Nuclear does not seem to be on the mass production curve that solar and batteries are.
Even if you could design a reactor that itself can be mass produced at that scale, you still need to do the same with selecting and getting environmental and public safety approval for installation sites and production, transportation, and disposal of the fuel and waste.
I'm not against nuclear from a technological perspective, but I just don't see it being economically competitive with effectively printable devices like solar and batteries given the current direction of the cost curves on each.
Nuclear might not be able to compete in the U.S. and Europe, but that’s largely because of a ridiculous regulatory regime and has very little to do with the actual tech.
China has installed more renewable energy than the rest of the world put together last year. I'm pretty sure we can rule out any "ridiculous regulatory regime" issues there.
China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor.
https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718
A moderate civilian nuclear supply chain and skills base helps keep a lid on the maintenance and construction of nuclear submarines, carriers and nuclear bombs.
If you’re going to try to determine how China is approaching nuclear power, it’s probably more useful to look at data related to that [0], instead of drawing conclusions from tangential data.
The point I was making is that China isn't inclined to do things just to appease some regulatory requirement. They are also building an incredible amount of Coal power.
Ah, I think there’s a misunderstanding of the parent comment. They aren’t necessarily saying that the problem is pro-renewable regulation, just that there are heavy (safety) barriers for nuclear.
The Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act exists precisely because sophisticated private insurers run a mile from fully insuring against these dangers.
Until the subsidy is repealed and taxpayers stops insuring it, the industry's frequent claims of its own safety ring kind of hollow.
It's particularly galling to see them cynically demand that safety regulations be watered down to bring down costs while the act still exists. Imagine if we made taxpayers responsible for cleaning up oil spills.
In the past we have accepted this socialized cost as a requirement for a world fueled by fossil fuels, which of course will change as we transition away.
This wasn't just due to regulatory influence, it was also due to economies of scale. But the two are related, more regulation results in fewer builds. Fewer builds reduces economies of scale and thus increases costs. Which results in even fewer nuclear builds, and so on.
Thanks for the paper. Quick summary (of a quick read): Most research has studied US and France; this paper adds other countries. Costs have greatly increased in US and France, but not always in other countries. They've decreased recently in South Korea.
> (economies of scale)
Why do you blame economies of scale? The paper doesn't say that, afaict.
Also they say, "increased environmental and safety regulation ... may have led to cost increases", which does not sound conclusive.
Also, I think we really need to be talking about lifetime cost, including construction, operation, and decommissioning. In many things, spending more up front reduces later costs.
On a per-MW basis nuclear power dropped in cost during the 1950s. See the small blue dots round the late 1950s and early 60s? Compare that with the cluster of red dots.
That, and larger plants. Things like concrete containment vessels have costs relative to the surface area of a hemisphere, while power output scales with the volume. But the big driver was economies of scale. Building multiple copies of the same or similar design means you can have longer production runs of steam generators, pressure vessels, turbines, etc.
In the early days, vendors didn't know how much NPPs would cost, so they priced them to sell, so they could gain that data. Later prices reflected that experience.
One can view the increase over time of nuclear costs as the replacement of wishful thinking with actual experience.
You have to to be honest. They were able to push for stronger regulations not because politics mainly listens to hippies. Stronger regulations were prudent considering the safety levels of the earlier reactor design. Without those regulations, many more cheap, but less safe reactors might have been built. Of which more had gone bad over years.
So yes, if you will, thank the hippies for preventing several nuclear incidents.
Batteries are nowhere near able to meet any energy storage demands of the grid.
The simple question to ask yourself is why do battery installations always get quoted in units of power - GW - and not units of energy, GWH - which is what we actually use?
(The answer is: because they're terrible for it. Batteries hold about 3x they're rated power value as energy - which means the 10 GW or whatever someone quotes is good for about 3 hours at that output. Great for grid stability, expensive and useless for long term storage).
> The simple question to ask yourself is why do battery installations always get quoted in units of power - GW - and not units of energy, GWH - which is what we actually use?
For the same reason gas power plants and hydroelectric power plants are quoted in MW units, and not on the size of their fuel tanks or reservoir volume (converted to MWh as appropriate): it's the most important number for balancing the grid. If you have 90 GW of power demand on the grid at a given moment, you need 90 GW of power generation on the grid at that same moment (simplifying a bit, since transmission constraints mean you also need some of that power generation to be at specific places).
Thus answering the challenge: they're not storage. They're grid stabilization utilities. Because no one expects to run them for more then 30 minutes to an hour while they bring dispatchable generation online.
Which means they're irrelevant to the idea of grid scale energy storage, because they don't meaningfully store anything.
The insane thing is that it is so efficient that it doesn't need to be on that mass production curve to be competitive. It is competitive even in the somewhat insane way we build it now.
However, we have a number of companies working on building reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce for example is talking to Ukraine to upgrade some of their old (not sure if already decommissioned) coal plants to nuclear with small, factory-built nuclear reactors.
Even if you could design a reactor that itself can be mass produced at that scale, you still need to do the same with selecting and getting environmental and public safety approval for installation sites and production, transportation, and disposal of the fuel and waste.
I'm not against nuclear from a technological perspective, but I just don't see it being economically competitive with effectively printable devices like solar and batteries given the current direction of the cost curves on each.