File: Fuqing56investment.pdf (154 KB, PDF)

154 KB PDF

Apparently, China builds a Hualong-1 reactor for about 16¥/W, which is about 2.2$/W
https://www.nengyuanjie.net/article/89951.html

70% of the cost is regulation. People who don't build and are parasites

>>16270641
The article states that AP1000 cost 20¥/W = 2.8$/W to build in China. It attributes the higher cost of AP1000 to an immature design and equipment manufacturing problems.

Vogtle 3&4, which are also AP1000, cost over 13.4$/W. If you compare the construction start and commissioning dates of Vogtle 3&4 with those of Sanmen 1&2 and Haiyang 1&2, you see that the construction time was also less in China. This despite Vogtle 3&4 starting construction later than both Sanmen 1&2 and Haiyang 1&2 did, when the design should have been more mature.

Clearly, the difference in construction time and cost is not just due to better reactor design. So what causes this?

>>16270733
>So what causes this?
nuclear energy being expensive is 100% regulation.

>>16270700
70%? It can't be that much in regulatory fees. Neither can it be that far more stringent regulatory requirements makes US reactors far more expensive. In China the American-designed AP1000 was built far cheaper than in the US.

They've spent more than 3$ a watt before they even start construction

>>16270742
it's not only regulatory fees. you have to wait a fucking long time to be approved and need years before being approved for construction. during that time, you'll have to pay interest and also lose out sitting on an asset that is producing nothing. also, cost of anything related to nuclear is so expensive because very few people or companies have expertises in these matters again due to regulation restricting and killing the industry.
if they lessen the regulation, cost can decrease to a quarter of what it currently is in a few decade.

>>16270747
Why would they take out the loan before construction has been approved?

>>16270641
Regulations exclusively.

>>16270742
100% government's fault. Zero denying this. Glad a few people in the thread fully understand this.

>>16270751
yeah, that's wrong, should like construction finishes. there are lots of regulations and the general atmostphere isn't great for nuclear energy so banks take advantage of that and charge you a fuck ton of interest for those project.

>>16270754
How can regulation cause costs in the US to be 4-5 times higher than in many other countries? What type of regulating is it exactly that drives costs so insanely much? Do you have any good concrete examples?

>>16270761
sabine has a good video on this, just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EsBiC9HjyQ&t

>>16270761
>any good concrete examples?
The government isn't going to make it easy to pin them down as ruining things are they?

Regulation is a man point a gun in your face and demanding things of you. That's how it's so damaging.
It's the "I consent. I consent. I don't!" meme but on a monumental scale.

Things like delays >>16270747, things like H&S demanding that the same job be done 500 times.

In a free market things are just so much fucking simpler, all that's needed is two consenting adults. Job done. Please vote for a freer market.

>>16270764
It's 28 min. Can you give the relevant timestamps?

>>16270782
fuck you retarded lazy fuck. there's a timestamps for "Cost" in the video, just start watch from there.

>>16270776
China's nuclear power is almost the complete opposite of free market

File: Duttons dysgenic cycle 01.jpg (418 KB, 1920x1080)

418 KB JPG

>>16270764
15:00 Just gonna point out that civilization is dying due to a combination of communist subversion, increasing size of government, and dysgenics.

>>16270641
Tofu Dreg

>>16270787
And if we had a country with a free market it would be even cheaper than China.
Chinks don't have as many safety regulations. Safety regulations are what are bumping up the cost of all industries, and why nobody does industry in the west today.

Before you screech over how "the evil capitalists will make everyone work in long sleeves next to a lathe without regulations!!!", there's no need for these safety regulations; like all things, the degree of safety in your workplace is determined by supply and demand. In a free market, there will be some optimal degree of safety because the workers of a place want to be safe.

>>16270641
They aren't including the future cost after the plant is EOF

>>16270801
>EOF
what's that? decommissioning?
If so, problem is still regulation. Just level the old reactor building like any other. The radioactive parts you just throw them in the sea. Water blocks radiation, ocean dilutes soluble radioactives.

Only pearl clutchers disagree with ocean disposal of nuclear waste.

