[apendleton]

In terms of cost of materials to build a reactor, sure, that seems right. But most of the cost of fission is dealing with its regulatory burden, and fusion seems on track to largely avoid the worst of that. It seems conceivable that it ends up being cheaper for entirely political/bureaucratic reasons.

[pfdietz]

Relaxed regulatory burden doesn't seem to be making fission competitive in China; renewables are greatly overwhelming it now, particularly solar.

We might ask why regulations are so putatively damaging to nuclear, when they aren't to civil aviation. One possibility is that aircraft are simply easier to retrofit when design flaws are found. If there's a problem with welding in a nuclear plant (for example) it's extremely difficult to repair. Witness the fiasco of Flamanville 3 in France, the EPR plant that went many times over budget.

What would this imply for fusion? Nothing good. A fusion reactor is very complex, and any design flaw in the hot part will be extremely difficult to fix, as no hands on access will be allowed after the thing has started operation, due to induced radioactivity. This includes design or manufacturing flaws that cause mere operations problems, like leaks in cooling channels, not just flaws that might present public safety risks (if any could exist.) The operator will view a smaller problem that renders their plant unusable nearly as bad as a larger problem that also threatens the public.

I was struck by a recent analysis of deterioration of the tritium breeding blanket that just went ahead and assumed there were no initial cracks in the welded structure more than a certain very small size. Guaranteeing quality of all the welds in a very large complex fusion reactor, an order of magnitude or more larger than a fission reactor of the same power output, sounds like a recipe for extreme cost.

[cyberax]

Regulation is not a problem, and even the construction costs are not terrible. We can take the Rooppur NPP as a base, it produces reliable energy at 6-7 cents per kWh. The reason for cost overruns is simply because NPPs are one-off products, the Western countries don't have a pipeline for NPP production.

For comparison, utility-scale solar with 16 hours of storage is 21 cents: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/higher-renewable-energy-cos...

Just raw solar without storage can be as low as 2-3 cents per kWh.

[pfdietz]

If I understand correctly, the cost/year of an engineer in India is maybe 1/3rd that in the US, and for general labor the disparity is even larger. So it shouldn't be too surprising NPP construction in India is cheaper than in the US. India doesn't have a large NPP pipeline, they just have cheaper labor.

[cyberax]

(Bangladesh, not India)

Yes, but solar power panels are also mostly produced in China, where engineers still get less than 1/3 of the US/Europe salary.

European power plants will be more expensive, but even with the LCOE of 12 (twice that of Rooppur) it's still going to be way cheaper than storage for areas that get cold weather (Midwest, Germany, most of China).

Anything south of California? Yeah, just get solar+wind, no need to bother with nuclear.

[pfdietz]

As we pointed out, PV is still trouncing nuclear in China. So if the difference is smaller there, it's still in favor of solar.

Storage is another matter here, but even there costs for batteries have simply collapsed. Understand that massive storage is needed even in a nuclear-powered economy. If all the 283 million cars and trucks in the US were replaced with 70 kWh BEVs, the storage would be enough to power the US grid (at its current average consumption) for 40 hours. That's a lot of batteries. So the demand is there to continue to drive them down their experience curves. In China, they're already around $50/kWh for installed grid storage systems (not just cell price).

The final storage problem, the only reed that nuclear can be clinging to at this point, is long term/seasonal storage. That's needed either to smooth wind variability (~ week scale) or to move solar from summer to winter (~6 months). There are at least two different ways this could be solved: hydrogen and heat. As mentioned elsewhere in these threads, the latter is very promising, with capex as little as $1/kWh of storage capacity and a RTE of about 40%. Should that work out anywhere close to that nuclear would be in a hopeless position anywhere in the world, even at very high latitudes.

[cyberax]

> As we pointed out, PV is still trouncing nuclear in China. So if the difference is smaller there, it's still in favor of solar.

Sure. Solar is easy to scale when you don't care about reliability, nobody is arguing with that. But it's another issue entirely when you need a stable grid.

I'm not aware of any countries (even tropical ones) that managed anything close to 100% renewables with solar. E.g. Hawaii has to pay for extremely expensive diesel generation even though they have plenty of solar potential.

[apendleton]

> The reason for cost overruns is simply because NPPs are one-off products

But there's no fundamental reason they _have_ to be one-off products. They just historically have been for at least partly regulatorily motivated reasons: because each reactor's approval process starts afresh (or rather, did until quite-recent NRC reforms), there's little advantage in reuse, and because many compliance costs are both high and fixed, there's an incentive to build fewer huge reactors rather than more small ones, which makes factory construction difficult to achieve and economies of scale hard to realize.

[pfdietz]

Civil engineering involves adapting any design to the local geology. This has to be custom for each site.

[epistasis]

Regulatory costs and waste disposal are not significance cost centers for nuclear, at least as far as I can tell from any cost breakdowns.

One doesn't need super high quality welding and concrete pours becuase of regulations as much as the basic desire to have a properly engineered solution that lasts long enough to avoid costly repairs.

Take for example this recent analysis on how to make the AP1000 competitive:

https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/11/DOE-Advanced-...

There are no regulatory changes proposed because nobody has thought of a way that regulations are the cost drivers. Yet there's still a path to competitive energy costs by focusing hard on construction costs.

Similarly, reactors under completely different regimes such as the EPR are still facing exactly the same construction cost overruns as in the rest of the developed world.

If regulations are a cost driver, let's hear how to change them in a way that drives down build cost, and by how much. Let's say we get rid of ALARA and jack up acceptable radiation levels to the earliest ones established. What would that do the cost? I have a feeling not much at all, but would like to see a serious proposal.

[pfdietz]

> let's hear how to change

One approach would be to reduce the size of the containment building by greatly reducing the volume of steam it must hold. This would be done by attaching Filtered Containment Venting Systems (FCVS) that strip most of the radioactive elements from the vented steam in case of a large accident.

The containment building is a significant cost driver, costing about as much as the nuclear island inside of it.

If such a system had been attached to the reactors that melted down at Fukushima exposure could have been reduced by maybe two orders of magnitude. And if the worst case exposure is that low, perhaps much more frequent meltdowns could be tolerated, allowing relaxation of paperwork requirements elsewhere.

[epistasis]

Interesting! Would that require any regulation change?

[pfdietz]

I believe the NRC currently requires that the containment remain leak-free for 24 hours after a design basis accident.

Now, I have not checked if shorter lived radioisotopes would ruin the idea I'm suggesting. It's possible.