很多人一直在说核电太贵了——各国网民讨论核电站建设是否合算

评论：

xieta
Safety regulations are a blanket excuse that allows nuclear fans to ignore the economic realities of building nuclear power plants. Compared to mass-produced renewables, nuclear plants are enormously complex systems that require coordinating a large amount of highly specialized labor and materials. As this study has shown, safety requirements played a roll in cost increases, but the real problem is declining labor productivity:
Nevertheless, deployment rates in nuclear construction declined more dramatically, with a precipitous drop between 1979 and 1980 following the Three Mile Island accident. Compared with the construction industry at large, nuclear deployment rates declined five to six times more quickly. This productivity decline was a primary cause of nuclear cost increase. Labor interviews provide insight into some of the causes of declining productivity,84 pointing to problems experienced in the field. Craft laborers, for example, were unproductive during 75% of scheduled working hours, primarily due to construction management and workflow issues, including lack of material and tool availability, overcrowded work areas, and scheduling conflicts between crews of different trades.

安全法规成了一种万能借口，让核电支持者得以无视核电站建设的经济现实。与大规模生产的可再生能源相比，核电站是极为复杂的系统，需要协调大量高度专业的人力和物资。正如本研究所示，安全要求确实导致了成本上升，但真正的问题在于劳动生产率的下降：
尽管如此，核电建设的推进速度下滑更为显著。1979年三里岛事故发生后，1979至1980年间推进速度急剧下降。与整体建筑行业相比，核电建设推进速度的下滑幅度要快五到六倍。这种生产率下降是核电成本上升的主要原因。对劳动者的访谈揭示了生产率下降的部分原因，指出了现场遇到的各类问题。例如，技术工人在75%的计划工作时间内处于低效状态，主要源于施工管理和工作流程问题，包括材料与工具供应不足、作业区域拥挤以及不同工种施工队之间的日程冲突。

avar
If I ask you to build a backyard treehouse while winging it in 1950, and then give you the same task in 2025, but say you have to follow this 1000 page book of treehouse standards, then you too might be standing around 75% of the time trying to figure out what to do next.
So is the cause of the delayed construction and cost overruns regulation, or are you just unproductive?
The paper as a whole doesn't support your take here, for basically the same reason. For example:
"The thickness of the steel shell, which was five times greater in 2017 as it was in 1987, made the single largest contribution to cost increase (70%)"
Do you suppose it was unproductive labour that decided to make that steel shell thicker, or was it the regulations?

如果1950年我让你毫无准备在后院搭一个树屋，到了2025年再让你完成同样的任务，却要求你遵守这本长达1000页的树屋标准手册，那你大概率也会有75%的时间都在原地打转，琢磨下一步该怎么做。
那么，核电站建设延期、成本超支的原因到底是监管规定，还是单纯的效率低下？
这篇论文的整体观点其实并不支持你的说法，核心原因大致如下：
“2017年核电站钢壳的厚度是1987年的5倍，这一项对成本上涨的贡献率就高达70%”
你觉得，钢壳厚度增加是因为工人效率低下，还是监管规定的要求？

ialsoagree
You are assuming that the entire increase was due to material costs but this is not correct. If you read the article, it specifically addresses why thicker steel increases labor costs:
"Avoiding a cost increase over the 1987–2017 period despite increased commodity use would have required massive improvements in labor productivity (a 10-fold increase in steel and rebar deployment rates, over the 1987–2017 period)..."
That's not to say there is no cost to the materials, but when you aggregate over cost categories, rather than individual components, it can be true that labor efficiency was the cost category with highest increase over the period, and the steel shell was the largest cost item.
These two statements aren't necessarily in conflict.

你假设成本的全部增长都源于材料成本，但这一观点并不准确。若仔细阅读文章会发现，其专门解释了钢壳加厚为何会推高人工成本：
“若要在1987至2017年间避免因原材料用量增加而导致成本上升，就必须实现劳动生产率的巨大提升（同期钢材和钢筋的安装效率需提高10倍）……”
这并不是说材料本身没有带来额外成本，而是当你汇总所有成本类别而非单独看某个组件时，会发现同期人工效率相关成本的涨幅可能是最高的，而钢壳则是单项成本最高的项目。
这两点说法并不必然矛盾。

avar
You are assuming that the entire increase was due to material costs but this is not correct.
No, I'm sure the rest of the increase was due to monocausotaxophilia: The love of single causes that explain everything.
My point here was that the upthread comment by u/xieta is reading the paper too narrowly for a general discussion, because a paper like this is meant to be read narrowly.
That's because it's mainly trying to address questions like: If we're building our 10th treehouse, can we expect it to be this much cheaper than our 5th treehouse?
It can be accurate and relevant to say that no you can't, and that it's because labour isn't sufficiently productive if you're the person in charge of approving that 10th treehouse, and if you'd like to know if you're going to have cost overruns.
But it can also be completely inaccurate in the context of some more general discussion of "why is it so expensive?", and the paper also makes that clear.
E.g. labour cost has increased as a proportion of overall cost in the US (& other comparable countries), but nuclear construction is much more expensive than comparable megaprojects. Do we think that's because all these unproductive people are drawn to nuclear projects in particular?

