Advice across the board is that nuclear power plants take a really long time and cost a lot of money. They almost always go far over time and budget. And they’re expensive to operate. Why is that so?
In: Engineering
Safety was mentioned, what might not be obvious is that safety/quality extends to the construction and the people who build the plant, even those who a lot of us with white collar jobs consider less skilled
There is a significant amount of water and steam piping in a nuclear power plant – water is heated by the energy from the nuclear reactor, cooling the reactor core. Depending on the type of reactor that water either turns directly into radioactive steam, which then powers the generator turbines, or else is circulated to boil water via a heat exchanger creating non-radioactive steam, which is used to power the turbines.
Either way you have really hot radioactive water and high pressure steam running through pipes – leaks in the welds that join those pipes would be extremely dangerous. In order to ensure the welds are high quality the pipe fitters that do that work in my state (OH) are required to periodically have their welding skills examined by state inspectors, both visually and via X-ray, and they receive a metal stamp with which to stamp every weld they make during the construction process. Not every welder is capable of meeting the quality standards, so jobs requiring them may pay higher wages, and certainly pull from a smaller labor pool, leading to higher construction costs.
Note that you have some of the same requirements in any plant that uses steam generation – coal fired plants commonly use steam turbines as well. But nuclear power plants can require a higher level of certification than a “regular” steam fitting certification.
The biggest issue with the plant themselves is that they were purposefully overburdened with regulations in most developed countries to limit their viability. This was due to anti nuclear, unfounded hysteria, and massive lobbying by oil and gas companies.
If you go to some nations in Asia and occasionally elsewhere they can be built much much cheaper and be just as robust and safe.
This was intentional to make nuclear power less attractive to build as frankly, it’s pretty superior to fossil fuels in every way and even produces less toxins and danger.
It should be cheaper and easier to build but again it was intentionally made hard to do so. This likely set back energy production a half century. We really should have chopped most coal and gas and oil plants to low levels in developed nations by now, but we don’t always make the best decisions.
Nuclear fuels disposable is really a non issue. We know how to do it very well and very safe. But again, anti nuclear hysteria is a thing.
A few reasons.
1: The incredible amount of safety precautions
2: All concrete has to be done in one pour which is hard.
3: Workers need training and education
4: Constant preventative maintenance and maintenance to avoid meltdowns and all other shenanigans.
[This study](https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(20)30458-X) does a good job explaining why nuclear plants have gotten more expensive.
As you might expect, there isn’t one single cause. They authors estimate only 1/3 of cost increases are the result of additional safety requirements. The rest is largely related to indirect or soft costs
> Indirect costs caused most (72%) of the cost increase during period 1 (1976–1987), in particular… engineering design, purchasing and expediting, estimating and cost control, planning, and scheduling… salaries and relocation expenses… materials and labor to construct and manage temporary buildings needed during construction, and payroll insurance and taxes.
Another is the decline in labor productivity. For example:
> Material deployment rates in the construction industry decreased over the period of study, falling about 14%… nuclear deployment rates declined five to six times more quickly. This productivity decline was a primary cause of nuclear cost increase. Labor interviews provide insight… **Craft laborers, for example, were unproductive during 75% of scheduled working hours**, primarily due to …lack of material and tool availability, overcrowded work areas, and scheduling conflicts between crews of different trades.
Put simply: safety is a factor, but the root of the problem is the amount and type of labor required to build and operate reactors. Not only do you have to pay for the labor (which is often expensive specialty labor), but also people to supervise and coordinate that labor and all the materials. It’s an enormous logistical challenge where any unexpected delay cascades into the next. That’s why building the same reactor doesn’t necessarily decrease costs.
The catch-22 is that attempting a new design or build process to fix this problem just creates a new set of logistical and cost challenges.
Contrast this with solar, where the same PV module is created on an automated assembly line and requires little to no maintenance or operating costs after placement in the field.
A significant part of the cost of running a nuclear power station comes not from the actual operation of the plant, but from the constant training and exercising with the state and local public safety agencies in the localities surrounding the power stations. They all need to make sure their plans are up to date and that the constantly-revolving staff at those agencies are trained on how to respond to a potential emergency at the power station.
Source: part of my job involves planning and participating in these exercises
We actually would have a very complex time building a new reactor, everyone who knows how they work is dead or retired.
Latest Answers