[DennisP]

From the first link: "In those decades parts of plants were built, ripped out and rebuilt because of design and regulatory problems, leading to ruinous costs."

I've read about this before. Companies start building plants based on existing regulations. Along the way, the NRC changes the regulations, requiring tear-down and rebuilding. Meanwhile interest on the loan keeps building up. Add further delays due to political resistance and it's no wonder costs escalate.

It's not just the economics of big engineering causing the problem here. I think matters have improved somewhat in the U.S., but it's still going to be interesting to see how AP-1000 costs in the U.S. compare to those in China.

Incidentally, there are some arguments that liquid thorium reactors, and some other GenIV designs, could have significantly lower capital costs than conventional reactors. A big reason for that is that the basic physics of fuel and coolant provides substantial passive safety, rather than relying on lots of redundant active systems.

[spenrose]

The interweaving of complex shifting regulations with the economics of $B plants that take decades to build and involve tremendous amounts of radiation and energy is not some random coincidence, nor is the absence of Buffets and Icahns lining up to make a killing on the erstwhile Future of Clean Energy (as opposed to wind and solar). If thorium can't solve the political economy problems, then thorium is dead. A small loud group of techies yelling "don't you get it?!" and upvoting thorium posts on HN is just part of the ??? between underpants and the profit we will never see.

[DennisP]

As I implied above, it's a problem in particular jurisdictions, not necessarily everywhere. China for one is aggressively pro-nuclear. If thorium reactors are everything their advocates think they are, countries that throw too many obstacles in their path will disadvantage their economies.

Aside from that, nuclear reactors don't necessarily have to be gigawatt-size. Even in the U.S., smaller reactors are starting to make some regulatory headway.

But even conventional 1GW reactors don't have to take decades to build. China's first AP-1000s at Sanmen are being finished up this year and next for a construction time of five years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanmen_Nuclear_Power_Plant

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN-First-Haiyang-AP1000-ta...

[spenrose]

China matters, and it can bypass procedural democracy. Large, slow-to-deploy nuclear still has to compete with quick-deploying, cost-decreasing solar and wind (and serious efficiency measures) while it is on the costs-rising-due-to-learning part of its rollout curve. Procedural democracy will not allow new nuclear of any kind in most of the rich democracies. We need everything, but solar PV, wind, and efficiency are the low-hanging fruit.

[DennisP]

I agree we should pursue it all. Solar is rolling out pretty quickly right now. It's later, when we want to get past using fossil to compensate for intermittency, that nuclear will be especially important...and it would be good to be past that learning curve by then.