Slashdot Mirror
US Nuclear Comeback Stalls As Two Reactors Are Abandoned (theaustralian.com.au)
Brad Plumer reports via The New York Times (Warning: may be paywalled; alternate source): In a major blow to the future of nuclear power in the United States, two South Carolina utilities said on Monday that they would abandon two unfinished nuclear reactors in the state, putting an end to a project that was once expected to showcase advanced nuclear technology but has since been plagued by delays and cost overruns. The two reactors, which have cost the utilities roughly $9 billion, remain less than 40 percent built. The cancellation means there are just two new nuclear units being built in the country -- both in Georgia -- while more than a dozen older nuclear plants are being retired in the face of low natural gas prices. Originally scheduled to come online by 2018, the V.C. Summer nuclear project in South Carolina had been plagued by disputes with regulators and numerous construction problems. This year, utility officials estimated that the reactors would not begin generating electricity before 2021 and could cost as much as $25 billion -- more than twice the initial $11.5 billion estimate. The utilities also struggled with an energy landscape that had changed dramatically since the large reactors were proposed in 2007. Demand for electricity has plateaued nationwide as a result of major improvements in energy efficiency, weakening the case for massive new power plants. And a glut of cheap natural gas from the hydraulic fracturing boom has given states a low-cost energy alternative. Facing those pressures, the two owners of the project, South Carolina Electric & Gas and Santee Cooper, announced they would halt construction rather than saddle customers with additional costs.
People are more than willing to pay more for energy sources that don't produce CO2.
1. Many people are NOT willing to pay more, hence the election of our current president.
2. The people that are willing to pay more don't have to, since wind is already cost-competitive with FF and solar will be soon.
"Standardized" nukes like the AP1000 were supposed to lower construction costs and reduce maintenance. But so far they have NOT lowered costs, and appear to be worse in every way. There is no path forward for nukes in America, but to go with a complete redesign, and no one wants to pay the NRE for that.
My prediction: Hinkley Point will also be cancelled before it goes live.
Here is an alternative link since TFA is paywalled (at least for me).
I'll give you one example of issues that happened in the US. Some of the metal alloys in the original specification weren't being manufactured anymore. So newer alloys had to be qualified, tested, and certified, this impact the schedule by months.
It's a new construction so of course there are delays.
I'll give you one example of issues that happened in the US.
Why was none of this foreseeable? Why wasn't it in the original quoted price? With nuclear you get massive overruns to double or triple the original cost, you get decades of delay, but you also get lots of GREAT excuses that somehow make it all okay, and won't happen next time ....
Playing devils advocate here - the first one has only just gone live in China (or is about to) despite them being a 1970s style design so those reduced costs are not expected for a while until the rough edges of the design are sorted out. It was only the utterly clueless nuke fanboys (of which there are a few on this site) who claimed that cost savings would be showing up already.
Whatever people think about nukes I don't see private enterprise touching it for a while. Socialist intervention or no nukes, tough choice for those pushing nukes due to their political bent instead of practicality. At least if it's pushed by government without any pretence at being a business proposition we may see incremental development instead of a step back into the 1970s driven by a failed attempt at economic viability.
Yes, but 2,000 square miles is a tiny percentage of the planet Earth.
And, that is the hard lesson learned by the Japanese and the world -- own up immediately so the world (the US and western Europe to lessor degree) can deploy resources (generators, cables, helicopters, et al) can within an hour initiate deployment of resources. rather than being too proud to ask for help.
If asked immediately, the world could have helped, and possibly prevented meltdown, but the Japanese for cultural reason et al waited too long. THAT needs to be fixed. When you are at any risk of losing a core of an old-school reactor, open the kimono and beg for help. Simple.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Actually, no.
You can tell that this narrative about the Left ruining everything is nonsense by how it only ever applies to things that failed. If they were really that powerful we wouldn't be burning oil in our cars or scrapping Obamacare. And if it really worked the right wing NIMBYs would have blocked every wind farm from ever being built.
The Chinese cancelled most of their new reactors, just finishing the ones they have already started, shortly after Fukushima. Not entirely due to safety concerns either, but because they realized that the market for nuclear power was failing and renewable energy was the smart investment. Look at China now, leading the world in wind, in electric vehicles, even giving the Tesla/Panasonic gigafactory a run for battery production.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I've actually worked in the nuclear fuel industry. So I know a little bit about dealing with that sector. Thanks to many factors, nuclear is a politically very sensitive topic. Even fairly innocent projects can take years of political maneuvering before anything gets actually off the ground. So what typically happens is that an initial study is done to figure out what the project will cost.
These numbers are then put into a budget request and made part of a political agenda. At that point you get the usual cow trading, political posturing and dealing with environmental action committees. Keep in mind that at this point, there are still no vendor contracts because nothing is set in stone and the future of the project is still unclear. For the building of a nuclear reactor which noone wants in their beack yard, this stage can take many years. Eventually the deal is struck and X billion dollars are allocated in the overall budget.
And that is when the actual work starts and actual contracts are to be signed. And that is when the project team discovers things like alloys no longer being manufactured.
I have been lucky enough to work on software to perform data logging for the compression of nuclear fuel powder into MOX tablets. I say lucky, because I've always been interested in nuclear physics. And I can tell you that for projects that do not have to be part of a political agenda (such as mine), things can be pretty efficient and well controlled in terms of cost. Because the project is usually decided by the site board of leadership. Even pretty expensive projects can be done efficiently if the budget falls within the overal site budget.