>>16270764
no gonna watch a woman

>>16270784
>someone who can't give a timestamp accuses others of being lazy

A reference is written once and read several times. It would have been better to link to the underlying papers themselves or at least just mention the timestamp of the moments she mentioned them

https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sites/sti/sti/Sort_3278.pdf
https://pdf.sciencedirectassets.com/316494/1-s2.0-S2542435119X00124/1-s2.0-S254243512030458X/main.pdf

>>16270798
You need safety regulations. They just need to be appropriate and in reasonable amount.

curb the regulation, nuclear energy is the cheapest, safest and really the only green energy source we have. it gets attack from both fossil fuel and "green" energy lobby because nuclear energy would bankrupt both of those two industries if it ever let loose. that's why you see the climate change activists and the environmentalist most are vehemently anti-nuclear. it's not because nuclear is unsafe, it's just because it would bankrupt the industries where they have vested interest in. that's why I can never take their claim of climate emergency seriously as long as they're still this anti-nuclear. what a joke and a grift.

>>16270816
>You need safety regulations.
Why? Just like minimum wage, they are unneeded.
If Sheklestein demands you wear a the company uniform Toga while working on a lathe, just don't work for that company. Like I said it's supply and demand.

>>16270798
> like all things, the degree of safety in your workplace is determined by supply and demand. In a free market, there will be some optimal degree of safety because the workers of a place want to be safe.
No, because
(a) Information assymetry - the plant will recruit the most clueless workers
(b) Externalities - The effects of a nuclear accident affects people who neither own the plant nor work at the plant and who might not even buy electricity from the plant

>>16270812
how about killing yourself? I already fed you the video link.

>>16270818
>curb the regulation, ... safest
Que statist idiots claiming that nuclear is only safe due to regulations.
My counterpoint to this: The worst nuclear accident was Chernobyl, in which only 30 fucking people died due to radiation.

If you statist harpies payed as much attention to any other industry (coal, steel, chemicals), you would've made so many regulations that no industry would be possible to conduct.
Oh wait.

That's exactly why the west doesn't have industry anymore outside of a few outliers.

>>16270801
They are only counting the initial capital investment. However, that is true for all the countries considered

>>16270823
>I already fed you the video link.
Wow. That's a lot of spoon feeding by you. You should have just said "ask Google". That's an appropriate level of direction.

>>16270831
you are just trying to distract from the main point right now. you're most a paid troll to derail these threads. ignored. everyone else should also ignore you. bye.

>>16270822
>No, because
>(a) Information assymetry - the plant will recruit the most clueless workers
Total fallacy. Suppose a clueless moron works at Sheklestein's factory, he goes in knowing nothing about the dangers of lathe practice. One day he watches one of his coworkers get his company mandated Toga get caught in the lathe causing him to die by Chink Liveleak Leekspin.
The clueless coworker gossips about the incident.
The more times Sheklestein's company has such incidents, the more gossip the company gets. If your company is known as the human leekspin factory, people won't work for you.

People do not need to know the intricacies of lathe saftey to know if Sheklestein's factory is dangerous or not. This is why reputation and branding used to be so important.

A very similar mechanism works to prevent things like fraud. McSnakeoil merchant can't sell fake pills because he'll ruin his brand. Nobody will buy pills from a ruined brand. Hence we don’t need regulations busybodying what goes into pills.

>(b) Externalities
Ah, you’re a midwit communist. No point reasoning with you. Externalities do not exist.

>>16270840
>If your company is known as the human leekspin factory, people won't work for you.
There are almost always clueless people that you can hire. Especially when it comes to complex knowledge like nuclear physics and complex systems like nuclear reactors, and invisible radiation that is not widely well understood, that you can't detect without special equipment, and that you can't immediately see the deleterious effects of.

>Externalities do not exist
Okay. I guess a person who has had no involvement with the plant could not in any way be affected by an accident at that plant. It just can't happen.

>>16270845
>There are almost always clueless people that you can hire.
That's only the case if there's an oversupply of labor.
If you don't have billions of immigrants coming into the country, that supply of labor drops.

