A couple years ago I happened to be sitting around a group of energy investors and academics when nuclear energy came up. Their unanimous understanding was that building nuclear plants had become simply too expensive to do either safely or within regulations. Was common knowledge to them it sounded like.
I think the regulations are changing as people understand what to change, but the construction problem is still a problem.
We are bad at construction, and productivity in the entire sector has been stagnant for half a century. In the meantime, we have seen soaring productivity in manufacturing, meaning that labor costs go up too, but without the corresponding productivity increase.
For a nuclear peoject, where so many of the very high up front costs are labor, this is devastating to the cost structure.
And of course, delays are devastating to costs when financing costs are more than 50% of the cost of the entire project.
Fix construction, and maybe nuclear will make financial sense. But not until construction is fixed.
There are definitely lots of small startups promising to find the cost savings. Or I should say, lessen the variance and uncertainty in building costs, because SMRs are going to be more expensive than large reactors but have smaller financial risk profiles.
It remains to be seen if any can deliver. Early indications have all been extremely negative.
In one sense, it already is, in that liability is backed by the US government, there are massive loan programs available for anybody who wants to do construction, and for the first time there are now massive tax credits for energy production thanks to Biden's IRA.
However, as for the massive logistics and management problem of actually constructing a nuclear reactor, it's unclear if having government employees would be better. It's clear that the current contractors are terrible, but that's no guarantee that the US gov would be better.
"Common knowledge" built on cherry-picking data and new alternatives is what we call "fashion".
Also, basing energy supply considerations solely on a dollar cost notion is questionable, even if the dollar cost values were true. It's turning out that 'high nuclear energy cost' FUD is part and parcel of much of the 'green' movement and based on faulty LCOE assumptions that are spread uncritically by self-styled 'greens' on social media.
Just looking at the data from "newly built" nuclear plants over the last 20-30 years suggests they cost a lot more than they initially anticipated. That's an investment thesis you'll have a hard time selling, especially with rising interest rates.
As it is, the rising interest rate regime of the past two years has already completely killed off two major windfarm projects on the US Eastern seaboard. That aside, the fact remains that the "expensive nuclear power" meme is based on cherrypicking the worst cases of cost-overruns in the industry and holding them as generally representative for nuclear industry and technology, while wholly ignoring the effective steps forward taken by Korea, China, the UAE and do on.
Also, this assumes dollar cost is the only relevant factor which is deeply unserious considering that we're dealing with a global long-term issue.
Rising interest rates also make other large infrastructure projects dead on arrival. Large onshore windfarms are probably ok (although a few of those probably got killed as well), but offshore is a bigger risk so I am not surprised.
It's a bit strange to rally against cherry-picking and then referring to projects outside of relevant jurisdictions. For some reason we cannot replicate their results, we can have it as a goal perhaps but as a basis for a cost calculation I would opt for jurisdictions that are home or close to home (in a cultural sense).
> Also, this assumes dollar cost is the only relevant factor which is deeply unserious considering that we're dealing with a global long-term issue.
For investors it is the only relevant factor, which is what you initially replied to.
I don't think you have caught up with any of the serious professional literature in the area, such as any of the assessments of the very very nuclear-friendly sources such as MIT labs or the DoE.
Ignore the greens, and definitely do not adopt their innumeracy, as so man nuclear advocates have done.
The real foes of nuclear right now are the economics and construction costs. The high costs are not "cherry picked," they are the data that are exhaustive and what everybody has available for decision making.
The people that need to be convinced to build nuclear are utility execs, not the public. There are a plentitude of sites that would be happy to add reactors to their existing pair, if somebody would come with the money.
