509
submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] [email protected] 80 points 6 months ago

Jesus, it went from $14bn to over $30bn in cost overruns? That's embarrassing.

[-] [email protected] 100 points 6 months ago

That's the engineering knowledge lost over the last 30 years costed out.

Making 2 reactors since 95 has some side effects, a lot of the senior engineers since then have retired, standards have changed, and new engineers need to learn.

[-] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago

Exactly what I was thinking

It like those highspeed rail projects that are finally getting going in the US, they're over budget because a lot of people now have to be trained on how to work on such a project due to either lost knowledge or new stuff they're learning during the process

[-] [email protected] 23 points 6 months ago

Another factor in the trains, at least for California, is that the project was put on hold for a while because of the hyper loop crap. Now they need to resume buying land for the track and prices are where they are

[-] Pika 4 points 6 months ago

Honestly they should just specify the project as a public works project, would give them eminent domain rights and skip the whole 9 yards of land pricing. It would force it to be done based off fair market price instead of the inflated BS all land is currently at. Least if I understand eminent domain right.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

I don't know for certain but I expect they used eminent domain.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I think you're right. I'm from Canada, so laws might be different, but AFAIK, eminent domain means the owner can't say, "No, I'm not selling" to the government, not that the government has total control over the price. Landowners can also argue that losing that portion of land will negatively affect the remaining property and argue in court to be compensated.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

And since California has Prop 13, i wonder if landowners can sue for the future tax increases for the replacement property? Afterall, that is a direct consequence of the forced sale of the land.

"You are increasing my property taxes forever. So you should be responsible for that increase... forever."

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Good Point!

Site Note: A family member who lives in California recently explained how their property taxes are calculated, and that system is crazy! That system encourages people to never move, which probably contributes to housing issues because seniors are dis-incentivized from down-sizing, etc.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Yep.

We used to have the problem of senior citizens having their property taxes jacked up every year to the point that the taxes are almost as high as the original purchase price. Bunch of seniors were ending up losing their houses.

Prop 13 was designed to fix that; and it did, but it also caused a bunch of 'unintended consequences'.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Eminent domain is subjected to legal challenges. Both to the authority (there must be a purpose) and also to the FMV assessment. Which costs money. And time.

If it was as easy as snapping their fingers, it would've happened.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 6 months ago

Nah they are over budget because there is no incentive to keep under budget, it was sub contracted out so much that there is either no communication/miscommunication/or willfully not listening, sales pretended they were engineers, and bad engineers were promoted to project management.

I work in infrastructure.

Me three weeks ago on email to main contractor: hello, your spec is calling for some parts that are no longer manufactured which means we will have to buy used. Leading to more money now and higher replacement part costs in the future for the government. Plus these parts are on the border of safe.

This morning: your exception list was rejected, follow spec.

So a small city in California is getting a brand new system made of used parts. No this isn't a direct quote this is a summary.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] pancakes 5 points 6 months ago

It's a big job to train all those train trainers.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

The paying to train is one thing. The bigger problem is people who aren't super experienced in these projects doing estimates and costings.

You're always going to have some overruns, and if you're lucky, some underruns too. But if your estimates are out of wack... well. Good luck. Combine that with Parkinson's law and you are in for a world of hurt.

[-] [email protected] 17 points 6 months ago

Yep. The failed dual reactor project in SC that also used the AP1000s was a gigantic clusterfuck. Most of the major contractors had essentially no experience on projects of the scale and it resulted in massive cost overruns, delays, and a compounding web of fraud and lies to shareholders and regulators that wound up in utility executives in prison and the eventual sale of the entire utility SCANA to Dominion Energy.

[-] [email protected] 12 points 6 months ago

Cost overruns in the nuclear industry are nothing new. It's been the norm. The AP1000 design used here was supposed to solve some of those issues, but it's been more of the same.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Welders and other tradesmen too. I met a guy from the NRC that said that there were few if any welders certified and knowledgeable enough to work on reactor construction. And this was 15 yrs ago.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Haha, this is insightful, but I worry an incorrect conclusion re: cost and overruns. Yes, lots of extremely experienced engineers have retired; but, the pace even in the 70s, 80s and 90s was oft beset by slowdowns and overruns. See: 9 mile, river bend, rancho seco, comanche peak, and those are just the ones I know off the top of my head.

We need more, but it's a nuclear-and-renewables, not nuclear instead of renewables. I hope smr and other designs get a better shake this time, because climate change doesn't bode well for coastal installations, and frankly, building many more large PWRs isn't going to happen quickly.