In fact even if you did have infinite supply, you've still got reputation. If live workers go in, and mobik cubes come out, you'll become known as the haunted factory of certain death. Nobody will work for you.

>Especially when it comes to complex knowledge like nuclear physics and complex systems like nuclear reactors
I already addressed this >>16270840:
>People do not need to know the intricacies of lathe saftey to know if Sheklestein's factory is dangerous or not. This is why reputation and branding used to be so important.

Do you need to know how plumbing works to hire a good plumber? No, you just look at his reputation. On a company scale this is a brand.

>I guess a person who has had no involvement with the plant could not in any way be affected by an accident at that plant. It just can't happen.
Correct. That person might not be buying your electricity, but he's the baker you're buying your bread from.
Unless your 100% completely and utterly self sufficient, nobody is external to you. Even if there was, they could always pull a Just Stop Oil and chain themselves to the gates of your power station.

>>16270850
>If live workers go in, and mobik cubes come out, you'll become known as the haunted factory of certain death. Nobody will work for you.

How would people learn to not work at the plant by workers getting cancer many years later? How would they find out, and how would they connect it to the plant since the victims might not even be working at the plant any longer when they get cancer? And if people do eventually find out, might not decades have passed?

>>16270866
>How would people learn to not work at the plant by workers getting cancer many years later?
Exact same process but slower. This isn't hard to answer.

>>16270866
Not the fag, but your point is moot when current governmental authorities do zilch in this scenario either. The problem is found decades after the fact from corporate malfeasance and cover up. Trial goes on for decades. The conspirators aren't even remotely punished as they have long moved from the company. The current administrators figure out how to squeeze the buck to get lawsuit funds.

>>16270886
>The problem is found decades after the fact from corporate malfeasance and cover up.
Never gonna fix government corruption. Accept that, and recognize that trying to "fix" so called "market failures" will never work.

This should be obvious really: Governments are naturally corrupt by the fact they fund themselves through theft; taxation.

>>16270641
>>16270671
>>16270733
lol

The much-referenced Lazard LCOE, that people so often use to declare that nuclear power is uncompetitive, assumes that nuclear reactors cost between 8.77$/W and 14.40$/W. It also assumes that the reactor only operates for 40 years, even though new reactors are usually designed to operate for 60 years, and in some cases might even operate up to 80 years.

It also assumes the reactor is financed at 60% debt at an 8% interest rate and 40% equity at a 12% cost. Nuclear LCOE is by far the most sensitive to cost of capital assumptions. In China nuclear reactors are at zero risk of a politically mandated shutdown, and so state-owned banks can just finance nuclear reactors at the interest rate of sovereign debt, which currently is about 2.3% for China.

I doubt nuclear power is uncompetitive in countries that can implement nuclear power properly and competently.

https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
page 13 and 38

Fake bookkeeping. It's fucking China. Everyone else in this thread is a fuckwit.

>>16270733
>Clearly, the difference in construction time and cost is not just due to better reactor design. So what causes this?
China is a dictatorship and can just order things to be built without a lengthy review and consultation process

>>16271088
So are you saying that lengthy review and consultation processes are what drive the price up by 4-5 times in the US?

>dictatorship
What about Japan, South Korea, India, etc? They also do it far cheaper

>>16270641
>What causes this?
Safety.

>>16270641
Japan is a de facto one party state, South Korea was a dictatorship 60s, 70s and 80s.
They are more state capitalism than full free market capitalism.

>>16271324
If reactors are so expensive in the US that almost no one wants to build them, then that's certainly very good for safety. Reactors that don't get built can't cause accidents.

>>16271332
They are more expensive than in China but that doesn't mean US can't afford them. The decision to abandon nuclear in the USA is political and has nothing to do with the cost of building nuclear power plants.

>>16271340
If US industrial consumers have to pay about 6 times more for electricity than China so that plant operators can pay off their loans, then it's much harder for US industry to be internationally competitive. Since interest rates on loans for nuclear plants are apparently higher in the US than in China, they'd probably have to charge even more than 6 times as much.

Nuclear reactors would of course get built in the US even at this exorbitant price if there was no alternative to nuclear for generating electricity. There are alternatives though, especially now that fracking has made natural gas cheap in the US.

