irst, thanks so much for all your efforts. Canadians for Nuclear Energy is important.
I have a different perspective on why we can't build reactors on-time/budget.
Twenty reactors were ordered by US utilities in 1966. All of these were built with an average construction time of 6 years. In 2024, sixteen of these were still operating, and the four that were shutdown had operated for 45 years on average. These reactors were safe to operate.
By contrast, 28 reactors were ordered in 1974. None of these were built, they were all cancelled. Construction costs and times should have dropped for the reactors ordered in 1974, instead they skyrocketed.
Three Mile Island did not cause this. The reactor cancellations started in the early 1970’s and there were dozens of cancellations before that accident.
The Canadian story had similarities and differences. In early 1975, there were four operating reactors (Pickering A), 9 units under construction and 9 more planed for. The four operating reactors produced electricity much cheaper than coal, before coal had to have scrubbers. These were all built, but no more were built. Canada should have closed all of our coal plants and built CANDUs. It just got too difficult and expensive to build reactors.
Lang’s central argument is that, had nuclear power been allowed to continue developing under normal market conditions—benefiting from learning-by-doing and incremental innovation—significant cost reductions would likely have occurred. He suggested that something disrupted this trajectory in the United States during the 1970s. He argued that the disruption spread throughout countries deploying derivatives of the GE and Westinghouse technology. While Lang stopped short of a detailed exploration of this disruption (a point I argued would have strengthened the analysis), Lang’s implied view was that the environmental movement played a major role in slowing, and ultimately halting, nuclear deployment.
Thank you Chris and Robbie for an informative episode! Robbie mentioned there was a Harvard fellow researching Chinese nuclear builds. Can you share the name of the researcher or other details? Very curious to see the results of the study when it comes out....
irst, thanks so much for all your efforts. Canadians for Nuclear Energy is important.
I have a different perspective on why we can't build reactors on-time/budget.
Twenty reactors were ordered by US utilities in 1966. All of these were built with an average construction time of 6 years. In 2024, sixteen of these were still operating, and the four that were shutdown had operated for 45 years on average. These reactors were safe to operate.
By contrast, 28 reactors were ordered in 1974. None of these were built, they were all cancelled. Construction costs and times should have dropped for the reactors ordered in 1974, instead they skyrocketed.
Three Mile Island did not cause this. The reactor cancellations started in the early 1970’s and there were dozens of cancellations before that accident.
The Canadian story had similarities and differences. In early 1975, there were four operating reactors (Pickering A), 9 units under construction and 9 more planed for. The four operating reactors produced electricity much cheaper than coal, before coal had to have scrubbers. These were all built, but no more were built. Canada should have closed all of our coal plants and built CANDUs. It just got too difficult and expensive to build reactors.
I reviewed a paper on the history of nuclear costs by Peter Lang several years ago:
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169.
Lang’s central argument is that, had nuclear power been allowed to continue developing under normal market conditions—benefiting from learning-by-doing and incremental innovation—significant cost reductions would likely have occurred. He suggested that something disrupted this trajectory in the United States during the 1970s. He argued that the disruption spread throughout countries deploying derivatives of the GE and Westinghouse technology. While Lang stopped short of a detailed exploration of this disruption (a point I argued would have strengthened the analysis), Lang’s implied view was that the environmental movement played a major role in slowing, and ultimately halting, nuclear deployment.
Thank you Chris and Robbie for an informative episode! Robbie mentioned there was a Harvard fellow researching Chinese nuclear builds. Can you share the name of the researcher or other details? Very curious to see the results of the study when it comes out....