Frankly I hope we can turn the experience debt to our advantage - rigorous investigation of all the many options disregarding the established dogma of large PWRs would be good in my view. YMMV.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 51 points 6 months ago

Cost-plus contracts are a Hell of a drug.

The whole project has been a huge unjust wealth transfer directly from ratepayers to shareholders, and the regulatory-captured Georgia Public Service Commission just let it happen.

(If I sound bitter, it's because I'm one of the ratepayers getting screwed.)

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

Shitty as that is, at least you're getting a reactor out of it all. I still support renewables over nuclear, primarily for cost-benefit reasons, but it's always good to have some diversity in the generation mix.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

The big demand right now is a replacement for the capabilities of fossil fuels. There's a lot going on with energy storage tech right now.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

We already had nuclear. This project was building reactors #3 and #4 on a site that already had two, and between that and Plant Hatch, nuclear was apparently already 23% of GA Power's energy mix even before these new ones came online.

Frankly, renewables would've been superior for energy mix diversity reasons, too. The fact that it would've also just been flat-out cheaper for Georgia Power to pay to install solar on my (and everybody else's) house just adds insult to injury.

(Okay, that last bit might be hyperbole -- I haven't done the math. But still...!)

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Solar + battery would work for people who have houses but not industry or mid-high rises. The transmission grid doesn't just function as a means to get energy places but it connects everything in to one system as a means to stabilize everything. So when that electric arc furnace is turned on there isn't a brownout because the huge demand has been scheduled and generation can be dispatched accordingly. At the distribution grid which is the lower voltage lines connecting homes you can be a lot more creative with microgrid and feed-in-tariffs, in a lot of places these distribution lines are managed by local distribution companies/LDCs which operate separate from the Independent System Operator/ISO which operates the transmission grid and an energy market if there is one.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

10 million people. $15k per solar installation. Eh, not too far off.

[-] Socsa 2 points 6 months ago

More than one person lives in a building generally. It's more like $15,000 to install 1kW of solar, so like $15B to install 1000MW, so you literally could have just about installed the solar capacity with just the cost overrun.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 51 points 6 months ago

Tax payers subsidize the power plants, pay for the electricity and the corporation gets to keep the profits

[-] [email protected] 26 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

This is one of the many reasons that I think nuclear plants should not be corporate owned

I think a lot of stuff that's currently corporate owned shouldn't be but that's a conversation for another time

Edit: Should to shouldn't

[-] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago

The people with money to invest in the energy sector don't seem interested in nuclear. They're looking at the history of cost and schedule overruns, and then putting their money in solar and wind. Regulators do seem willing to greenlight new nuclear projects, but nobody is buying.

If the public were to finance a nuclear power, we have to ask why there's a good reason to do so when private investment is already rejecting it. There has to be some reason outside of cost effectiveness. One answer to that is recycling all the nuclear waste we already have.

[-] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago

That's because private companies are incapable of large scale engineering. They want fast profits, not stable infrastructure.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] PsychedSy 2 points 6 months ago

Need some smaller, shipping crate sized nuclear generators that can be rented. If smaller set ups end up helping with knowledge and new tech then awesome. If not, it's still pretty fucking cool.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

Yup I think a lot of this stuff should be nationalized and that the energy market should be used or simulated to determine the operation of it.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Ta payers also subsidize banks, pay for the housing price crisis twice, and the corporatation gets to keep the profits.

Neither is great but at least electricity is something that can keep you alive. Next time power goes out and your food/insulin is about to spoil and there is no heat in your home are you going to yell out "please Warren Buffet fix it!" Or are you going to be very happy to see those line workers doing their jobs?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

Why Construction Projects Always Go Over Budget

Engineering projects going past their deadlines and 100% over budget is normal.

Yes, normal.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I'll watch the video later, but that's poor project management compounded by active underestimation.

As an engineer, it's my ass if my project estimates were so widely off the mark, especially if it were consistent.

[-] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

The cost overruns helped tank an engineering company.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

No, that's typical.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

I’m sure someone will get a bonus.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] captain_aggravated 12 points 6 months ago
  1. I thought it had been longer than that since we commissioned a nuclear power plant, and
  2. Does one every eight years or so feel like a decent rate for building these things?
[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago
  1. Depends on how much you care about fossil fuel profits. From an environmental perspective, one could be built every year and it wouldn't do much at this point.
[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Are others being built now, this one started construction in 2009.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

From December 18 to January 1, Today in Energy will feature some of our favorite articles from 2023. Today’s article was originally published on August 1.

It's been online for several months.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Cool. Maybe the rational scientific view of the world still has a chance.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
509 points (97.6% liked)

World News

37468 readers
2533 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS