The first new nuclear plant built in Europe for many years, Finland’s Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor, is going to be a financial disaster for somebody. Originally scheduled for completion this year, the latest estimates are that it’ll be finished in 2012. The construction consortium of Areva and Siemens, is being sued by the operator, TVO, for 2.4 billion euros; the consortium is countersuing TVO for 1 billion Euros, due to their alleged slackness in preparing paperwork for the Finnish nuclear reactor being a primary cause of the delays.
Olkiuoto-3 is just about the perfect example for anybody trying to argue against new nuclear plants on financial grounds. But here’s where it gets really weird. You’d reckon after all that, no Finnish company in their right mind would be considering building a plant. You’d be wrong. There are three Finnish companies still planning additional plants: TVO wants to build a fourth unit at Olkiuoto, and two other companies are putting in build applications, though it’s notable that at least one has proposed to build anything but the EPR design under interminable construction at Olkiuoto. And there’s more. Sweden’s government has just reversed a long-standing ban on new nuclear construction there. From the article, it seems the key reason the shift has occurred is a policy change from a “centrist” party in the center-right coaliation:
Center Party leader Maud Olofsson, who is also minister for energy and enterprise, told reporters she could “live with the fact that nuclear power would remain part of the energy system.”"The row over energy policy during all these years has been paralyzing for those who want to invest, for employment and for the political debate,” Olofsson said. Olofsson said that while her party remained skeptical about nuclear power, “we need a compromise” and the deal also set up “ambitious climate goals.”
As well as the climate change issue, there’s also undoubtedly concern about the security of gas supplies from Russia, but it’s hard to know just how big a factor this is in the decision. Nevertheless, it’s interesting that despite what can only be described as a discouraging start, Europe’s chilly northern states seem set to keep their lights on with nuclear energy.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/14/business/sweden.php
Looks like this didn’t deter the nuke lovers either.
“The discovery of serious safety problems at one of Sweden’s three nuclear power plants has thrown the country’s energy model into question.
On Wednesday, it was reported that low-level radiation leaks at a reactor north of Stockholm went undetected for three years, and the leaks were only the latest in a series of mishaps.
What bothers me most is that we’ve all been so naïve,” said Bjorn Karlsson, a professor of energy systems at Linkoping University, who also advises the Swedish government on nuclear security. “If someone had told me a year ago that the security culture could degenerate this much at a Swedish power plant, I would have replied that it’s not possible.”
This is clear:
1. People will not settle for blackouts, or for a future with less power.
2. Wind power is unreliable.
3. Solar power is expensive and takes up space.
4. Nimby syndrome.
Yeah, any decisions relating to this area are sure to be a slam dunk.
The Scandanavians are strong nations with a good repuation for global citizenship. They want to preserve their energy independence, reduce carbon emissions and save money.
Fear of Russia is a big factor on both economic and strategic grounds. Russia has a long history of throwing its weight around the Baltic.
The Scandys see France as their energy model. The French will sail through all the energy crises because they had the good sense to go nuclear after OPEC I.
No doubt the Scandys will learn from their financial mistakes as they invest further in nuclear technology. Some where down the track there is the prospect of fusion energy which will solve all our problems. Fission energy is a kind of stepping stone to that.
But of course our elites idea of an act of independent nation-hood is to indulge in tinkering with the office of Head of State. This will do nothing except salve the wounded egos of elites who got snubbed by Brits when they made the pilgrimage to the Old Dart from the sixties through nineties.
NB Most of the Scandinavian states are monarchies, as is Japan. Evidently conservatism in the sociological traditions is perfectly consistent with progressivism in technology.
[GENERAL THEORY ALERT]
As I have said for most of the noughties, further social progress is most likely going to come from instrumental innovation, rather than institutional reformation. We have really reached the point of diminishing marginal returns when it comes to organizational make-overs, whether it is at the level of family, firm or state.
That is why the populace in most nations has drifted back towards a more or less conservative populist centrism on various cultural and financial issues. Its obvious that massive changes just tend to enrich and empower the elite changers with the tax-payer having to foot the bill in the clean up (whether it be Interventions or Stimulus bail-outs.)
