Electric cars: What do you think?

[member 656954]

Did it become clear what "same standards" means?

Not really, but that's okay. I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source, and based on Gallup, neither is the nation. It is a polarizing topic and as such, is unlikely to help us address climate change because the decision making process for nuclear plants is so drawn out.

 

[essenmein]

Not really, but that's okay. I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source, and based on Gallup, neither is the nation. It is a polarizing topic and as such, is unlikely to help us address climate change because the decision making process for nuclear plants is so drawn out.

It would be interesting to understand why.

Based on my current understanding of the utter inadequacy of intermittent renewables, an inadequacy that is borne from natural limits, not technological limits. Russ hit on it more succinctly perhaps than I was in my posts on the matter:

"No it won't: ignoring the intermittency problem is free; addressing it costs money. When forced to start addressing it, that will make solar/wind cost more, not less. "

Given that without dramatic reduction in quality of life inttermittent renewable are not going to work, then the only thing we have left in our tool box is fission. Its something that works right now, is scalable, and has entirely manageable waste stream (using breeders), it would be multi generational waste management, but it is management nonetheless. Remember this technology exists today, and with increased support would roll out quickly.

There are 4 SMR companies in Canada alone planning to have reactors coming on line in the next few years, and that is given today's climate of irrational nuclear fear.

I found this the other day and thought it was perfect:
"The first solar powered car was built in 1955. By 1982, just 27 years later, the first solar car had crossed Australia. They are still having competitions to drive solar cars around and across Australia. Typically carrying a single person. Compare nuclear submarines. The first idea for these was in 1939. In 1951 the first one was begun. By 1960 the first one had circumnavigated the planet underwater with a crew of 170. It's amazing how solar power can have such a long and stunning record of mediocrity and failure and still find advocates!"

 

[mfb]

and based on Gallup, neither is the nation

1/3 of them would vote to ban all atoms if you would ask them. People largely oppose nuclear power because they lack the knowledge to have an educated opinion and fear what they don't understand. Ask physics majors or anyone else who understands at least the basics of what nuclear power plants do and you get overwhelming support for nuclear power.

 

[essenmein]

And advocate for chemical free food.

 

[member 656954]

1/3 of them would vote to ban all atoms if you would ask them.

Is that true

Being serious, public opinion is only a minor impediment to atomic power. The main impediment is economic. It is difficult to cite a provisioned new plant that was close to on time and budget and easy to cite numerous where budgets were blown by large amounts or construction halted entirely. I'm not naive enough to expect any capital project of such size to run exactly to budget, but the literature shows doubling or more of investment - typically funded by taxpayers - and years and even approaching decades added to the build.

The economics are unlikely to change, and may even go backward, as suggested in a recent study which challenges previous assessments of nuclear cost benefits and concludes:

"Results suggest that the optimism reflected in previous works is fragile: More realistic nuclear waste management cost models and uncertainty-appropriate intergenerational discount rates produce many more scenarios in which nuclear waste management costs are higher than previously assumed. As a consequence, nuclear energy’s economic attractiveness as a low carbon energy option is appears to be lower than earlier works suggested."​

​

I understand that small modular reactors (SMRs) are intended to change the economics, but that's unproven and even if they can, deploying them in sufficient numbers to combat climate change is increasingly unlikely because we need them provisioned in the low thousands within fifteen years (the premise is that they displace coal plants and gas peakers) which seems very optimistic.

 

[mfb]

Is that true

I don't have numbers for atoms now (although I saw a report of ~1/3 a while ago) but:
Here is someone convincing 86% of chemistry students to ban water.
A TV show seriously covered high concentrations of water found in the water.
Ban foam cups because water is used for their production?
A New Zealand MP wanted to ban water.
Finns want to ban water.
Just because it was called dihydrogen monooxide and its (very real) dangers were pointed out.

Being serious, public opinion is only a minor impediment to atomic power. The main impediment is economic. It is difficult to cite a provisioned new plant that was close to on time and budget and easy to cite numerous where budgets were blown by large amounts or construction halted entirely. I'm not naive enough to expect any capital project of such size to run exactly to budget, but the literature shows doubling or more of investment - typically funded by taxpayers - and years and even approaching decades added to the build.

