors, that were shipped from Milan for Palo Verde. But the Koreans contributed reactor vessel heads for a separate project, not the reactors themselves - sorry for the mistake. And even if you could make them here, the steel is all over the world (Pittsburgh isn't what it once was), which creates its own set of problems.

My point still stands - nobody can make either the reactors or the supporting structures domestically. The cost of shipping them, importing them, licensing them etcetera is extremely high (practically prohibitive). It would be substantially cheaper to acquire them domestically, or even from the Canadians, but the startup costs are a huge entry barrier unless you can guarantee significant long-term demand.

This is a huge part of the startup costs in any new site construction, and was a controversial aspect of the Palo Verde expansion project at the time it first crossed the AZ Corporation Commission. Given the industrial scale of nuclear projects, they may not be practical in the post-Industrial US without dramatic circumstance changes.

I'm sorry but you are flat out wrong. We ship large components overseas all the time, the cost is not prohibitive and is in no way the limiting factor for new plant construction. My bet is that when new plant construction starts, they would actually prefer to buy a vessel from e.g. Japan whom already has the facilities and the experience making vessels, as opposed to being the first customer of a brand new domestic supplier. The wait time for the manufacture of a vessel can add a delay to the plant construction time but this is already taken into account in the planning stages.

The major limiting factor to new plant construction right now are economic factors. No one is in a hurry to build a multi-billion dollar nuke plant when electricity demand is stable and natural gas is so cheap. Furthermore there is all of the uncertainty in the economy, and in the spent fuel issue as well.

 

[mheslep]

You are correct; it was steam generators, not reactors, that were shipped from Milan for Palo Verde. But the Koreans contributed reactor vessel heads for a separate project, not the reactors themselves - sorry for the mistake. And even if you could make them here, the steel is all over the world (Pittsburgh isn't what it once was), which creates its own set of problems.

My point still stands - nobody can make either the reactors or the supporting structures domestically. The cost of shipping them, importing them, licensing them etcetera is extremely high (practically prohibitive). It would be substantially cheaper to acquire them domestically, or even from the Canadians, but the startup costs are a huge entry barrier unless you can guarantee significant long-term demand.

This is a huge part of the startup costs in any new site construction, and was a controversial aspect of the Palo Verde expansion project at the time it first crossed the AZ Corporation Commission. Given the industrial scale of nuclear projects, they may not be practical in the post-Industrial US without dramatic circumstance changes.

Talk2glenn, when you make a mistake it would help your argument and the discussion in general if you went in the direction of additional support via reliable sources instead of more unsupported adjectives and superlatives ('all over', 'nobody', 'extremely high', 'huge', 'dramatic')

 

[Astronuc]

Here is an attempt at establish a cost of a new plant.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

The numbers may have been OK 8 or 10 years ago, but new plants are running about $5-7 billion per unit, and probably closer to $7 billion.

As far as I know, the licensing cost is less than 1% of the plant cost. On the other hand, all of the components are fabricated under a QC/QA system that is more rigorous than typical commercial goods, and hence the components are costly. Of course, we're asking for essentially zero failures - just like we want zero failures in jet engines, landing gear, bridges, dams, and other critical systems.

To my knowledge, AREVA and probably Shaw/Westinghouse are planning to qualify US facilities for N-stamp heavy forgings.

 

[mheslep]

Here is an attempt at establish a cost of a new plant.

http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower

The numbers may have been OK 8 or 10 years ago, but new plants are running about $5-7 billion per unit, and probably closer to $7 billion.

As far as I know, the licensing cost is less than 1% of the plant cost.

If we credit the licensing, regulatory and legal challenge environment for pushing the concept to operation period to ten years, the construction period from 3 to 7 years (as detailed in the Case charts in the above source), we see that the resulting extended periods are responsible for a large fraction of overall cost, in part due to the long term financing required.

 

[Astronuc]

If we credit the licensing, regulatory and legal challenge environment for pushing the concept to operation period to ten years, the construction period from 3 to 7 years (as detailed in the Case charts in the above source), we see that the resulting extended periods are responsible for a large fraction of overall cost, in part due to the long term financing required.