To the extent that institutional reformation can do good it will largely be of the “throw the bums out” kind. Purge the financial system, defund cultural agencies, etc.
This was inevitable. Solar isn’t really practical that close to the Arctic circle.
no subject, however remote, is safe from the gravitational pull of Jack Strocchi’s General Theory.
(although there has been a merciful decline in ‘wetness’-related references of late)
True, Tim, but there’s also wind, geothermal, and biomass options available.
Begin as you will proceed. The Fins could call the army in right now and threaten shoot a few contractors; that will focus their efforts. Since they will have to operate the reactor under military guard forever they might as well start now.
Huggy
does this particular case of cost blow-out extend to an argument against nuclear power in general? are the reasons for the problems a consequence of the technology involved? is it conceivable that nuclear power plants can be built without these types of problems, which can, of course, happen with other major construction projects – stadiums, dams or even geothermal power plants?
Interesting question, Yeti. Cost blow-outs do occur on a regular basis on all manner of engineering projects. Nuclear power stations do avoid many of the problems that bedevil software engineering projects – generally, there is agreement before one starts on what is to be built, unlike with a lot of software! However, present nuclear plants do have some characteristics which do make them particularly vulnerable to cost blowouts:
* They’re really big and complex projects.
* There are safety concerns, so everything has to be done perfectly, and there is a big and complex regulatory regime surrounding them.
* While they aren’t new technology, we’re relearning how to build them, and we never learned to build them really efficiently.
* They’re all largely built on-site rather than assembled from factory-built modules.
As we build more of them, we’ll get better at it.
Incidentally, these issues are one of the reasons why I reckon small, factory-built nuclear modules are so promising: they may not be the most fuel-efficient, but they should be available on a much more predictable cost and schedule.
And there are a lot of people, well a select few actually, who make a lot of money out of big budget engineering projects that they ‘sold’ to the public on fantasy costings.
Having managed a number of medium sized projects over the years, one of the enduring features I note is the desire of most participants at the planning stages to minimise the estimated cost of the project. Most assumptions made are in the direction of ‘cheap’.
This is often to curry favour with the provider of the money – either company board or, in the public sector, the ever suffering public who are initially led to believe it will ‘only’ cost such and such.
Think Sinny Opra House, almost any bridge you can name, or your own home if you built it. The wonder is that funding providers have not worked this out by now. Some slow learners about methinks.
Whenever I see a figure for a particular project – I immediately add twenty percent if it is a run-of-the-mill type project, and one hundred percent if it involves new and/or complex technology (solar/nukilar, whatever).
Jack @ 3. As I see myself as an internationalist, I can see an advantage in having a ‘monarchy’ if our next ‘monarch’ is able to be chosen from the best in the world. Perhaps one of the Thai Royal Princesses, Prince Frederick of Denmark (since we are admiring the scandanavians so much), or any of the unemployed ex-monarchs of Europe might suit (I think there might be a stray Romanov about)?
However, if you think I am so silly as to think that someone who talks to trees and wanted to be a tampon inside a woman who was not his wife at the time, would be a good monarch, surely you jest? Yet it seems Australian monarchists would have such a person as our head of state. Incredible.
Yeti and Robert at 8 and 9 I think is right. It is too much to conclude that because the Finns have blown the budget on one project that we write off all plants as too costly to consider. This would be akin to Toyota calling it a day on manufactuing cars because they saw GM was losing money.
I think you are also right about Scandinanvian wariness of Russia. Far less gullible than the rest of “old” Europe.
Robert, fixed start up costs are only one component of decisions about new capacity. Energy security is a serious consideration in Europe and is one of the priorities in the Lisbon Agenda for Jobs and Growth. On top of that, the IEA recently recommended that the EU make it easier for countries to develop new nuclear capacity. I haven’t seen what the running costs of these new facilities will be, but it may be that marginal cost of producing electricity will be lower than the renewable sources you mentioned on the scale the Scandinavians are after. Note also that Europe has a binding 20% renewable target across all energy sources (not just electricity) by 2020 which will imply around a 35% share of renewables in electricity in most European countries. I’m not sure what the current share in Finland or Sweden is, but if it is lower than that, they may intend to expand their renewable production as well.