If you check what caused the delays and additional costs then you'll often find new regulations, lawsuits and so on, not issues with the construction itself.

because we need them provisioned in the low thousands within fifteen years (the premise is that they displace coal plants and gas peakers) which seems very optimistic.

Where would be the bottleneck?

 

[member 656954]

If you check what caused the delays and additional costs then you'll often find new regulations, lawsuits and so on, not issues with the construction itself.

There was a study (sorry, can't immediately find it) that concluded loss of skills because of the construction drought - as in, no new nukes for so long - did significantly contribute to delays and overruns as knowledge had to be relearned. The 1.6 GWe Flamanville 3 reactor in France was startup planned for 2013. It is not yet operating, and startup was recently postponed again due to welds that needed to be repaired, which is an example of the skills issue.

But imposed regulations etc. clearly do delay nuclear reactors.

Where would be the bottleneck?

Given that there are no working Gen IV SMRs, those regulations, lawsuits and so on, are the first bottleneck. Let's assume that we have demonstrated SMRs in 2025, which means "generating utility scale electricity" somewhere in the world. There is currently about 2,024,100 MWe from coal, so if an SMR is 300 MWe (and that's on the higher end of the scale for some of the proposed designs), we need to deploy over 6,000 to replace coal. So, 600 SMRs each year for a decade (I'm assuming an SMR is economically viable in all geographies).

That is a considerable ramp up of capability for any SMR manufacturer, let alone a number of them, and it is unlikely that all regions will be equally accepting of nuclear power in that five-year time frame, so it is a 'fits and starts' adoption curve.

Also, an accident or incident will scupper the market, and given that SMRs make nuclear more accessible, the likelihood of that is higher than with fewer, larger plants.

Of course, this is all supposition. NuScale is likely to be the first SMR deployed, and that will help answer some of the questions, including that most pressing of whether an SMR makes economic sense.

 

[gmax137]

I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source

That's OK with me. I have been having discussions like this during my entire 40 year career in commercial nuclear. I have almost never seen anyone change their opinion. Any more, I don't really care.

If you have an interest in these things, I hope you actually do something towards making progress in whatever way you see as best. Opinions from the sidelines won't solve our problems.

 

[essenmein]

There is currently about 2,024,100 MWe from coal, so if an SMR is 300 MWe (and that's on the higher end of the scale for some of the proposed designs), we need to deploy over 6,000 to replace coal. So, 600 SMRs each year for a decade (I'm assuming an SMR is economically viable in all geographies).

You might be starting to realize the gravity of the situation. 2TWe of coal today, needs to be replaced, but that is just electricity, not TPES. Globally electricity is ~18% of TPES, so basically you can multiply the problem by 5 just due to that. You've done the math for SMR, now consider the alternative.

In the US land use per MW rated capacity of wind turbine is about 3/4 acre, or about 1.3MW/acre. Note that is rated capacity (I assume this is basically name plate capacity), so add the capacity factor in, ~37% max for all US utility scale wind power (2018), means you get about 0.5MW/acre (For reference nuclear capacity factor in US in 2018 was 93%).

To replace coal we would need to build wind turbines covering a land area of 4,000,000 acres. 1 acre = 0.004km2, so that's about 16000km2, New Hampshire (US state) for comparison is 22000km2... The largest wind turbine is rated at ~12MW name plate (Haliade-X), these are 260m high with a rotor diameter of 220m, if all are off shore, capacity factor closer to 50%, then you'd need to make 350,000 of these turbines, if land based that number is closer to half a million turbines. That is a literal mountain of non recyclable toxic composite waste from the 110m turbine blades when they end of life.

I dare say building 6000 SMR reactors is much much easier than nearly half a million wind turbines, in nearly every respect, material resources, costs, land use etc etc.

Solar is even more hilarious:
Topaz 550MW (Cali):

Area = 19km2, average capacity factor = 26.6% (2015-2018), ie average output from this 550MW solar farm is 150MW.

You need to build TWO of these solar farms to replace ONE 300MW SMR, which you could fit into a reasonable sized basement. Shutting down Diablo canyon nuke plant (2GW), 2256MW name plate capacity, 87.2% capacity factor (life time) will need 13 of these solar farms to replace that power.