你认为成本的全部增长都源于材料成本，但这一观点并不准确。
不，我敢肯定，其余的增长原因在于“单一归因痴迷症”—— 一种热衷于用单一原因解释所有事情的倾向。
我的意思是，用户u/xieta之前的评论对这篇论文的解读过于狭隘，而这种解读并不适合一般性讨论，尽管这类论文本身就需要被精准聚焦地解读。
这是因为该论文主要旨在解决这类问题：如果我们要搭建第十座树屋，能否期望它比第五座便宜很多？
对于负责审批第十座树屋建设、且想知道是否会出现成本超支的人来说，回答“不能”是准确且有意义的，而原因就是劳动生产率不够高。
但在“核电为何如此昂贵？”这类更宽泛的讨论语境下，这种说法可能完全不准确——而论文也明确指出了这一点。
例如，在美国（及其他可比国家），人工成本占总成本的比例确实有所上升，但核电建设的成本远高于其他同类大型项目。难道我们要认为，这是因为所有效率低下的人都偏偏涌向了核电项目吗？

BeornSC
In my non-nuclear industry we find it very difficult to source steel vessels at a good price - paying specialised welders for their time is extremely expensive and very demand sensitive. I imagine it’s the same in nuclear, except the welders will be even more difficult to get a hold of.

在我所处的非核电行业，我们发现很难以合理价格采购到钢制容器——支付专业焊工的工时费极为高昂，而且对市场需求非常敏感。我猜想核电行业的情况也是如此，只不过焊工将会更难招募到。

Rooilia
Changing the design on the go at Hinkley Point let the cost explode beyond the usual bloated nuclear budget.

在欣克利角项目进行过程中随意更改设计，导致成本飙升，远远超出了核电项目本就高昂的常规预算。

CatalyticDragon
This needs to be repeated anytime someone suggests a century old trillion dollar global industry is being held back by the same protesting hippies who at the same time can't seem to manage to damage the coal, oil, or gas industries.

每当有人声称，一个拥有百年历史、价值万亿美元的全球产业，正被那些连煤炭、石油或天然气行业都没能撼动的抗议嬉皮士所阻碍时，我们都需要重申这一点。

LumpyLongJohns
Yea the idea that we’re not building nuclear because of public opinion is laughable.

是啊，说我们因为公众舆论就不发展核电，这想法简直可笑。

ialsoagree
This. I've become fairly anti-nuke but not due to safety concerns. I know that it is quite safe. The issue I have is that it's not cost effective.
For the construction and operational costs, we could be building large amounts of renewables with battery backup - and they would be up and running faster.
Watching the smarter every day video with refueling made this even more clear to me. Look at the sheer amount of labor required to refuel the reactors every 2 years. Imagine how much solar and batteries you could get just for that labor cost. Now add in all the capital cost just to support the refueling and maintenance.
There's just no way that's ever going to be cost competitive with a solar panel or wind turbine.

说得太对了。我现在对核电相当反感，但并非出于安全顾虑——我知道核电其实相当安全。核心问题在于它性价比不高。
仅核电站的建设和运营成本，我们本可以用来建造大量带电池储能的可再生能源设施，而且这些设施能更快建成并投入使用。
看了《Smarter Every Day》关于核反应堆换料的视频后，我对此更确信了。想想每两年给反应堆换料需要投入的人力规模，光这笔人工费就能买到多少太阳能板和电池啊。再加上为支持换料和维护所投入的所有资本成本，这笔账根本算不通。
核电绝无可能在成本上与太阳能板或风力涡轮机竞争。

swansongofdesire
A big contributing factor is that new nuclear reactors in the west are often bespoke or new designs (flamanville, Hinkley, Olkiluoto)
Arguably most successful nuclear program in the last 40 years has been South Korea. All were evolutions of existing designs with minimum half a dozen units (the most popular family had 20 units) installed.
Flamanville (the most recent french design) came after almost 2 decades of no new reactors. Build 10 of them and you’ll see the cost come down dramatically, just like the first Chinese reactor was a wild cost outlier.
The biggest reason renewables are cheaper is because they come off a production line that is measuring output in thousands (or in the case of PV potentially hundreds of thousands) of units. Those kind of scale efficiencies will never be possible for nuclear. I’ve read the annual reports for generators and they regularly bring new renewable plants online on time and under budget. Show me a nuclear program that has ever done that consistently.