>>16271317
Regulations. You've been told many times now.
It is the government slowing things down as fucking always.

>>16271480
I was asking the poster why he thought that review and consultations in particular were the cost drivers

>nuclear power? yes its perfectly safe and effective for our military goons to use in the service of israel. what? let mere citizens benefit from the same technology we permit ourselves to use? hell no, americans only deserve second rate trash

>>16271728
>review and consultations
Increase time, make people redo things which have been done already. These both increase cost. Very simple.

Regulations drive up costs, thats why the west doesn't have industry unless its directly mandated by the state.

>>16270641
green party marxists

>>16270641
Regulations and wages

/thread

The NRC has been understaffed and dysfunctional for a while in the U.S, even if a reactor is up to code and safe that doesn't mean much if the NRC's 2 engineers and potted plant take a month confirm that the project is still safe every time a welder spills coffee on his balls.

aids

>Regulations
>Regulations
>Regulations
Not the only thing to blame. My Father works at a concrete factory and told be he charged them 6 times the normal price just because the job was "nuclear". He earned a fat commission because of it. I'm sure every contractor on the job does the exact same thing.

High regulatory burden

>>16275897

This is due to regulations. Only certain contractors are compliant, only certain contractors are approved for the bid, they can set their terms, government won't push back because it's taxpayer money and they don't give a shit about the price bloat. It's still regulations anon, not free competition and operation.

>>16270641
>>16270671
Pretty much:
>Gen IV reactor
>Small module reactor
Those are the reasons. Also there's a Hualong-2 coming out pretty soon, it's 25-33% cheaper, so probably looking at $1.5/W or so.

>>16275897
Government regulations and bureaucrats requiring retarded standards, then testing every spec of concrete to make sure it meets those standards and if it doesn't the concrete plant has to pay for removal + redo

>>16275930
China's only operational SMR or Gen IV reactor is HTR-PM, of which they have one twin 200MWe unit that only entered commercial operation last year. So that isn't the reason.

>>16270671
>China builds VERY cheap nuclear reactors

This sounds like the punchline to a joke that hasn't been told yet.

File: Bug water.jpg (93 KB, 613x390)

93 KB JPG

>>16270641
>We should do things like China does.
Please let's not.

>>16275959
>>16275913
>Things I just made up

>>16276488
No free market in chinkville. Big cheif dumps shit in the water because you're executed for complaining.
Deregulate nuclear and every other industry.

>>16275897
No, regulations are the only thing to blame. You're just not thinking hard.

>Prospective nuclear plant constructor (PNPC) scouts out concrete suppliers.
>All established concrete factories give a 6 fold markup for some mystery reason.
>PNPC holds off for now.
>Market entrepreneur notices obvious gap in the market.
>He starts up a concrete factory.
>PNPC gives another go at sourcing concrete.
>Concrete entrepreneur sells concrete to PNPC at 3-fold markup, hogging the entire order of concrete for the new nuclear plant. He makes buck.

Now whats even better is:
>Old concrete factories realize they're losing out.
>The lower 6-fold markup to 2-fold to compete with the new guy.
>Repeat until small profit margin.

With this mindgame we deduce ONLY regulations are to blame. How? Because IRL the market entrepreneur is banned by law from creating a new concrete factory due to the burdensome regulations associated with such activities.
Don't believe me? Start a business and find out how much the governemnt helps you.

Actually just talk to your Dad about the legal tape they have to go through.

>>16276496
You're a statist who either understands the situation but lies, hence evil; or you're too stupid to understand.

>noo you can't just charge private companies 6x the normal price... b-because you can't, ok?

File: 61P7AolWkDL._AC_UF1000,10(...).jpg (62 KB, 627x1000)

62 KB JPG

>>16270641
A Century of War has an interesting chapter on nuclear energy. Basically the oil industry saw their vulnerability after the rise of nuclear in the 1960s and crisis of 1973. They shifted their strategy to discrediting their major energy competitor through useful idiots in the environmentalist movement, while solidifying their control via the petrodollar system.