Then the fact that no one talks about those very real storage costs that will need to be considered if we want a reliable grid with nearly 100% renewable. IMO its obnoxious to price wind or solar power without those storage costs, its basically a classic bait and switch scam.

 

[Rive]

Then the fact that no one talks about those very real storage costs that will need to be considered if we want a reliable grid with nearly 100% renewable. IMO its obnoxious to price wind or solar power without those storage costs, its basically a classic bait and switch scam.

Well.

I think that the very active silence around the costs associated with intermittency (without storage even mentined) just alone is a scam, so we might need some more accurate words to express what that storage would be.

 

[gmax137]

we might need some more accurate words to express what that storage would be.

"storage" what storage? there is no storage today. there is the burning of "safe clean natural" gas.

 

[essenmein]

I don't have numbers for atoms now (although I saw a report of ~1/3 a while ago) but:
Here is someone convincing 86% of chemistry students to ban water.

The DHMO thing is absolute perfection:
"for those who have developed a dependency on DHMO, complete withdrawal means certain death."

Now have to clean up coffee.

 

[mfb]

"storage" what storage? there is no storage today. there is the burning of "safe clean natural" gas.

There is hydro, but it can't handle the demands of a grid that relies mainly on renewables. A few places like Iceland and Norway are an exception.

 

[gmax137]

interesting reading:

"Most pumped storage electricity generators in the U.S. were built in the 1970s...

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41833

 

[russ_watters]

Thinking I should have just asked, who are the 'people' and what do you mean by 'out of the way', @russ_watters?

Took me a few days to write this...

Some of the answer to that is a bit tough because the anti-nuclear movement in the 60s-80s was so successful that more nuclear plants were canceled over that time than are in service altogether in the US (about 100) and the industry came to a standstill. So we don't have much in the way of modern examples to cite specifically. But the usual methods of obstruction are via lawsuits, protests, and politicking. Politicians can simply have their underlings sit on applications and bury them (more on that later...). These sorts of issues aren't unique to nuclear power, but are the worst with nuclear power.

I live about 5 miles from the Limerick, PA nuclear plant, which I believe was the last to go online before a 25 year haitus. The site was originally chosen in 1969, lawsuits and protests delayed the construciton start until 1974, and the first reactor was finished and went online in 1984. So of the roughly 15 years from announcement to startup for the first reactor, 6 years were spent fighting political battles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerick_Generating_Station#History

My understanding is that none of the half dozen new reactors started or under construction in the new mini-resurgence are new plants, but are new reactors already partly approved decades ago for construction at existing plants, making the process a bit speedier.

Anyway, though, there is one big, specific one:

Nuclear waste. Most people don't even know, but the nuclear waste issue has been settled from a legal standpoint since 2002. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 set out the procedure for selecting, studying, funding and constructing the facility. The Yucca Mountain site was chosen and written into the law in 1987 and after a challenge process by Nevada (also written into the law), it was designated to be developed and constructed in 2002. Since then, not much has happened but obstruction.

Probably the most significant obstuction was from the Obama administration, who simply said he wasn't going to do it, and instructed the DOE to stop developing it, which they did. This worked for 5 years, until he lost two lawsuits, one that ordered him to restart the program as required by the law and the other to stop the government from collecting money from nuclear plant owners to fund it, until the government started meeting their legal obligation to build it (both cases decided in 2013). The funding paid for with that rate surcharge amounts to about $600 million per reactor!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#Opposition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act
https://apnews.com/94f66f6e350f41e4b0656de6cc042427

These delays/uncertainty have led to basically all nuclear plants in the US developing and implementing their own contingencies for mid-term (decades to potentially centuries) of on-site storage, costing them additional tens or hundreds of millions of dollars. That requires its own permitting and also dissuades investors from funding the construction of new plants.

2. Governments can simply declare they don't want nuclear power, in particular California:

The last remaining nuclear power plant in California will begin shutting down operations in six years after state regulators Thursday unanimously approved a plan outlining details of the closure.

“We chart a new energy future by phasing out nuclear power here in California,” California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Picker said before the 5-0 vote to shut down the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in San Luis Obispo County. “We agree the time has come.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.co...diablocanyon-shutdownvote-20180111-story.html
https://www.vox.com/2016/6/21/11989030/diablo-canyon-nuclear-close

See also; Germany. Nuclear plants require permits to operate, and governments can simply decline to renew them or revoke them.

