Ya think?
Since I keep hearing, wherever I go, that bringing new nuclear on line is as simple as just walking down the the street to the nukyalar plant store and buying a nukyalar plant, I offer these collected resources as my gift to all the internet’s uninformed unfortunates.
Speaking to Wall Street Week, above, the top Executive of GE-Vernova, which expects to be one of the largest builders of Small Nuclear Reactors, states the facts.
SMRs will be “more expensive” than other forms of energy, until, he hopes, “we come down the cost curve as we gain more volume”.
But who pays for the first 5, or 10, or 100, as they “come down the cost curve.” Taxpayers of course.
SMRs may or may not be a good idea, and they are coming, but have no illusions about what they will cost, or when they will be available.
Duke Energy, one of the largest operators of Nuclear power in the world, had this projection in it’s most recent Integrated Resource plan.
Duke Energy Integrated Resource Plan 2025 – Appendix J:
Given the substantial upfront capital investment required for deployment of new nuclear generation (relative to other types of generation), support will be required in the form of cost overrun protection, which currently does not exist, or other cost mitigation measures.
Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle were the first advanced reactor LLWR projects in the U.S. with two AP1000® units constructed and placed into commercial operation. The Vogtle project experienced significant delays and cost overrun, with the total cost more than double the original projected cost. Though some issues were unique to that project, the first and second movers for the next advanced reactor projects will be assuming construction risks and therefore will need some form of insurance to protect customers.
It is essential that the current tax credits that incentivize new nuclear generation remain in place, as they provide critical financial support for these investments and decrease investment risk, which will lead to lower overall costs for customers. In addition, the current tax credits that incentivize the efficient operation of the existing nuclear fleet are also essential, as they help keep energy prices low, with every dollar going back to customers.
Further, the federal loan guarantee program, federal grant opportunities, and other mechanisms like public-private partnerships could provide crucial support.
Given the risks and long-lead time associated with constructing new nuclear, cost overrun protection would further decrease investment risk in a manner that would benefit customers.
In sum, without continued federal support, the financial risk of nuclear construction could deter development, slowing, delaying, or eliminating progress despite the substantial potential benefits of new nuclear generation for customers.
===
The appendix quoted above has a timeline for their first SMR build, targeting 2036-37.
Hindering renewable energy projects risks slowing the AI boom — and could exacerbate rising electricity prices, a slew of data suggests.
“It’s an all-hands-on-deck moment right now to get the power to supply this,” said Robert Whaley, director of North American power at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy. “In the next 10 years, there’s really nothing to replace renewables.”
Renewable energy so far remains the fastest and cheapest option to add power to the grid. Nearly 80% of the planned power plant capacity in the pipeline is tied to renewable sources, according to filings with federal regulators and grid operators compiled by Cleanview.co, an energy data company.
The scramble to meet the electricity demands of artificial intelligence is reigniting interest in nuclear energy, but high costs and long lead times could complicate its comeback.
A new report from consultancy ICF found a nuclear renaissance was “far from certain”, citing doubts over economic viability, technological scalability and long timelines.
The report found that restarting nuclear plants could cost between $356/kW a year to $407/kW a year, while small modular reactor (SMR) costs could be as high as $863/ kW a year, 50 per cent more than gas-fired power plants and those with carbon capture.
“There’s a lot of uncertainty around both the technology and, importantly, the cost,” said Shanthi Muthiah, ICF’s managing director for energy advisory. “That introduces significant financial risk.” The US race to lead in AI has sparked a proliferation of energy intensive data centres and an unprecedented surge in electricity demand.
The need for low-carbon, around-the-clock sources of power is driving companies to invest in emerging nuclear technologies or restart decommissioned nuclear reactors, including Microsoft’s 20-year power deal with Constellation Energy to revive Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania, notorious for being the site of the worst nuclear accident in the country’s history.
—
Finally, Joe Romm PhD of University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media.
As with so much other current technology, if anyone can do it, the Chinese would get there first.
They’re good at scale and less vulnerable to damaging their mass production models by doing custom mods for individual clients.
Oh, and Merry Christmas, grandpa.
I wonder (not really) why they never mention the methodology, costs, and potential risks of nuclear reactors including waste disposal. They always point a rosy picture and ignore the contamination from places like 3 Mile Island, Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Chernobyl, Fukushima, and other nuclear disasters.
Michael Liebreich compares the current worldwide production of wind and solar with how many SMRs would need to be built for equivalent power production. Wind and solar in place now was mostly built over the last twenty years, and currently, combined, has an output about equal to operational nuclear reactors. But most of those reactors were also built over a twenty year period – from about 1967 to 1987 – and those built since, much of them in China, are only about equal in capacity to the reactors taken offline in Germany, Japan, the United States, and elsewhere, that could easily have carried on making safe, low carbon, reliable power for another forty years. The two reactors built in Georgia, after a thirty year construction hiatus, had numerous delays, partly because the designs hadn’t been completed, partly from lack of experience by management and the workforce. But China also had problems building four of the exact same design, taking much longer than they do for the other reactors they’ve been building. They persisted, modified them slightly, and are currently constructing another sixteen at a good pace. They have also developed a larger version, of 1500 megawatts, two of which are already in operation, with more planned. The four original Chinese AP1000s have an excellent operational history, with cumulative energy availability over 90%. That’s about double what you can expect for wind, and knocks solar into a cocked hat (especially in temperate countries that get a winter, or tropical ones with a monsoon season – we can’t all live in deserts!)
Michael Liebreich is, I think rightly, sceptical of some proposed energy solutions like hydrogen. He may be right that small nuclear won’t gain traction. But he espouses (and invests in!) some other tech, such as thousand mile undersea power cables to carry solar and wind from Morocco to Britain, or Australia to Singapore. So far all such schemes have foundered, and for many reasons I think they will continue to. In comparison, nuclear has an excellent track record, including for reactors about the same size as those being planned by GE and Rolls Royce.
Considerations for new power plants:
– cumulative availability provided
– time to build
– siting issues
– new transmission line cost (part of siting issues)
– cost of construction
– cost of material
– cost of specialized labor
– cost of fuel
– cost of operation
– cost of maintenance
– carbon payback time for all inputs
– who pays for cost overruns
– interest rates (high rates affect capex for long projects)
Note that nuclear power plants need storage (like pumped hydro for past NPPs) to allow them to have cost-effective operation on some grids. Storage helps fill in the demand curve.