一个重要的促成因素是，西方的新型核反应堆往往是定制化或全新设计（例如弗拉芒维尔核电站、欣克利角核电站、奥尔基卢奥托核电站）。
过去40年里，韩国的核电项目可以说是最成功的。其所有反应堆均基于现有设计逐步改进而成，且每个设计系列至少已投产6台机组（最受欢迎的系列已建成20台）。
弗拉芒维尔核电站（法国最新的反应堆设计）的建造，距上一批新型反应堆投产已时隔近 20 年。如果能批量建造10台这样的机组，成本将会大幅下降——就像中国的第一台核反应堆，曾是成本严重偏高的特例一样。
可再生能源成本更低的最核心原因，是它们通过生产线批量生产，产量可达数千台（以光伏组件为例，产量甚至可能达到数十万件）。而核电永远无法实现这种规模效应带来的成本优势。我查阅过发电企业的年度报告，它们的可再生能源新电站往往能按时投产且低于预算。但你能找出哪个核电项目曾长期保持这样的表现吗？

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

I got an error when I clicked on your lix.
Nuclear power plants are not so overwhelmingly complex. They're like other industrial facilities like chemical plants, steel mills, etc. and are completely viable. Increasing regulations and requirements increases complexity and material requirements and reduces labor productivity.

我点击你的链接时出现了错误。
核电站并非复杂到难以想象。它们和化工厂、钢铁厂等其他工业设施类似，完全具备可行性。不断完善的监管规定和要求会增加其复杂性与材料需求，同时降低劳动生产率。

xieta
They are not overwhelmingly complex in the sense they are impossible to build, but they do require far more specialized (expensive) labor and materials than equivalent non-nuclear facilities, even if you minimize safety/security requirements.
But none of that really matters. Even if nuclear were equivalent in cost to a coal or gas plant, they still operate on the model of investing capital up front (along with future operating expenses) to generate and maintain a fixed unit of power.
The model for renewables, especially solar, is that the capital intensive component is the factory, which can mass produce units of power capacity continuously. Even if those units are inefficient, their near-zero operating cost and continuous production enables the exponential growth rate we see today. It’s very unlikely SMR tech will ever approach the same rate of growth, simply due to the security requirements around nuclear fuel.

核电站的复杂性并非指它们根本无法建造，而是说即使将安全和安保要求降到最低，它们仍然比同等规模的非核设施需要多得多的专业化（且昂贵）劳动力和材料。
但这些其实都无关紧要。即便核电的成本能与燃煤或燃气电厂持平，其运营模式依然是：预先投入资本（再加上未来的运营支出），以产生并维持固定的发电量。
而可再生能源（尤其是太阳能）的模式则不同：资本密集型的环节是工厂，工厂能够持续批量生产发电组件。即便这些组件的效率不高，但近乎为零的运营成本和持续的生产能力，造就了我们如今所见的指数级增长速度。仅就核燃料相关的安保要求而言，小型模块化反应堆（SMR）技术几乎不可能达到同等的增长速度。

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

Western safety regulations were both effective and affordable in the 70s.
Solar does not continuously produce electricity. Both solar and nuclear involve paying most of the money up front.
IAEA inspectors know how to track fuel and they're not what drives costs up so high.
edit. Also, the thing that drove down the price of solar was a deliberate decision in China to produce solar panels in massive quantities. Nuclear hasn't had that and I wonder what its costs would be if such scale existed. Also, getting rid of LNT and ALARA as a basis for safety regulations and basing regulations on actual real-world risks would tremendiously reduce costs.

20世纪70年代，西方的安全法规既有效又经济可行。
太阳能无法持续发电。太阳能和核电一样，大部分成本都是前期一次性投入的。
国际原子能机构的核查人员懂得如何追踪核燃料，而这并非导致成本飙升的原因。
补充说明：此外，太阳能价格下降的关键原因是中国主动决定大规模生产太阳能板。核电行业从未有过这样的举措，我很好奇如果能达到这样的规模，其成本会是多少。另外，若摒弃以线性无阈值（LNT）和合理可行尽量低（ALARA）原则作为安全法规的制定基础，转而基于现实世界的实际风险制定法规，将大幅降低成本。

xieta
Solar does not continuously produce electricity. Both solar and nuclear involve paying most of the money up front.
I think you misread my comment. I said the factories continously generate new capacity. For example, ES Foundry in South Carolina just opened and can produce 3 GW of solar panels each year, in perpetuity, for several billion of initial investment. This means each additional factory adds additional annual capacity, whereas you can only build traditional NPP linearly with each new plant.
While nuclear has low operating costs, it still requires fuel, engineers, administrators, etc to maintain operation, and it also requires careful site planning and water utilization, which makes scaling harder compared to solar installations which require no fuel and the bare minimum of maintaince to continue operation.
When you add up these factors, there isn't a great case to be made for nuclear in most applications, even if you can magically eliminate rising construction and labor costs.