The cost of licensing is somewhat difficult to allocate to a specific unit, except for the unit specific application.

A new reactor design, e.g., AP1000, EPR, ABWR is certified (licensed) by the NRC. The vendor and maybe utilities in a user/affinity group bear the cost (it's basically R&D overhead). The DOE may kick in some money. The NSSS wants to recoup that expense ASAP.

Then there is the specific ESP (site specific) and COL (unit specific). Those are borne by the utility.

From what I've seen, the cost of steel, concrete and energy has driven up the cost of materials, and that has contributed to a substantial increase in the cost of plants. Of course, labor costs are considerable too.

It is hoped that new plants will be built in about 5 years or 60 months, but we've already seen problems with EPR in France and Finland. The cost of the twin ABWRs at STNP has risen dramatically, and AFAIK now stands at around $14 billion or $7B/unit, up from about $10B or $5B/unit, which was up from earlier estimates.

Vogtle 3&4 are on track - but time will tell. Other potential units, Levy 1&2, have been deferred based on cost.
Progress ups Levy nuclear plant costs, delays start (May 6, 2010)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0611303620100506
Levy to cost $17.2 billion to $22.5 billion
That's not going to fly.

 

[mheslep]

From what I've seen, the cost of steel, concrete and energy has driven up the cost of materials, and that has contributed to a substantial increase in the cost of plants.

Yes, though not as much as two years ago. Regardless, the price of those commodities is global, yet the new plant costs in Asia are a fraction of what it is here. Labor of course will have local costs.

Vogtle 3&4 are on track - but time will tell.

My point above was that, if we asked the Vogtle developers, "Aside from design and land, are you expenditures so far simply the licensing fees paid to the NRC?". The answer is of course no. I'm aware they had at least one time consuming legal challenge already from something like "The Concerned Women of Georgia". That challenge had to be heard, for some ridiculous reason, by the NRC. Through delays like this the developer must have no choice but to keep designers and related staff on hand, available to support and monitor the NRC proceedings, though there's no actual real progress possible in the new plant.

Progress ups Levy nuclear plant costs, delays start (May 6, 2010)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0611303620100506
Levy to cost $17.2 billion to $22.5 billion
That's not going to fly.

Agreed

 

[gmax137]

... But the Koreans contributed reactor vessel heads for a separate project, not the reactors themselves - sorry for the mistake ...

The cost of shipping them, importing them, licensing them etcetera is extremely high (practically prohibitive). It would be substantially cheaper to acquire them domestically, or even from the Canadians, but the startup costs are a huge entry barrier unless you can guarantee significant long-term demand.

This is a huge part of the startup costs in any new site construction, and was a controversial aspect of the Palo Verde expansion project at the time it first crossed the AZ Corporation Commission ...

I don't want to yammer on about this (the shipping issue), but you should really take a look at some of the big stuff that gets moved. Take a look at the website for outfits like Fagioli or Bigge. Their business is moving really big things, and some of them are thousands of tons, compared to hundreds of tons for NSSS components.

With respect to the reactor vessel heads, take a look at the blurb about the Salem head here:

http://www.fagioli.com/multimedia/newsletter/newsletter_02.pdf

The head was shipped - by air - then hauled from the airport to the Salem site. Yes, an Antonov 124 is a big plane, but still. Shipping is not as big a part of the project as you seem to think.

 

[Astronuc]

Speaking of large forgings, there's a qualified shop in Delaware.
http://www.amerindustrial.com/press1.htm

AIT manufactures pressure vessels and tanks for the nuclear power industry, petrochemical industry, national laboratories, and more industries. With over 30 years of experience, we are experts in the design, engineering, and manufacturing of ASME Code Pressure Vessels and Tanks. We can roll, machine, and fabricate heavy pressure vessels up to 80 tons in weight per piece.

In a recent add in Nuclear News, they mention the capability for 400+ Ton fabrications with diameters exceeding 30 feet and length of 130 feet.

The have the ASME Section III N stamp.