responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revision
Previous revision
|
|
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power [2023/04/05 00:54]
jeffreyheninger |
responses_to_ai:technological_inevitability:incentivized_technologies_not_pursued:nuclear_power [2023/04/05 23:10] (current)
rickkorzekwa |
| Instead, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission added increasingly strict safety regulations, which caused the cost of building new nuclear power plants to increase dramatically. Reactors which began construction in the late 1970s took 2.4 times as long and cost 9 times as much as reactors which began in the 1960s. Especially damaging were changes to the regulatory code made during construction. New plants stopped being built under this stricter, and still frequently changing, regulatory regime. For more details of how this occurred, see discussions by Jason Crawford((Crawford. Why has nuclear power been a flop? Roots of Progress. (2021) [[https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop]].)) and Brian Potter.((Potter. Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Construction Physics. (2022) Parts [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction|I]], [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370|II]], and [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c|III]].)) | Instead, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission added increasingly strict safety regulations, which caused the cost of building new nuclear power plants to increase dramatically. Reactors which began construction in the late 1970s took 2.4 times as long and cost 9 times as much as reactors which began in the 1960s. Especially damaging were changes to the regulatory code made during construction. New plants stopped being built under this stricter, and still frequently changing, regulatory regime. For more details of how this occurred, see discussions by Jason Crawford((Crawford. Why has nuclear power been a flop? Roots of Progress. (2021) [[https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop]].)) and Brian Potter.((Potter. Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? Construction Physics. (2022) Parts [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction|I]], [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-370|II]], and [[https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/why-are-nuclear-power-construction-c3c|III]].)) |
| |
| It is unclear to me why this occurred. It might be the result of a failure to align the incentives of the NRC with the goal of building new nuclear power plants. It also might have been an intentional strategy by anti-nuclear activists to slow the development of nuclear power. Distinguishing between these possibilities would require figuring out the motivations of various individuals on the NRC during the 1960s and 1970s, which is beyond the scope of this page. | We are uncertain why this occurred. It might be the result of a failure to align the incentives of the NRC with the goal of building new nuclear power plants. It also might have been an intentional strategy by anti-nuclear activists to slow the development of nuclear power. Distinguishing between these possibilities would require figuring out the motivations of various individuals on the NRC during the 1960s and 1970s, which is beyond the scope of this page. |
| |
| Estimating the direct cost of nuclear power being too expensive to build requires a bit of a calculation, which can be found in the Appendix. Under a different regulatory regime, the levelized cost of electricity for nuclear power could be $20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas. If 20% of the United States’ electricity generation switched from coal to nuclear, this would reduce the direct costs of electricity in the US by \$16 billion/yr. For comparison, the total sales of electricity in the US are about \$400 billion/yr.((The United States consumed about 3.9 trillion kWh in 2021 and the average price was about 10 ¢/kWh.. \\ //Use of Electricity.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php]]. \\ //Prices and Factors Affecting Prices.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php]].)) | Estimating the direct cost of nuclear power being too expensive to build requires a bit of a calculation, which can be found in the Appendix. Under a different regulatory regime, the levelized cost of electricity for nuclear power could be $20/MWh less than coal and similar to natural gas. If 20% of the United States’ electricity generation switched from coal to nuclear, this would reduce the direct costs of electricity in the US by \$16 billion/yr. For comparison, the total sales of electricity in the US are about \$400 billion/yr.((The United States consumed about 3.9 trillion kWh in 2021 and the average price was about 10 ¢/kWh.. \\ //Use of Electricity.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-electricity.php]]. \\ //Prices and Factors Affecting Prices.// U.S. Energy Information Administration. [[https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-affecting-prices.php]].)) |
responses_to_ai/technological_inevitability/incentivized_technologies_not_pursued/nuclear_power.1680656049.txt.gz · Last modified: 2023/04/05 00:54 by jeffreyheninger
