Advanced nuclear reactor designer here. It is tough times in the industry. The large traditional reactors in the West (US, France, UK) are really struggling. Existing reactors have operations costs that were fine until fracked natural gas pulled the floor out on electricity prices. Now they're struggling. New builds have been boondoggles because contracts went to lowest bidders, who had no idea how to build nuclear plants. The people are focused on intermittent clean sources like wind and solar, with due cause as solar PV prices fell by a factor of 10x since 2009 (as long as the sun is shining).
Meanwhile there has been a bunch of hype about "new" reactors (quoted because they were all initially conceived of and tested in the 1950s). Thorium. Molten Salt. Small Modular. Traveling Wave. Microreactors. These will have less waste and be safer! But will it matter? As I've grown in experience and expertise, I've started looking at the numbers more. Nuclear waste has great solutions in crystalline bedrock (Onkalo), massive salt (WIPP), and deep boreholes (Deep Isolation). If a reactor makes a little bit less, will that move the needle for the public? In terms of safety, current reactors are statistically extraordinarily safe because they don't participate in causing the 4.2 million deaths/year from air pollution (a Chernobyl of death every 2.5 days from the fossil industry). So if a new reactor is slightly safer, will all the anti-nuclear institutions roll over begging for one? I highly doubt it.
Besides, with tech development in nuclear, it's fleet experience that matters. Many MSR designs make vast amounts of tritium and require remote maintenance. Will this be doable? Will releases be acceptable? Only fleet experience can tell. Never believe someone who's never built a nuclear plant on what their design will cost.
These smaller reactors will absolutely struggle economically, especially at first.
More and more I think it's really public communication/PR/education that matters most for nuclear.
Chinese and Russian reactors, on the other hand, are doing better, with Russia seemingly selling VVERs like hotcakes, and moving into markets like Nigeria soon.
I recently wrote up an elaborate page about early reactor development history [1] and about more modern nuclear economics [2] if anyone wants a deep dive. I've been thinking of turning these into a book.
> Never believe someone who's never built a nuclear plant on what their design will cost.
> More and more I think it's really public communication/PR/education that matters most for nuclear.
I'm almost 30 years old and I live in France. While I see nuclear science as very cool and futuristic, I also just dont want to see anymore nuclear reactors. Especially since we showed that batteries and renewable energies have room for improvements.
Even people who are supposed to know how to build nuclear reactors don't know how to do it :
Flamanville's reactor has 10 years of lag and costs tripled to billions of euros. Guess where does the money come from ? Our taxes.
All this money (and UK money) could have been invested in consuming less (smarter consumption, more efficiency), improve battery technologies and improve renewable energies.
To me, the goal of 50% of nuclear energy should even be lowered to 30%.
Everywhere I've lived in the US that has nuclear power in the mix (Pittsburgh and Georgia) has a surcharge on rates because of the cost of the plant, and we end up paying a higher rate than other areas that don't have nuclear. Are there localities in the US where nuclear has beaten the cost-benefit curve?
> Are there localities in the US where nuclear has beaten the cost-benefit curve?
Technically, pretty much everywhere. The health detriment from fossil air pollution (which is not in the markets at all) and the value of low-carbon energy (also not in the markets) means nuclear plants are providing great benefits pretty much everywhere! :)
But that's not what you're asking. Coal vs. nuclear have traded off through the years. They both got a lot more regulations and more expensive in the 1970s. Komanoff's book really treats this extremely well.
The US plants were not standardized. Places that standardize the plants have a much better time economically. South Korea. France. Russia.
Still, I would argue that while nuclear is indeed more expensive than fossil, the fact that it is nearly carbon free and air-pollution free while being 24/7 make it a good deal. All 100% decarbonized sources have extra fees.
Agreed. Utility execs only care about the bottom line.
If we can get markets to value low-carbon or low air pollution nuclear will compete today. Sadly, it doesn't look like this will happen anytime soon. Seems so obvious though.
1. Offshore nuclear power may be a wonderful solution to public fears. It also allows us to build in shipyard conditions, which are basically a giant Henry Ford assembly line of gigawatt-class 24/7 power plants. We built such a thing in Florida back in the 1970s but it didn't quite work out. [1]
2. Coal is absolutely getting crushed by fracked natural gas, especially in the USA. All the news about coal shutting down and also about carbon emissions getting (everso slightly) better are because of this swapping of coal for gas. Check out the EIA charts of energy sources vs. time. Coal is in free-fall, gas is covering almost all of it. In Japan, where gas is more expensive, they just announced that they're building 22 more coal plants to replace their unpopular nuclear plants. [2]
Meanwhile there has been a bunch of hype about "new" reactors (quoted because they were all initially conceived of and tested in the 1950s). Thorium. Molten Salt. Small Modular. Traveling Wave. Microreactors. These will have less waste and be safer! But will it matter? As I've grown in experience and expertise, I've started looking at the numbers more. Nuclear waste has great solutions in crystalline bedrock (Onkalo), massive salt (WIPP), and deep boreholes (Deep Isolation). If a reactor makes a little bit less, will that move the needle for the public? In terms of safety, current reactors are statistically extraordinarily safe because they don't participate in causing the 4.2 million deaths/year from air pollution (a Chernobyl of death every 2.5 days from the fossil industry). So if a new reactor is slightly safer, will all the anti-nuclear institutions roll over begging for one? I highly doubt it.
Besides, with tech development in nuclear, it's fleet experience that matters. Many MSR designs make vast amounts of tritium and require remote maintenance. Will this be doable? Will releases be acceptable? Only fleet experience can tell. Never believe someone who's never built a nuclear plant on what their design will cost.
These smaller reactors will absolutely struggle economically, especially at first.
More and more I think it's really public communication/PR/education that matters most for nuclear.
Chinese and Russian reactors, on the other hand, are doing better, with Russia seemingly selling VVERs like hotcakes, and moving into markets like Nigeria soon.
I recently wrote up an elaborate page about early reactor development history [1] and about more modern nuclear economics [2] if anyone wants a deep dive. I've been thinking of turning these into a book.
[1] https://whatisnuclear.com/reactor_history.html
[2] https://whatisnuclear.com/economics.html