太阳能无法持续发电。太阳能和核电一样，大部分成本都是前期一次性投入的。
我觉得你误解了我的意思。我说的是工厂能持续创造新的发电产能。比如，南卡罗来纳州的ES Foundry工厂刚刚投产，仅需数十亿美元的初始投资，每年就能持续生产3吉瓦的太阳能板。这意味着每新增一座工厂，就能额外提升年度产能；而传统核电站的建设则是线性增长，每新建一座电站才能增加相应产能。
尽管核电的运营成本较低，但仍需要燃料、工程师、管理人员等维持运转，还需进行周密的选址规划和水资源利用。相比之下，太阳能装置无需燃料，且仅需最低限度的维护就能持续运行，因此核电的规模化推广难度更大。
综合这些因素来看，即便能奇迹般地消除不断上涨的建设成本和人工成本，核电在大多数应用场景中也缺乏明显优势。

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

Factories can continuously build out the necessary components for nuclear capacity. Power plants can be standardized and are in China.
Wages and fuel are not the big costs for nuclear power, that's construction.
Dramatically reducing costs isn't magic. It's changing regulations to be rational.

工厂可以持续生产核电产能所需的各类组件。核电站能够实现标准化建设，而中国也正在这样做。
核电的主要成本并非工资和燃料，而是建设成本。
大幅降低成本并非难事，关键在于让监管规定变得合理。

xieta
Factories can continuously build out the necessary components for nuclear capacity.
Not at all the same. Solar factories export working cells, not just the components. To actually build a nuclear plant you have to pour tens of thousands of tons of concrete, weld miles of pipes and route miles of wiring - that's the step you have to fully automate sometime in the future to match today's solar growth rates.
Nuclear is fundementally a more complex technology than PV cells, it just isn't as ammenable to mass production.
Wages and fuel are not the big costs for nuclear power, that's construction.
Only because construction costs are already insanely high. It still requires 200-300 million per year to operate a nuclear plant, compared to <50 million for an equivalent solar farm. That makes a big difference if/when you get nuclear construction costs low enough to actually compete on the market.

工厂可以持续生产核电产能所需的各类必要组件。
但这两者完全不同。太阳能工厂产出的是可直接使用的电池组件，而非单纯的零部件。要实际建成一座核电站，需要浇筑数万吨混凝土、焊接数英里长的管道，还要铺设数英里长的线路——未来必须将这一步骤完全自动化，才能追上如今太阳能的增长速度。
核电在本质上是比光伏电池更复杂的技术，它就是不那么适合大规模生产。
核电的主要成本并非工资和燃料，而是建设成本。
这只是因为建设成本已经高得离谱。一座核电站每年的运营成本仍需2亿至3亿美元，而同等规模的太阳能电站运营成本还不到 5000万美元。一旦核电的建设成本降至足以真正参与市场竞争的水平，这一运营成本差异将会产生巨大影响。

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

A house with proper floors, electricity, hvac and indoor plumbing is also more complex and expensive to build than a mud hut with a dirt floor. It also has better results.
A lot of electricity is produced by nuclear power plants. It is also stable, reliable power and there is a lot of value in stability and reliability that solar and wind don't have.

一栋配备合格地板、电力系统、暖通空调和室内给排水设施的房屋，建造起来确实比泥土地面的茅草屋更复杂、成本更高，但它的居住效果也更好。
核电站能产生大量电力，而且提供的是稳定、可靠的电能。这种稳定性和可靠性蕴含着巨大价值，这是太阳能和风能所不具备的。

chmeee2314
Unlike most industrial facilities they do not fail safe. This is why they require a large amount of safety and redundancy.

与大多数工业设施不同，它们在发生故障时并不会自动进入安全状态。正因如此，核电站需要大量安全措施和冗余设计。

Naberville34
They do fail safe. There have been many many many industrial accidents more deadly than the major nuclear accidents.

核电站其实是可以实现故障安全的。发生过的许多工业事故，其致命程度都远超那些重大核事故。

MarcLeptic
It’s a valid point though a bit reductive. Using your analogy for an airplane below, yes , an airplane would need more regulations than a train. Though to complete the analogy, everything remotely related to the airplane including resfaurants in the airport, cars that employees drive and park at the airport etc all must adhere to a higher standard than the train industry just because airplanes don’t “fail safe”.
Still. We should be happy about our increased safety requirement. Ultimately France, in the middle of an energy crisis was able to take half its fleet offline to deal with a potential problem. Afterwards, support has never been higher. Trust is earned that way.

这个观点有一定道理，但略显片面。用你下面提到的飞机类比来说：飞机确实需要比火车更严格的监管。但要把这个类比说完整的话，所有与飞机有丝毫关联的事物——包括机场里的餐厅、员工在机场驾驶和停放的车辆等——都必须遵守比铁路行业更高的标准，仅仅因为飞机无法“故障安全运行”。
不过，我们应当为安全要求的提高而感到欣慰。归根结底，法国在能源危机期间，之所以能让半数核电机组停运以处理潜在问题，靠的就是这些严格要求。此后，公众对核电的支持率达到了前所未有的高度。信任正是这样建立起来的。

chmeee2314
Trains are a fucking nightmare when it comes to safety that only get to operate the way they do because they are grandfathered in from the dawn of the Industrial revolution and utilize a fallguy.
Standards at airport parking lots and Restaurants operate under more stringent regulations than their run of the mil equivalents.

