The market inefficiency faced by the next five AP-1000 builders is such a big issue. If the capex of the next one is $8500/kW and falls by 15% for each down to $5000 then the 'gifted' learnings recieved by reactors 2-10 total to $23B dollars
The only moving nuclear projects in North America are the BWRX-300 SMRs in Ontario and by the TVA. In both cases they have a special incentive to get in early and recieve supply chain benefits that they can realize from building components for future builds
Cost overrun insurance is task number one in my opinion. Even if an AP-1000 buildout got moving without it the simple fairness of creating a project insurance mechanism to compensate the first to Nth of a kind builders for their risk and arguably for their learnings costs is undeniable. The vast size of the market inefficiency justifies a departure from idealized concepts of private markets even for those who believe in them
1) Quit subsidizing competitive ideas and put to full use what we already know works and what's already been approved - the AP 1000 reactor. Start benefiting from economy of scale by producing more of the same product.
2) The great idea to build out existing plants that were approved for 4 reactors but only have 2. Eliminate fights over siting, and take advantage of existing grid infrastructure already set up and working.
Trump has just named anti-nuclear/anti-vaccine zealot Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to his transition team.
RFK Jr. was instrumental in shutting down Indian Point. This caused a huge increase in pollution and carbon emissions in New York State.
Trump could have named Elon Musk to his transition team. Trump and Musk have discussed nuclear energy favorably.
There is no place for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a cathedral -building administration. He already took the wrecking ball to "St. Patrick's." (Indian Point).
I'm not going to buy a subscription, so I only saw the first couple of paragraphs where you said that RFK Jr. would add conservation bonafides to the Trump campaign. He also adds anti-vaccine and anti-nuclear aspects which are more worrying than any positives. Have you researched his involvement in the anti-vaccine movement? It's very extensive!
It would be more helpful if you could publish a criticism of RFK Jr. in a place that anyone can access. Here at Nuclear Barbarians would be a great location.
....and, of course, give his history shutting down Indian Point ! Plus, Robert F Kennedy Jr. also has a felony conviction for possession of heroin. Is this someone we want anywhere near government office and decisionmaking ??
Ruth, the rhetorical structure of the article was to set up things that people like about RFK Jr to later destroy him as a dangerous hypocrite later on. Indian Point served as the keystone to the article.
I placed this piece in Compact because 1) I was commissioned to write it as part of my contributing editorship and like everyone else I have to eat, which costs money; 2) conservatives, which make up at least half of the publication's readership, were likely to see it.
Darlington SC is located on the sandy coastal plain. It doesn’t have iron ore, coal or a river that produce hydroelectric power. It does have junk cars and access to a nuclear power plant. NUCOR built a mini-mill there to make building products from junk cars. NUCOR created good, well paying jobs. (The power plant was built in 4 years and has been operating since 1971. )
This is the best whole vision of a nuclear future I have read, Emmet. I hope we return to a “cooperative federalism” energy policy with private sector and state utility commission, joining regulators and environmentalists to build practical environmentalism into our energy and electricity grid.
Very enlightening article, but what about natural gas? We have a more than 100 year supply. Why not build pipelines and covert coal plants to gas? Faster and less capex. I love the idea of nuclear, but am leery after decades of failing to build more.
Would depend on the coal plant, I imagine. I expect we'll see some more coal-to-gas switches, though those will be small in number thanks to the new EPA emissions rules, which have just been upheld. I'd also imagine that proximity to pipelines would also be an important factor. Nuclear would just need the grid hook up and so would be spared the pain of longer pipeline construction.
My vision is not that every single coal plant gets switched to a nuclear plant, but that wherever it's appropriate for it to happen, it does. More importantly, there's a ticking clock on this. If in the next year or so we don't figure out how to make any of what I've suggested happen then it's back to 10-15 years until we see another FOAK nuclear plant that runs over budget and over time, starting this whole cycle over again. And then you'll be completely right--pipelines won't appear too painful to pay for unless regulations make it too cumbersome to build natural gas generators in the first place.
Good ideas, BUT we need to rid ourselves of the NRC regulations, delays, and expenses created by exaggerated fears of radiation from nuclear power, which did harm < 100 people at Chernobyl, BUT NOWHERE ELSE. Read https://hargraves.substack.com/p/radiation
I understand the sentiment. But abolishing the NRC seems a tall order. We’d have a regulatory vacuum, and 5,000 pissed off nuclear experts with nothing to do. Like so many of our institutions the vast majority of the NRC workforce are good, knowledgeable people. Change the leadership structure. Maybe one person in charge. Finally get rid of LTM and ALARA, fast track advance reactor regs, approve a model not every reactor so we can build in mass. Big reform is difficult, not impossible. But abolishing the NRC, even Ethan Hunt of Mission Impossible may decide not to accept that mission.
Reads like Nuclear Industry Business Relief Act :) Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Bipartisan greasing to tip scale >50% of 435 House Representatives and 100 Senators. Gospel of Nuclear Cathedral Propaganda, Psy-Fi Tragedy of the Commons “For the People” (Shareholders of Nuclear Supply Chain Businesses) Sold to US citizens Representatives for “The Common Good”. Whatever they say it will cost in Today’s Dollars, multiply by 3x or more to arrive at taxpayers cost sharing upon completion, plus compound interest to further drain the flow of Public Dollars for select private interest group. Made in the USA, financed directly by UST or guaranteed thereby via Public Power Infrastructure Bonds. Future Shock :)
The market inefficiency faced by the next five AP-1000 builders is such a big issue. If the capex of the next one is $8500/kW and falls by 15% for each down to $5000 then the 'gifted' learnings recieved by reactors 2-10 total to $23B dollars
The only moving nuclear projects in North America are the BWRX-300 SMRs in Ontario and by the TVA. In both cases they have a special incentive to get in early and recieve supply chain benefits that they can realize from building components for future builds
Cost overrun insurance is task number one in my opinion. Even if an AP-1000 buildout got moving without it the simple fairness of creating a project insurance mechanism to compensate the first to Nth of a kind builders for their risk and arguably for their learnings costs is undeniable. The vast size of the market inefficiency justifies a departure from idealized concepts of private markets even for those who believe in them
So well written and thoughtful, thank you.
