Vogtle 4 - Georgia Power
Henry Ford famously said, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black.” This idea of standardization to reduce costs isn't just for cars; it can work for nuclear power too. Let's dive into why Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) might not be the best way to go and why the AP1000 could be the way to go.
The Power of Standardization
Back in the early 1970s, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) proposed standardizing nuclear power plants to cut costs. The idea is simple: once you get a design license for the first plant, you can skip that step for future identical plants. Plus, building the same plant over and over helps everyone involved get really good at their jobs – this is called industrial learning.
Meet the AP1000
The AP1000 is a big deal in the nuclear world. It's a large 1017 MW reactor that's becoming a global standard. Recently, two AP1000s started operating in the US, four are running in China, and more are under construction or planned in countries like Poland, India, Ukraine, and Bulgaria. China even has a slightly modified version called the ACP1000.
Modular Magic
The AP1000 is a modular reactor, meaning its parts are built in factories and then assembled on-site. This modularity helps reduce costs because factory conditions are optimal for building these components. Think of it like assembling a giant LEGO set – everything fits together perfectly.
Simplicity is Key
The AP1000's design is simplified, requiring less concrete and steel per unit of power. It has fewer safety-related valves, pumps, and piping, which means it's cheaper and easier to build. Could the AP1000 be the Model T of nuclear power?
Learning from Mistakes
The first two AP1000s in Georgia, Vogtle 3 and 4, took eleven years to build and cost twice as much as expected. Why? They were the first of their kind, and many mistakes were made due to inexperience and starting construction before the design was complete. But these are growing pains. With more experience and a completed design, future AP1000s will be cheaper and faster to build.
China's Success Story
China had a much smoother experience with the AP1000. They built two reactors in Pakistan in less than six years at a much lower cost. How? Less bureaucracy, an experienced workforce, strong domestic supply chains, and favorable government financing. This shows that AP1000s can be built quickly and affordably.
The Path to Affordable Nuclear Power
According to an MIT study, the projected cost of an AP1000 in the US is $4,625 per kW. This is higher than the pre-Three Mile Island (TMI) accident era but still affordable. The AP1000 is expected to last 80 years, have a high capacity factor, and low maintenance costs. Its levelized cost over its lifetime is projected to be $66 per MWh, which is competitive with other energy sources.
The Critics and the Future
Critics argue that industrial learning doesn't work with nuclear energy, pointing to rising historical prices. But they miss the point. The regulatory environment has improved, and with continuous improvement and cooperation, nuclear plants can produce low-cost energy.
The Solution
To make nuclear power affordable, we need to build many AP1000s. Building just a few won't achieve significant industrial learning. The federal government could offer price guarantees until we reach the "nth-of-a-kind" (NOAK) costs, making nuclear energy affordable for everyone.
Conclusion
As the limitations of solar and wind power become clearer, nuclear energy is poised to become a hot commodity globally. It offers affordable clean energy, high-paying jobs, and economic opportunities. To achieve this, we should commit to constructing a fleet of AP1000s. When the market sees stable prices for large reactors, demand will explode, and nuclear power will have its day in the sun.
Adopted from JohnS article: How the US can make nuclear energy cheap again