火车在安全方面简直是噩梦一场 —— 它们之所以能维持现状运营，完全是因为受益于工业革命初期延续至今的既成事实，而且还能找替罪羊兜底。
机场停车场和机场内餐厅所遵循的标准，比同类普通场所的监管要求要严格得多。

mister_nippl_twister
Everything made on the west is way too expensive. Bridges, trains, roads and ships, power stations and houses. Scaling production is impossible. It is a trap that was made by outsourcing industry to the east and inflating of the financial system. It doesn't matter if you have magnitude more money if those money don't allow you to have the same things as the people with "less money".

西方制造的所有东西都贵得离谱——桥梁、火车、公路、船舶、发电站还有住宅，全都如此。规模化生产根本无从谈起。这是一个由产业外包到东方、金融体系膨胀所造就的陷阱。就算你拥有多得多的财富，如果这些钱没法让你买到那些“钱更少的人”能拥有的东西，那也毫无意义。

Techters
There was a really interesting article I think in the Economist about why France can install rail at such a lower cost than (I think all?) western countries and it's because they have a nationalized team that does it. They aren't popping into town creating temporary regional employment, training people from scratch, local bidding, etc. It's kind of mind blowing that's not an approach other countries are taking with infrastructure.

我记得《经济学人》上有一篇特别有意思的文章，讲的是为什么法国修建铁路的成本能比（我觉得是所有？）西方国家低得多——原因在于他们有一支国有化的专业团队负责这项工作。他们不会临时进驻某个城镇创造短期区域性就业岗位、从零开始培训人员，也不会搞地方招标之类的流程。真让人难以置信，其他国家在基础设施建设上竟然没有采用这种模式。

mister_nippl_twister
Because that is what those dirty commies do. Business that is controlled by the government cannot be as good as the free market, right? Jokes aside, it works well if it doesn't get corrupted and if you constantly have some flow of projects for those teams.

因为这就是那些angzang的..主义者会做的事啊。ZF控制的企业怎么可能比得上滋油市场呢，对吧？开个玩笑而已——其实只要不滋生腐败，而且能持续给这些团队分配项目，这种模式的效果就会很好。

bippos
Similiar in Sweden then I see, there is basically 2 companies since railway maintenance was privatised one government owned and one privately owned. Instead of using a more effective railway changing machine the state owned company uses it in Norway instead because they can’t compete with the cut throat prices the private company provides. Swedish rail maintenance isn’t expected to be solved for another 130 years XD

看来瑞典的情况也类似——自从铁路维护私有化后，基本上就剩下两家公司，一家是国有，另一家是私营。国有公司明明拥有更高效的铁路更换设备，却不在瑞典使用，反而跑去挪威用，只因他们无法和私营公司开出的恶性低价竞争。瑞典的铁路维护问题，预计还要130年才能解决，太离谱了

TDaltonC
In the 80s my dad would travel the country working as boiler maker. His team worked and traveled together for years living in temporary housing on the construction sites. They had lots of time off and very good pay for a blue collar job but no fixed address. He said it was better housing than in the Marines. It not for everyone, but they were a very effective workforce and he bought our house with cash when my mom got pregnant.

20世纪80年代，我父亲曾以锅炉工的身份走遍全国务工。他的团队多年来一起工作、四处奔波，住在建筑工地的临时住房里。这份蓝领工作的假期不少，薪水也很不错，但他们没有固定住址。父亲说，那里的住宿条件比在海军陆战队时还好。这种生活并非人人都能适应，但他们是一支效率极高的施工队伍——我母亲怀孕后，父亲就用现金买下了我们的房子。

SouthCarpet6057
I live in London, and it's an utter enigma for me, why there are youth that are not in education, and that are unemployed.
FFS just pay them to learn how to repair and maintain the tube network. Pay for them to get the education, and guarantee them employment for life.
There are demographics I London, where not joining a gang, got a teenager killed. Just provide these vulnerable people with an education and a job. London underground needs people to maintain it's systems. I'd rather have 100 London underground engineers just waiting to fix what is broken, than to deal with the consequences of poor maintenance.

我住在伦敦，实在搞不懂为什么会有年轻人既不上学也没工作。
拜托！干脆付钱让他们学习维修和保养地铁系统好了。政府出钱供他们接受培训，并保证他们终身就业。
在伦敦有些群体里，青少年不加入帮派就可能丧命。就该给这些弱势群体提供教育和工作机会啊。伦敦地铁本来就需要人手维护它的各类系统——我宁愿有100名伦敦地铁工程师随时待命，等着处理故障，也不想面对维护不力带来的后果。

LARPerator
The answer is "reserve army of labour". If being unemployed means being offered training and a new job, then getting fired isn't as much a threat to hang over someone's head.

答案是“劳动后备军”。如果失业意味着能获得培训和新工作机会，那么被解雇就不会再成为悬在人们头顶的重大威胁。

SouthCarpet6057
Dude, an army is on retainer. I'm talking about the underground having a surplus of engineers to fix shit.
Like they are paid, and when there is a problem, they do the work.
The tfl is a zero sum enterprise. So ideally, it would take into consideration the consequences of delay. Having 100 people on retainer to serve a city of 10 million should be cost effective. There's room for 1000 people on one train so a one minute delay, equals a full working day in lost time.
Basically I don't care how much tax I pay, if I can get where I want when I want it, and they'll fix me when I'm broken, I'm all up for it. It's like a "subscxtion" except it's for your life, and it has the added benefit of reducing crime and thereby your exposure to violence.

兄弟，我说的“后备军”是指待命状态。我意思是地铁系统可以储备一批富余工程师来处理各种故障。
他们领着薪水，一旦出了问题就上岗干活。
伦敦交通局是一家零和运营的机构。所以理想情况下，它应该把延误造成的后果纳入考量。给一座千万人口的城市配备100名待命工程师，理应具备成本效益。一列地铁能容纳1000人，所以一分钟的延误，折算下来相当于浪费了一整天的工时。
说白了，我不在乎交多少税——只要我能想去哪就去哪、想什么时候到就什么时候到，而且真出了状况他们能及时修复，我就全力支持。这就像一种“终身订阅服务”，还附带减少犯罪、从而降低遭遇暴力风险的额外好处。

I-suck-at-hoi4
What ? French railroad construction isn't nationalized. It's all handled by private engineering and construction contractors like NGE, Eiffage, etc. The national entity SNCF Réseau just oversees project management and signs the checks

什么？法国的铁路建设并非国有化。所有工程都由NGE、埃法日集团（Eiffage）等私营工程建筑承包商负责，国有机构法国国家铁路网公司仅负责项目管理监督和签署付款文件。

Techters
I'd be very interested in reading sources about SNCF not employing the people who do the work, since every source I find says opposite

我非常有兴趣阅读关于法国国家铁路公司（SNCF）不直接雇佣一线作业人员的相关资料，因为我找到的所有资料都给出了相反的结论。

National-Reception53
Also, it should be noted, massive corruption in our construction industry. Remember the Big Dig in Boston?

此外还需指出，我们的建筑行业存在严重腐败问题。还记得波士顿的“大挖掘”工程吗？

Wilsonj1966
It is not because we out sourced industry to the east, its the same reason why we out sourced to the east
We havent out sourced bridges, roads, houses and power stations east. They are manufactured here and they are very expensive
We have/are out sourcing trains and ships east because theyre so expensive to manufacture here

这并非因为我们把产业外包到了东方，而是我们当初选择外包到东方的根本原因使然。
桥梁、公路、住宅和发电站这些设施，我们并没有外包到东方。它们都是在本土建造的，价格却高得离谱。
我们已经（或正在）把火车和船舶的生产外包到东方，只因这些产品在本土制造的成本实在太高。

mister_nippl_twister
You did not outsource bridges because it is impossible to outsource bridges. You outsourced phones and trains and ships, those are built in giant facilities built by builders. And builders use concrete, steel and heavy machinery. So this creates production chains that are all outsourced by extension.
it is extremely expensive to do things in the us for the same reason it is extremely expensive in San Francisco compared to the rest of the country. Same reason why everything was extremely expensive in the capital of ancient rome empire.

你没有把桥梁建设外包出去，因为桥梁根本不可能外包。你外包的是手机、火车和船舶——这些产品都是在建筑商打造的大型工厂里生产的。而建筑商要用到混凝土、钢材和重型机械，由此延伸开来，整条产业链也就都被外包了。
在美国做事成本极高，原因和旧金山的成本比美国其他地区高得多的原因相同，也和古罗马帝国首都当年所有东西都贵得离谱的原因一样。

malongoria
It's mainly due to piss poor management.
They'll hire two cheap, inexperienced tradesmen for the price of one experienced tradesman thinking they will save money, only for the rework required to fix the inexperienced tradesmen's mistakes making things more expensive.
And everything will be blamed on the tradesmen. Or "excess regulation"
Even if the executives get fired, they'll have their golden parachutes.

这主要是因为管理糟糕透顶。
他们会花一名资深技工的钱，雇两个廉价又没经验的技工，以为能省钱——结果却要花大量成本返工，来修正这些新手的错误，最终反而让成本更高。
而所有问题都会归咎到技工身上，或者推给“过度监管”。
就算高管被解雇，他们也能拿着丰厚的离职补偿金全身而退。

sault18
"Direct cross country cost comparisons should be interpreted with caution because of differences in exchange rates and inflation."
We also have to keep in mind that in China:
Wages are lower
The government basically IS the nuclear industry. They can lend nuclear state-owned enterprises below market rate or even zero cost capital. Also, they can just fudge the numbers to make themselves look good. China is not known for financial transparency.
Materials are cheaper
Land is cheaper
Safety standards aren't up to what you would find in OECD countries.
So why are you trying to get people to believe in the cost figures coming out of China without mentioning any of these facts? What are you trying to hide?