LO: that’s the point I was getting out – despite the cost blowouts, they still think that nukes are worth pursuing, and the only plausible explanation is that they don’t think that they can get an alternative supply of energy for a cheaper price.
Marks: nukes are a little bit different. Given their long history of cost blowouts (something widely broadcast by anti-nuclear groups, with some justification) you’d reckon that more than just about any other project the incentives for initial lowballing would be replaced by a desire to build on time and budget, even if that time and budget have a bit of padding.
Huggy, if you want to repost your comment here that would be good.
This is a bit of a Rorschach blot, you can see whatever you want to see in it.
Those who are opposed to nukes will see it as evidence they’re too expensive, besides the other problems. Those who support them focus on the fact that more will be built and see it as evidence the teething troubles will be overcome.
I see it as support for my position that nuclear power is appropriate in places where there is not a lot of renewable energy available, which is why more will be built, but its a bad idea where there are other clean options, because the costs will usually be underestimated. But I would think that wouldn’t I?
Certainly its going to push the idea of Australian nuclear power further off the agenda. If the Finns can’t build it for a reasonable price, there’s no way Australia could with much less expertise.
In other words, Romantic Unease versus Enlightenment Optimism – two ideal typical relations to technology we teach the first years.
But what does that mean for the present discussion? Who are these people? The Energy supply lobby has a vested interest in downplaying the role of efficiency and continuing to build supply infrastructure yet there is a widespread assumption that we are meeting carbon constraints soon.
But wind can be modelled. NEMMCO has commissioned ongoing work into this. Wind plus solar with some gas backup is a viable mix. The renewables can’t provide baseload meme is demonstrably false.
Sure, but people still want it and value it for other reasons such as simplicity, security, autonomy, robust knowledge of externalities.
Why are we debating sunk costs here. After all nuclear is for ever.
Mutate now and avoid the rush.
But seriously folks, the folks who run nuclear power plants do take it very seriously indeed.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/rant/torness.html
I wouldn’t call it demonstratably false, dk. There aren’t any large-scale demonstrations of the mix you describe.
Denmark’s much-vaunted wind power program is part of a Scandinavian grid with a lot of hydro in the mix.
Furthmore, the question is how much gas backup you need, and what the emissions profile of the resulting system is. The trouble with gas backup is that it means you build relatively cheap single-cycle gas power plants, which are a lot less efficient than the more expensive combined-cycle jobbies.
Robert my original post went away some-where and I do not have a copy Tsk Tsk.
According to Greenpeace the reactor is a disaster:
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/fact-sheet-olkiluoto-3.pdf
Extract:
“Examples of problems (see also page 5)
· The primary coolant circuit was found to have too large and irregular grain size. The problem was caused by
an attempt by the subcontractor to save time and reduce costs. All eight pipes have been recast but it is
unclear whether the new methods have actually resolved the problem or caused new ones. Failure of the
primary coolant circuit can initiate a severe nuclear accident.
· Steel liner of reactor containment was manufactured by a Polish machine yard that had no earlier
experience of nuclear projects. Safety standards were violated in welding and holes were cut in wrong
places. The bottom of the liner is wavy and it was damaged during storage. The substandard quality of the
liner can lead to higher radioactive releases in case of an accident.
· Concrete base slab of the reactor is more porous than was allowed, making the structure more vulnerable to
chemically reactive substances. This can lead to long term deterioration of the reactor containment building.
The concrete has a high water content, which could, under certain accident conditions, lead to rapid
formation of cracks.”
This is but a few of the 1500 faults that have been found so far. I would guess that it won’t be ready even by 2012.
Then we wait about 10 years to test run it (Remember this is the standard EU reactor design that all members of the EU are to build). (What no test program?)
Then another 10 years to get enough of these things on line to actually have any effect at all on GG reductions (see also the Greenpeace report).
2030-40 is too late.
Never thought I would see the day when I cited a Greenpeace report but it is actually excellent.
Huggy
Here’s a scoop for you LP readers – Rudd has just announced his abandonment of the emissions trading scheme.