Also, while I said "get out of the way", others noted a non-level playing field whereby other sources of energy are heavily incentivized. Since money is a finite thing, and they are all part of one big market, that can be viewed as indirect interference against nuclear power. To be a bit more specific, many states now have financial incentives provided for "renewable" energy which isn't quite the same as "Carbon free electricity". The difference is specifically the exclusion of nuclear power.
https://energynews.us/2015/02/06/midwest/why-the-nuclear-industry-targets-renewables-instead-of-gas/

That article is written with an anti-nuclear spin, but it's pretty funny to read the advocates claim hypocrisy in nuclear owners wanting subsidies. They are absolutely correct about the nuts and bolts of the issue: natural gas is really cheap even without subsidies, solar and wind get subsidies to help them compete, and nuclear doesn't get subsidies which makes it hard for them to complete. But they have no answer for why nuclear shouldn't get the same carbon-free subsidies except..."hypocrisy"! (...because plant owners are capitalists and shouldn't want subsidies?)

 

[russ_watters]

"they" is people who do these calculations - but as you said in the comment before, that's something that only works in grids with a small fraction of fluctuating renewables, in that case these renewables can always be sold at a market price that doesn't change much and there is nothing to adjust. As long as the number of gas power plants doesn't change it just reduces their profit, but if it leads to a larger reliance on them (or fewer gas power plants because they become less profitable) then it also leads to higher prices when the renewables are not available.

Ok, I guess we're not that far apart here. What I wonder/hope is that "they" are calculating the impact at higher percentages of renewables, since the impact rises with higher penetration. The impact is small with small percentages, but it gets much higher with higher percentages, and both gas and solar itself will feel that impact. I wonder if they calculate their economics based on what they see today or what they predict the solar production rate will be in 10+ years.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, we rarely do this anywhere in life, but each method should have standards applied based on the attributes of the generation method, surely?

Where the goals overlap the standards should be the same, surely? What is our end goal, here? Is it "less carbon emissions" or just "no nukes"? If it's "less carbon emissions" then nuclear power should be massively subsidized like solar and wind, right? Otherwise, what are we doing here?

I'm not sure we're going to see eye-to-eye on fission as a power source, and based on Gallup, neither is the nation. It is a polarizing topic and as such, is unlikely to help us address climate change because the decision making process for nuclear plants is so drawn out.

A couple of things:

1. By mission, here at PF, we are above public opinion considerations. We're quite simply better than that -- and if we're not going to be, who is? The public needs sober, scientific and unrestrained economic analysis to help it make good decisions about what to support. So it's your choice: do you want to mold your opinion to and then vote for what the masses believe or do you want to educate yourself about what makes the most sense when studied scientifically?

2. Whether you believe it or not, your position is basically accepting that we're doomed*. Because without nuclear, we can't meet our climate change goals (note: nuclear alone isn't enough, but it is a requirement). So, what is it you want? Do you want to fix climate change or not?

*Or maybe worse, it's closing your eyes and putting the pedal to the floor and hoping you don't crash.

 

[russ_watters]

Being serious, public opinion is only a minor impediment to atomic power. The main impediment is economic. It is difficult to cite a provisioned new plant that was close to on time and budget and easy to cite numerous where budgets were blown by large amounts or construction halted entirely.

Let's pretend that the two issues aren't the same single issue. What do we do about it? Why don't we have the federal and state governments just write every major power provider in the US a $3 billion check to build a nuclear plant, like we do for solar and wind plants?

The economic issue is an entirely solvable choice both on the front end and the back end.

...typically funded by taxpayers...

Nope. That's a false-myth about nuclear power. Nuclear plants are nearly 100% privately funded, including fully funding of the waste handling (in some cases as I mentioned above double-funding of the waste handling).

There was a study (sorry, can't immediately find it) that concluded loss of skills because of the construction drought - as in, no new nukes for so long - did significantly contribute to delays and overruns as knowledge had to be relearned. The 1.6 GWe Flamanville 3 reactor in France was startup planned for 2013.

I'm not sure if you realize, but you are arguing against your point there. The loss of skills issue is very real and the way to rebuild skills is more practice. As such, nuclear plants should get cheaper and their construction itself smoother if we build more of them, closer together in time.