“进行跨国成本直接对比时应谨慎解读，因为汇率与通胀水平存在差异。”
我们还必须谨记，在中国：
薪资水平更低
政府实质上主导着核电产业。政府可为国有核电企业提供低于市场利率甚至零成本的资金支持，还可通过篡改数据粉饰业绩。中国在财务透明度方面向来口碑不佳。
原材料成本更低
土地成本更低
安全标准未达到经合组织（OECD）国家的水平
那么，你为何试图让人们相信中国公布的成本数据，却对这些事实避而不谈？你究竟想隐瞒什么？

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

Yet the US and France once had costs per watt of capacity that were comparable to what China is getting today.
edit. It's like there was something else that caused costs to skyrocket.

然而，美国和法国曾经的单位容量瓦均成本，与中国如今的水平不相上下。

sault18
Stop trying to push your agenda of "but muh gubberment regulations and hippies and environmentalists". Nuclear Power failed because it is tremendously complex and the companies building nuclear plants kept screwing up.

别再强行灌输你那套“都怪政府监管、怪嬉皮士、怪环保人士”的论调了。核电之所以失败，是因为它的技术复杂度极高，而那些建造核电站的公司还总在不断出错。

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

Consider that you might be the one pushing an agenda that's not true.
There were all of the reactors built before the massive, sudden increase in costs in the US along wtih the low costs in China telling a different story from your claim.
Nuclear power is also not tremendously complex. It is similar to other industrial facilities like chemical plants, steel mills, etc. It is completely viable. Solar power requires complex factories and complex supply chains to produce the solar panels, materials for the solar panels, all of the machines needed to build the panels and produce the materials, etc. yet it gets done.

你不妨想想，或许正是你在强行宣扬一套不符合事实的论调。
美国大规模、突发性成本上涨之前建成的所有反应堆，再加上中国的低成本现状，都与你的说法相悖。
核电也并非技术复杂度极高。它和化工厂、钢铁厂等其他工业设施类似，完全具备可行性。太阳能发电同样需要复杂的工厂和庞大的供应链——要生产太阳能电池板、电池板所需的原材料，还要制造生产电池板和原材料所需的各类设备等等，但这些都一一实现了。

MerovingianT-Rex
Nuclear power is indeed similar to chemical plant (source, worked as engineer in the industry), the reactor is a bit more complex, I image though.
What your reply is ignoring, is that chemical plants have also seen a very large increase in the West. The graph is supposedly taking inflation into account but not all prices rise similar. Consumer goods (e.g. tv's, pc's, exoctic fruits) have become far cheaper. Steel has become more expensive, especially in the West. Increases safety regulations do the bulk of the rest of the price increase (permitting costs are higher too now).
Solar is cheap because it is mass produced in low wage countries. If the panels were produced in the West, they would be more expensive but still cheaper per watt than nuclear. Mass producing is just more efficient than builing plants.

核电确实与化工厂类似（本人曾在该行业担任工程师，这是第一手经验），不过我猜想反应堆会稍微复杂一些。
你的回复忽略了一点：西方的化工厂成本也出现了大幅上涨。这份图表据称已将通胀因素纳入考量，但并非所有商品价格的涨幅都一致。消费品（例如电视机、个人电脑、进口水果等）变得便宜了很多，而钢材的价格却上涨了，在西方尤其明显。安全法规的收紧是推动成本上涨的另一主要原因（如今的审批成本也更高了）。
太阳能发电之所以便宜，是因为它在低薪资国家进行大规模生产。如果太阳能电池板在西方生产，成本会更高，但每瓦发电成本仍会低于核电。大规模生产本身就比建造单个工厂的效率更高。

dogscatsnscience
Ontario has been nuclear powered for 50 years, and we’re currently extending all our plants through 2060.
We get the majority of our power from nuclear, and Ontario is around the size of Florida/Illinois economically. (It would be the 5th or 6th largest state).
We don’t use the commissioning system the US uses and our plants are extended indefinitely based on safety reviews.

安大略省使用核能发电已有50年，目前我们正将所有核电站的运营期限延长至2060年。
我们的电力供应主要来自核能，安大略省的经济规模与美国佛罗里达州 / 伊利诺伊州相当（其经济总量可跻身美国各州第5或第6位）。
我们没有采用美国的核电站投产许可制度，而是基于安全审查结果，对核电站实施无限期运营延期。

sault18
Ontario Hydro went bankrupt building CANDU reactors and the $19B stranded debt plus interest got added to everyone's electricity bills. A lot of CANDU reactors needed massively-expensive refurbishments relatively early on in their operational lifetimes that also cost way more than initially predicted. Just think what they could have done with all that time and money instead. Too bad they destroyed their wind power industry to prop up nuclear plants.