Excellent points. 2 things I picked up on -
1) Quit subsidizing competitive ideas and put to full use what we already know works and what's already been approved - the AP 1000 reactor. Start benefiting from economy of scale by producing more of the same product.
2) The great idea to build out existing plants that were approved for 4 reactors but only have 2. Eliminate fights over siting, and take advantage of existing grid infrastructure already set up and working.
Trump has just named anti-nuclear/anti-vaccine zealot Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to his transition team.
RFK Jr. was instrumental in shutting down Indian Point. This caused a huge increase in pollution and carbon emissions in New York State.
Trump could have named Elon Musk to his transition team. Trump and Musk have discussed nuclear energy favorably.
There is no place for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a cathedral -building administration. He already took the wrecking ball to "St. Patrick's." (Indian Point).
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/27/trump-transition-rfk-gabbard-00176437
Currently writing a piece criticizing RFK Jr and urging Trump to put him anywhere but near energy for these exact reasons!
https://www.compactmag.com/article/rfks-war-on-energy-abundance/ here it is
I'm not going to buy a subscription, so I only saw the first couple of paragraphs where you said that RFK Jr. would add conservation bonafides to the Trump campaign. He also adds anti-vaccine and anti-nuclear aspects which are more worrying than any positives. Have you researched his involvement in the anti-vaccine movement? It's very extensive!
It would be more helpful if you could publish a criticism of RFK Jr. in a place that anyone can access. Here at Nuclear Barbarians would be a great location.
....and, of course, give his history shutting down Indian Point ! Plus, Robert F Kennedy Jr. also has a felony conviction for possession of heroin. Is this someone we want anywhere near government office and decisionmaking ??
Ruth, the rhetorical structure of the article was to set up things that people like about RFK Jr to later destroy him as a dangerous hypocrite later on. Indian Point served as the keystone to the article.
I placed this piece in Compact because 1) I was commissioned to write it as part of my contributing editorship and like everyone else I have to eat, which costs money; 2) conservatives, which make up at least half of the publication's readership, were likely to see it.
Darlington SC is located on the sandy coastal plain. It doesn’t have iron ore, coal or a river that produce hydroelectric power. It does have junk cars and access to a nuclear power plant. NUCOR built a mini-mill there to make building products from junk cars. NUCOR created good, well paying jobs. (The power plant was built in 4 years and has been operating since 1971. )
This is the best whole vision of a nuclear future I have read, Emmet. I hope we return to a “cooperative federalism” energy policy with private sector and state utility commission, joining regulators and environmentalists to build practical environmentalism into our energy and electricity grid.
Very enlightening article, but what about natural gas? We have a more than 100 year supply. Why not build pipelines and covert coal plants to gas? Faster and less capex. I love the idea of nuclear, but am leery after decades of failing to build more.
I love natural gas, but if you think building pipelines in America is fast…
Fair point, but relative to nuclear?
Would depend on the coal plant, I imagine. I expect we'll see some more coal-to-gas switches, though those will be small in number thanks to the new EPA emissions rules, which have just been upheld. I'd also imagine that proximity to pipelines would also be an important factor. Nuclear would just need the grid hook up and so would be spared the pain of longer pipeline construction.
My vision is not that every single coal plant gets switched to a nuclear plant, but that wherever it's appropriate for it to happen, it does. More importantly, there's a ticking clock on this. If in the next year or so we don't figure out how to make any of what I've suggested happen then it's back to 10-15 years until we see another FOAK nuclear plant that runs over budget and over time, starting this whole cycle over again. And then you'll be completely right--pipelines won't appear too painful to pay for unless regulations make it too cumbersome to build natural gas generators in the first place.
Good ideas, BUT we need to rid ourselves of the NRC regulations, delays, and expenses created by exaggerated fears of radiation from nuclear power, which did harm < 100 people at Chernobyl, BUT NOWHERE ELSE. Read https://hargraves.substack.com/p/radiation
I understand the sentiment. But abolishing the NRC seems a tall order. We’d have a regulatory vacuum, and 5,000 pissed off nuclear experts with nothing to do. Like so many of our institutions the vast majority of the NRC workforce are good, knowledgeable people. Change the leadership structure. Maybe one person in charge. Finally get rid of LTM and ALARA, fast track advance reactor regs, approve a model not every reactor so we can build in mass. Big reform is difficult, not impossible. But abolishing the NRC, even Ethan Hunt of Mission Impossible may decide not to accept that mission.
Reads like Nuclear Industry Business Relief Act :) Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Bipartisan greasing to tip scale >50% of 435 House Representatives and 100 Senators. Gospel of Nuclear Cathedral Propaganda, Psy-Fi Tragedy of the Commons “For the People” (Shareholders of Nuclear Supply Chain Businesses) Sold to US citizens Representatives for “The Common Good”. Whatever they say it will cost in Today’s Dollars, multiply by 3x or more to arrive at taxpayers cost sharing upon completion, plus compound interest to further drain the flow of Public Dollars for select private interest group. Made in the USA, financed directly by UST or guaranteed thereby via Public Power Infrastructure Bonds. Future Shock :)