 

[russ_watters]

That's OK with me. I have been having discussions like this during my entire 40 year career in commercial nuclear. I have almost never seen anyone change their opinion. Any more, I don't really care.

I've only been having the argument for 20, and as dismaying it is, the main upside is getting to say "If you'd have listened to me 20 years ago..."

[for example]
...California and Germany would already have carbon-free grids:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ld-already-have-100-clean-power/#3606d789e0d4

 

[Vanadium 50]

Politicians can simply have their underlings sit on applications and bury them

Eeekk!

Oh wait...sorry... pronoun trouble.

 

[member 656954]

That's OK with me. I have been having discussions like this during my entire 40 year career in commercial nuclear. I have almost never seen anyone change their opinion. Any more, I don't really care.

Opinions are hard to change, @gmax137, but I respect yours as being considerably more informed than most. I'm not intransigent about nuclear, but I am concerned are waste management and inappropriate fissile material access. Waste can be managed (though it's fair to say it's a hot potato that's still being passed around), while access needs to be worked through if SMRs esp. are deployed because they increase the volume and movement of radioactive material, which increases the likelihood of bad actors being able to do harm.

You might be starting to realize the gravity of the situation.

I appreciate the gravity, @essenmein. Have for ages. Replacing fossil fuels is a seriously hard problem to solve.

Nope. That's a false-myth about nuclear power. Nuclear plants are nearly 100% privately funded, including fully funding of the waste handling (in some cases as I mentioned above double-funding of the waste handling).

Does the EIA disagree with you? Seems to be.

 

[essenmein]

In my world, part or product cost is ~ proportional to weight of materials that are used to produce it + some small percentage. This is what happens at high volume, at some point the cost to make more units is the cost of the materials needed to make that unit.

So this next picture should be an eyeopener WRT cost of power generation. By all reasonable accounts nuclear should be the single cheapest form of energy production based on the material resources needed to build the plants, by a massive margin. The only reason they are not, is because people are <insert favorite expletive>.

This picture should also create great concern for those that think renewables are "good for the environment", if solar PV or wind takes orders of magnitude more material mass per TWhr, then at some point all that enormous amounts mass has to be recycled or disposed of, esp given life of solar PV is 15-20 years, vs 30-50 year life of nuclear reactor.

 

[essenmein]

Then waste, we really should consider amounts here.

From: https://www.world-nuclear.org/infor...duction/energy-for-the-world-why-uranium.aspx

1GWe coal plant consumes 3,200,000 tones of coal per year. Produces 7,000,000 tones of CO2 and about 200,000 tones of fly ash (wiki, says 20-30 tones of CO2 per tonne of fly ash).
Fly ash contains high concentrations of radioactive materials, Uranium, Thorium etc, ie this is radioactive waste, two hundred thousand tones of it!

1GWe current nuke plant consumes 24tones of Uranium (as 27 t UO2) per year.
To get that 24 tones of fuel, needs ~200 tones of Uranium, which needs 20,000 tones of ore, that is 160 times less material mined for the same energy!

If that nuke fuel is reprocessed, 97% is reused, about 700kg of highly radioactive waste is produced. This means that the mining effort is much lower as in reality you do not need to replace all of the nuclear fuel each year, only the small amount that was actually used.

So 0.7 tones of waste from nuclear vs 7,000,000 tones of CO2 and 200,000 tones of fly ash from coal for an equivalent amount of energy.

 

[russ_watters]

Does the EIA disagree with you? Seems to be.

I'm not sure...you didn't cite any data. Did you read the report?*

A couple of snippets I could lift:
In 2016:

• Nuclear received $365M in subsidies and produced 799 billion kWh or about 1/20th of a cent per kWh
• All "renewables" received $6,882M and produced 15.2 billion kWh or about 45 cents per kWh
• Solar received $2,231M and produced 1.2 billion kWh or bout $1.86 per kWh(!)

So, practically nothing for nuclear, especially when compared to renewables and the amount of energy generated.