The guy’s an evil genius, he promises a pile of steaming, then withdraws it, and we feel grateful. Nothing lite about his howardist instincts.
I love it when Garnaut talks dirty:
It seemed to get a rise out of Kev too, one presumes the ETS recant is connected.
Bismarck: WTF???
Heh.
When I read Bismark’s comment, I quickle texted my Lady Friend who works at the Vic DSE, and that was her verbatim response Rob.
Found this on instapundit -
AUSTIN, Texas–Physicists at The University of Texas at Austin have designed a new system that, when fully developed, would use fusion to eliminate most of the transuranic waste produced by nuclear power plants.
The invention could help combat global warming by making nuclear power cleaner and thus a more viable replacement of carbon-heavy energy sources, such as coal.
“We have created a way to use fusion to relatively inexpensively destroy the waste from nuclear fission,” says Mike Kotschenreuther, senior research scientist with the Institute for Fusion Studies (IFS) and Department of Physics. “Our waste destruction system, we believe, will allow nuclear power-a low carbon source of energy-to take its place in helping us combat global warming.”
This will be great if it is workable.
Razor: this kind of thing has been talked about for a while; there are a number of different schemes but they basically all involve transmuting the long-lived nuclear wastes, like plutonium and technetium, into something else.
Bismarck, are you talking about this?
And, Rob, yeah the scenarios here a little more complex. But ‘demonstration’ is a rubbery term. There’s a strong case that emissions trading has never been demonstrated to work as a climate change policy anywhere, for example.
If they make more depleted uranium that would be way cool – very handy stuff.
Further to Bismarck’s not entirely accurate, (but well early), ‘to ETS or not to ETS, that is the question’ scoop (20): DK was correct in attributing the substance of it to Swan’s using his someone-at-home-helpline as Christian Kerr reported in DK’s link.
The Hansard daily has Malcolm slipping in, from out of nowhere, (@4.30, bismarck’s 1pm call here was early, he and christian were onto it before it was in the house. There’s no media release on the treasurer’s page, just on the comittee page, and it’s dated 12.49pm)
It’s all looking pretty stupid, what with them coming in with “we’re gonna be doing evidence driven policy , lets have a 2020, let’s wait for Mr Garnaut, etc”. Now Mr Garnaut says the gov’t ETS
scampolicy is crap, so much for basing policy on expert evidence.If youse want to make a submission, the page for the inquiry, is here
First of a kind (FOK) issues are typical for any large engineering project as Robert says. However, Japan for example has generally resolved these issues. They have efficiently brought a number of plants online while the industry was mostly dormant in other Western nations. Many modern civil construction techniques have been implemented into these projects such as slip-forming, modular and off-site construction. Many images of impressively large, heavy lifts can be found on the web from these projects. Here is a link to one.
Time will tell what the FOK to nth of a kind cost reductions will be. France just announced they will soon begin construction of their 2nd EPR and Sarkozy is already pushing for their 3rd. It does not look as though the world will have to wait long.
OK, my post wasn’t entirely accurate but it was in the ballpark. House scuttlebutt is usually pretty short on detail. If this is a place for ‘citizen journalism’ you still got your scoop and it came from inside. I didn’t have time to follow up with clarification.
Bismarck: no worries. You alerted us that something was up; there was something up; others clarified what it was.
When I get a chance I’ll be looking into it in more deatil.
Bismarck: likewise, Taa for being on the money, I was by no means having a go. Hell, this is show business, timing is everything, and accuracy, like Mozart, is overrated, best left for second edition hacks.
Op cit, very impressive turnaround time from server there to client here … 7 minutes and nine seconds or thereabouts, and a good three hours before Malcolm let us all in on the secret. When they really do decide to ditch it, do let us know, pls. Luv ya work.
The actual inquiry documentation is wafer-thin ATM, un peu hurried perhaps in reponse to Garnaut’s trashing (22): TOR=
That’s about it. Further information: contact the Inquiry Secretary (02) 6277 4209
In practice this means the smart way to do nuclear power plants is to pay Japanese or French companies to build them for you. Operate them even. Instead we’re likely to wind up with another Collins debacle.