>>16278101
You're free to charge whatever you want. But if you try 6 times the price, what stops your competitor charging only 3x?
To win business companies will lower the price until they can lower it no longer.

If you don't understand this you should not be allowed to vote at all ever.

>>16270641
Government, state, federal and local as well as the judiciary
The US is the most litigious country in the world and it shows

It's subcontracting, not regulations, morons.
50 nuclear reactors were built in the 80's and 90's at a Chinese pace because the construction was state-led
Same reason the Chinese do it well now
Americans always sucked at it because of low average IQ though

>>16277829
>No free market in chinkville
Ironically, the Chinese nuclear industry has a great deal of just the type of heavy competition that a free market theorist would like.

They have four nuclear energy companies (CNNC, CGN, SPIC, Huaneng) and four nuclear reactor heavy component manufacturers (China First Heavy Industries, Harbin Electric, Shanghai Electric, Dongfang Electric).

The main gigawatt-class reactor, Hualong-1, is an industry standard design that both CNNC and CGN can build

>>16279215
Three out of four of those companies (CFHI, Harbin Electric and Dongfang Electric) are state-owned companies, moron.

File: pic12-800x534.jpg (122 KB, 800x534)

122 KB JPG

>>16270641
reminder that a large proportion of the government fees and taxes that artificially inflate the cost of nuclear power in the usa goes to subsidize wasteful, useless and highly polluting ((((green))) energy projects

>>16279358
Nuclear is subsidized and fossil fuels get the most subsidies.

>>16279361
Don't forget your antipsychotics man, 3 times a day.

>>16279347
So? The point was about competition, not about private vs state ownership.

Shanghai Electric is also state-owned; it's majority-owned by the government of Shanghai.

>>16270641
>>16270671
>>16276413
extremely low interest rates for loans from supportive regional&national banks

>>16270641
Chris Keefer had a 4-part discussion with James Krellenstein on the Decouple podcast about the Vogtle 3&4 trainwreck. The high cost and delays were caused by what can be summarized as pervasive mismanagement and incompetence, stemming from a lack of nuclear experience. Krellenstein quite strongly rejected the notion that regulation was a major cause.

He went into many interesting details, including the horrid mess that was the supply chain, the design going from 95% complete down to 88% complete as construction progressed, over 180 applications for licence amendments while construction was ongoing, letter openers being thrown at QA people, etc etc

>>16270641
Marcel Boiteux, 2004:
>There are therefore ultimately four reasons for success: a huge program at the start (which allows programming), the series effect (we avoid brilliant ideas as much as possible to postpone them to the next series), engineering by the client (this is not an original idea: in the United States, the Edison company was big enough to also have its own engineering team), cost control.

https://books.openedition.org/igpde/6716

>>16276413
I guess one could say CFR-600 is also fully operational, even though the mass produced version will be CFR-1000

>>16276488
>like China does.
It's how much of the world do them, by the looks of it

>>16279215
>Ironically, the Chinese nuclear industry has a great deal of just the type of heavy competition that a free market theorist would like.
No its not. What a ridiculous statement you've made. Nuclear is regulated everywhere because nuclear is close to nukes. What a stupid thing you've said.
>They have four nuclear energy companies
Everything is essentially state owned in china.

>>16280337
So free market principles don't apply. What part of "Free market" don't you get? Government is the antithesis of free you commie idiot.

>>16282407
What part of "a great deal of just the type of heavy competition that a free market theorist would like" didn't you get? I didn't say that it was a "free market".

Besides, the definition of free market isn't that market actors are privately owned; the definition of a free market is that the market actors make decisions solely on the basis of market demand and supply, without external intervention. This is not necessarily incompatible with government ownership; it depends on whether the government as an owner instructs the companies to operate based on market conditions alone, or based on other considerations. Free market is not the same as capitalism, and a free market does not necessarily need to be based on capitalism, although it usually is.

>>16276488
>>16277829
This type of pollution is exactly what a free market does. Regulation is necessary to prevent negative externalities such as water pollution

>>16281331
He also talked in another episode about the extremely toxic regulatory environment that was the case for a while