Now, there are a few important issues/caveats in comparing and understanding these numbers:
1. Most subsidies are for construction of new power and there's very little new nuclear under construction. A solar plant built in 2016 is still producing electricity 20 years later, so some of those subsidies would spread themselves out somewhat --- but nowhere near enough.
2. The form those subsidies of solar and other renewables take are either tax credits or direct subsidies (up-front cash). But most subsidies for nuclear (I think -- the data isn't really given here and is only briefly alluded to**) are in the form of the "loan guarantees". And here's where I would disagree with the article, even though it doesn't really hurt my argument: a loan guarantee isn't really a subsidy unless the government has to exercise the guarantee and pay back the loan. It's simply a free promise and as far as I know has never been cashed-in.

**Page 12 gives a brief explanation and page 17 says there were no loan guarantees in 2013 or 2016, and the 2010 loan guarantee cost for one nuclear plant was $292M whereas "tax expenditures" were $999 million. But I'm not sure what those tax expenditures were for, and the loan guarantee amount sounds very small -- and either way, the total subsidies that year were 1/10th that of renewables.

Some other info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy#United_States
It's interesting the article paraphrases "critics" of nuclear power bemoaning the loan guarantees because they "distort market choices", which is just another way of saying they are free, but the "critics" don't like the outcome, so that's all they can complain about.

*Did you misread that first graph? I did, for about 20 minutes -- it's badly labeled.

 

[member 656954]

*Did you misread that first graph? I did, for about 20 minutes -- it's badly labeled.

I may have, @russ_watters, I'll need to take another look. I'm engaging to learn, not because I'm convinced I'm right, but other news reports - not studies of the kind PF expects as citations - note taxpayer funds for loan guarantees, such as this one for Vogtle. I also noted that that EIA figures for PV seems very low, but I would hope they are not making basic accounting mistakes, that would be disappointing. Anyway, as far as I can tell, all generation is subsidized to some degree, and fossil fuels are subsidized the most.

 

[essenmein]

• Nuclear received $365M in subsidies and produced 799 billion kWh or about 1/20th of a cent per kWh
• All "renewables" received $6,882M and produced 15.2 billion kWh or about 45 cents per kWh
• Solar received $2,231M and produced 1.2 billion kWh or bout $1.86 per kWh(!)

Thats crazy, but somewhat in line with the real costs coming out of places like Germany.

They are expecting to spend around 2.1T EUR to get to 55% renewable electricity, Germany's current grid capacity is 200GW, so they are going to spend 2.1Trillion to get about 110GW, that's 19,000EUR/kw.

Hinkley c at current estimates sits at 23B GBP (19.4B EUR), for 3.2GW, so about 6000EUR/kw, an absolute bargain compared to what Germany is planning to spend.

Keep in mind the waste remediation costs are baked into the nuke plant costs, where as for renewables, I don't think cleanup/recycling is included there... so likely even more money afterwards to tear down the installations at end of life.

 

[essenmein]

Interesting read that puts PV recycling into perspective:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/23/solar-panel-waste-a-disposal-problem/

 

[mfb]

In my world, part or product cost is ~ proportional to weight of materials that are used to produce it + some small percentage. This is what happens at high volume, at some point the cost to make more units is the cost of the materials needed to make that unit.

Compare a computer to a brick of the same weight.
Hydro dams have a giant mass but they are just a lot of concrete. Nuclear power plants are much more complex and that complexity drives the cost, not the raw materials.

 

[essenmein]

Compare a computer to a brick of the same weight.
Hydro dams have a giant mass but they are just a lot of concrete. Nuclear power plants are much more complex and that complexity drives the cost, not the raw materials.

Obviously I'm not comparing weight of a brick against an equivalent weight of a computer, that is a little disingenuous.

Cost of a brick at high volume is the cost of the material used to make the brick.

I briefly worked in consumer electronics very high volume (10M+/yr type volumes), and the lead engineer there told me that they judge the cost of the competition (cell phone chargers) by simply weighing all the different materials in it. So cost saving was basically weight shaving. Individually far more complex than a brick, but once the line is set up and running (20 units a minute, 24/7/365), cost of next unit is BOM cost, and when buying BOM items at such volumes, generally the demand is suppliers are open book, ie our buyers say show me the costs and we'll give you 5 points profit or what ever if you want this business. When you see the numbers for chip resistors for example, you really wonder how anyone thought there was a business there, tiny fractions of a cent for 0201, made of x% ceramic, y% resistor paste, z% termination metal, and a small fraction is process cost, they must sell bajillions of them to make any money.