安大略水电公司因建造CANDU反应堆而破产，190亿加元的滞留债务连同利息被转嫁到每个用户的电费账单中。许多CANDU反应堆在运行寿命相对早期就需要耗费巨资进行翻新，且实际成本远高于最初预测。不妨想想，若将这些时间和资金用在其他方面会产生怎样的效果。可惜的是，为了扶持核电站，他们毁掉了自身的风电产业。

sickdanman
But none of that explains whats going on here unless the wage costs made a substantial portion of the cost and now is close to zero? That cant be it either

但这些都无法解释目前的情况——除非人工成本曾占总成本的很大一部分，而现在已接近于零？但这也不可能啊。

sault18
Everything I brought up affects the cost you would see reported by the Chinese communist Party for building nuclear plants. Wages are a huge part of the cost to build a nuclear plant. So is the land. So are the materials used to build it. All of these things are cheaper in China and it has nothing to do with how effective the Chinese are at building nuclear plants.

我提到的所有因素都会影响***所公布的核电站建设成本。工资是核电站建设成本中的很大一部分，土地成本也是如此，还有建造所需的材料成本亦然。然而所有这些在中国都更便宜，而这与中国在建设核电站方面是否高效毫无关系。(***政党或名字 上下同)

Mad-myall
To add: One thing I noticed isn't being factored in is that nuclear weapons manufacturing likely also subsidised past reactors. Remember that the US and USSR had enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all human life a couple times over, and were winding down stockpiles.

补充一点：我注意到有个因素未被纳入考量——核武器制造可能也曾为过去的反应堆提供过补贴。要知道，美国和苏联曾拥有足以将人类毁灭数次的核武器，而当时两国正逐步削减核库存。

ceph2apod
China reduced nuclear costs, then chose more solar and wind anyway because their costs are still way better than nuclear’s.
"Why is China slowing its nuclear so drastically? Because nuclear is turning out to be more expensive than expected, -- proving to be uneconomical, and new wind and solar are dirt cheap and much easier to build." https://cleantechnica.com/2019_/02/21/wind-solar-in-China-generating-2x-nuclear-today-will-be-4x-by-2030/

中国降低了核电成本，但最终还是选择了更多太阳能和风能——因为后者的成本仍远低于核电。
“中国为何如此大幅放缓核电发展？因为核电的实际成本远超预期，事实证明其并不经济，而新型风能和太阳能不仅价格极低，建设难度也小得多。”

Idle_Redditing

原始发帖人

Solar and wind are not so cheap once the costs of their fundamental lack of reliability are accounted for. The low costs are based on Lazard's LCOE which was never meant to measure costs for intermittent power sources.
There is a lot of value in power sources being stable and reliable due to being actively generated, not passively collected from unreliable sources. Nuclear is also a more environmentally friendly power source than solar and wind when uated rationally and without irrational fear.
China's costs for nuclear power plants have been quite stable since 2010. The slowdown is over. China has 35 reactors under construction and 65 more in planning. Those 65 can be counted on to actually be built.

一旦将太阳能和风能本质上可靠性不足所产生的成本纳入考量，它们就不再那么廉价了。其低成本数据基于拉扎德的平准化度电成本，而该指标原本就并非为衡量间歇性电源的成本而设计。
能够主动发电、而非从不可靠来源被动收集能量的电源，其稳定性和可靠性具有极高价值。若以理性视角评估、摒弃非理性恐惧便会发现，核电也是一种比太阳能和风能更环保的电源。
自2010年以来，中国核电站的建设成本一直相当稳定。核电发展放缓的阶段已然结束。中国目前有35座反应堆正在建设中，另有65座处于规划阶段。这65座反应堆完全有望落地建成。

Mad-myall
The Australian government did a report that found renewables plus batteries to stabilise the grid came out cheaper then nuclear (using south Koreas program as a basis, one of the cheapest first world nuclear countries).
Like you can keep arguing that in theory we could fix the problems that first world nations have building nuclear, but renewables still wind up ahead making the effort pointless.
https://www.csiro.au/en/research/technology-space/energy/electricity-transition/gencost
Plus I imagine fission will be rendered obsolete by fusion fairly soon(tm).

澳大利亚政府发布的一份报告指出，发展可再生能源并搭配电池储能以稳定电网，其成本低于核电（该报告以韩国的核电项目为基准，韩国是全球核电成本最低的发达国家之一）。
你大可以坚持认为，理论上我们有能力解决发达国家在建设核电时面临的种种问题，但最终可再生能源仍会更具优势，这使得解决核电问题的努力变得毫无意义。
此外，我认为核裂变很快就会被核聚变淘汰

ceph2apod
The fossil fuel industry wants to convince everyone renewables cost more to operate,
Reality:
The CEO of Australia's main grid says nearly 100% renewables possible by 2035-2040.
“Our old coal-fired power stations are breaking down; they’re retiring,” he said. ​“They’re getting replaced by the least-cost energy, which is renewable energy..." https://www.wired.com/story/as-coal-fades-australia-looks-to-realize-dream-of-100-renewable-energy/

化石燃料行业试图让所有人相信，可再生能源的运营成本更高。
而事实是：澳大利亚主电网的首席执行官表示，到2035至2040年，实现近100%可再生能源供电是可行的。“我们的老旧燃煤电厂正在故障频发、逐步退役，”他说道，“取而代之的是成本最低的能源——也就是可再生能源。”