 

[mfb]

@essenmein: You are missing the point. A computer is more expensive than a brick of the same mass. A nuclear power plant is more expensive than a dam of the same mass. Same idea. The difference comes from the complexity of the project. R&D split over hundreds (nuclear power) to billions (some computer parts) of components, integration of millions to billions of elements, and more expensive raw materials.

 

[essenmein]

@essenmein: You are missing the point. A computer is more expensive than a brick of the same mass. A nuclear power plant is more expensive than a dam of the same mass. Same idea. The difference comes from the complexity of the project. R&D split over hundreds (nuclear power) to billions (some computer parts) of components, integration of millions to billions of elements, and more expensive raw materials.

I guess let's agree to disagree, our costing group hasn't been too far off estimating price of parts this way so far.

 

[mfb]

Your costing group hasn't compared dams with nuclear power plants.

 

[essenmein]

Your costing group hasn't compared dams with nuclear power plants.

Quite right, I work in neither a dam building company or a nuclear power reactor company.

I do however work in a field that makes power plants at an industrial scale, these are actually fairly complicated vs the power they make. Collectively as an industry we have power plant costs down to about $12/kw (you might notice this is about 400x cheaper than projected SMR costs).

The whole final product with many bells and whistles not even remotely related directly to making power comes to a retail cost of about $250/kw, retail! incl profit margins for re-sellers! Yet still somehow 15x cheaper than SMR.

I would say complexity per kw here is higher here than for nuclear. Then the complexity argument is actually a bit disingenuous, complexity itself does not directly translate to costs, what you might consider complex, when viewed by a good process engineer, might turn out to be really simple to reproduce. Take the humble photograph, highly detailed and complicated images are possible, yet somehow a printing press can make a copy in a fraction of a second. Or by extension a micro processor, millions of transistors, highly complicated, yet built by what is essentially a fancy screen printer. Our PCBs have 1000+ components, takes a tech about a week to hand assemble one board, yet one instance of capital gets you a line that makes a new board every 26 seconds, 18hrs a day, 365days a year. The capital and operating cost of that line add about 60 cents cost to that board, vs 25EUR purchase parts cost (components, PCB, solder, line sundries).

I stand by the fact that done right, nuclear power should be the single cheapest form of power production if we stop being chicken and properly industrialize.

 

[member 656954]

I stand by the fact that done right

@essenmein, this seems more faith than fact and 'done right' is subjective. I'd say the nuclear power industry's safety record says we've 'done right' but others disagree, suggesting it is 'over done'. A utility shareholder might think 'done right' is no regulatory oversight, while a legislative body might think 'done right' means more regulation.

nuclear power should be the single cheapest form of power production if we stop being chicken and properly industrialize.

You've emotive terms here - 'chicken' and 'properly' - in an assertion, not an evidence-based statement. A number of studies have found no evident basis for SMRs, which are intentionally 'industrialized' nuclear fission designs, to radically drive down the cost of electricity production. I like Jim Green's overview of the current state because he provides a nice summary of many reviews with links to the underlying references and that's my pointer to 'many studies'.

 

[essenmein]

@essenmein, this seems more faith than fact and 'done right' is subjective. I'd say the nuclear power industry's safety record says we've 'done right' but others disagree, suggesting it is 'over done'. A utility shareholder might think 'done right' is no regulatory oversight, while a legislative body might think 'done right' means more regulation.

By done right I mean simply DFM and process engineering.

You've emotive terms here - 'chicken' and 'properly' - in an assertion, not an evidence-based statement. A number of studies have found no evident basis for SMRs, which are intentionally 'industrialized' nuclear fission designs, to radically drive down the cost of electricity production. I like Jim Green's overview of the current state because he provides a nice summary of many reviews with links to the underlying references and that's my pointer to 'many studies'.

that wiseinternational.org link might be a little biased? Have a look at the front page, can you tell? It calls itself an "antinuclear webstop!", not sure, but they may not like nuclear. Perhaps for emotive reasons?

Then Jim Green is an anti nuclear activist:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Green_(activist)

Hardly someone who would actually look for positive signs, instead, far more likely he will cherry pick things that support his position.