7 ms·

> building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant. > if more components of the plant, or

> building subsequent plants based on an existing design actually costs more, not less, than building the initial plant. > if more components of the plant, or even the entire plant, could be built offsite under controlled factory conditions, such extra costs could be substantially cut. Wait what? France builds with relative similarity and it's cheaper. The problem is with US regulation, politics and CYA hand-wringing, imo.

bobthepanda 6y ago
The French industry isn’t doing too well either; all the EPRs are also late and over budget and they took over Areva to bail it out.
- Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
  not true Taishan units are up and running
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    Open doesn't mean it was on time or on budget. https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 > CGN Power, the listed unit of state-owned China General Nuclear Power, China’s largest nuclear power projects developer, has announced a 17 per cent capital increase at its Taishan nuclear project, raising concern cost overruns and commissioning delays will continue. > The company will inject 2.94 billion yuan into its 51 per cent-held unit Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture, which will see the unit’s total registered capital to 28.6 billion yuan from 24.4 billion yuan, the company said in a filing to Hong Kong’s bourse late on Tuesday. Provincial government-controlled Guangdong Yudean, the province’s largest power producer, owns 19 per cent stake, and CGN’s French technology partner EDF holds 30 per cent stake. > CGN said the capital injection serves “to enhance its financing ability so as to meet its fund requirements for engineering construction.” > The project, which CGN said on track to become the world’s first third-generation nuclear reactor built on the European pressurised reactors (EPR) design to achieve commercial operation, was originally expected to have its first generating unit come online in December 2013 followed by the second in October 2014. > The timetable of the two units subsequently slipped to the first and second half of this year, and further to the first and second half of next year after “comprehensive evaluation on subsequent engineering construction plan and relevant risks,” said CGN a year ago.
    - Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
      Sure but we're talking about 20% overrun, which I could call a good upfront guess
Gwypaas 6y ago
Flamanville, France: The project was planned to involve around €3.3 billion of capital expenditure from EDF, but latest cost estimates (from 2019) are at €12.4 billion. Pierre Moscovici, president of the Court of Audit, gave a statement on 9 July 2020 concerning the release of the report on the delay costs of the Flamanville 3. The report of the Court of Audit reveals that the cost of Flamanville 3 could reach €19.1 billion when taking in account the additional charges due to the delay in construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi...
- realusername 6y ago
  This one is a bit different though, it's the first of a kind of a new design (so count a lot of R&D there) and the original schedule was very unrealistic, not sure why anybody agreed on a timescale so short for a new design in the first place.
  - dv_dt 6y ago
    France hasn't built any reactors of the old design in what decades?
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    Worth noting that Unit 3 at Olkiluoto in Finland was started before Flamanville and it hit massive cost overruns and delays as well. It was another EPR -- it's not like Flamanville was the very first build of this design, they had another to learn with.
    - cbmuser 6y ago
      You should also add that China started to build two EPRs after France and Finnland and they are both already operating commercially.
      - bobthepanda 6y ago
        They were both also late and over budget though. Less so than the two European units, but still. https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 > CGN Power, the listed unit of state-owned China General Nuclear Power, China’s largest nuclear power projects developer, has announced a 17 per cent capital increase at its Taishan nuclear project, raising concern cost overruns and commissioning delays will continue. > The company will inject 2.94 billion yuan into its 51 per cent-held unit Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture, which will see the unit’s total registered capital to 28.6 billion yuan from 24.4 billion yuan, the company said in a filing to Hong Kong’s bourse late on Tuesday. Provincial government-controlled Guangdong Yudean, the province’s largest power producer, owns 19 per cent stake, and CGN’s French technology partner EDF holds 30 per cent stake. > CGN said the capital injection serves “to enhance its financing ability so as to meet its fund requirements for engineering construction.” > The project, which CGN said on track to become the world’s first third-generation nuclear reactor built on the European pressurised reactors (EPR) design to achieve commercial operation, was originally expected to have its first generating unit come online in December 2013 followed by the second in October 2014. > The timetable of the two units subsequently slipped to the first and second half of this year, and further to the first and second half of next year after “comprehensive evaluation on subsequent engineering construction plan and relevant risks,” said CGN a year ago.
fnord77 6y ago
don't forget the NIMBYs
- mikeyouse 6y ago
  I don’t know how anyone can look at the state of corporate America and not be a NIMBY when it comes to a new nuclear plant... which company exists right now that you would trust to run something correctly for the next 50 years and resist the pressure to cut costs as close to the bone as possible..
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - orthecreedence 6y ago
    Why is this downvoted? I wouldn't trust a nuclear power plant run by a private company.
  - loeg 6y ago
    The Navy. Semi-serious; they’ve been operating nuclear reactors safely for decades.
    - fnord77 6y ago
      I was skeptical, but it's true https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/jun/09/john-mccain/navys-record-unblemished/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/jun/09/john-mccai...
  - oconnor663 6y ago
    I trust airlines with my life without even thinking about it. Sometimes we even make fun of people who are afraid of flying. Incentives make a big difference here. Ignoring everything else, airlines don't want to lose their hundred million dollar machine in an accident. And the person most directly responsible for the safety of the flight -- the pilot -- is sitting right there in the machine with the rest of us. It's a good arrangement with a long track record. I could imagine corporate-run nuclear plants that have the same incentives as airlines. I could also imagine bad ones, run by Homer Simpson. It probably makes more sense to judge case by case.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
"The problem is with US regulation, politics and CYA hand-wringing" The article specifically addresses your cynicism about "regulation and politics", only they call it "safety regulations". They found it not to be the deciding factor. Lack of construction outside the US would seem to support that conclusion or, alternatively, to accept those factors as unchanging, sort-of like the laws of nature, and to blaming democracy for all ills of society.

bobthepanda 6y ago

The French industry isn’t doing too well either; all the EPRs are also late and over budget and they took over Areva to bail it out.

Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
not true Taishan units are up and running
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  Open doesn't mean it was on time or on budget. https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 > CGN Power, the listed unit of state-owned China General Nuclear Power, China’s largest nuclear power projects developer, has announced a 17 per cent capital increase at its Taishan nuclear project, raising concern cost overruns and commissioning delays will continue. > The company will inject 2.94 billion yuan into its 51 per cent-held unit Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture, which will see the unit’s total registered capital to 28.6 billion yuan from 24.4 billion yuan, the company said in a filing to Hong Kong’s bourse late on Tuesday. Provincial government-controlled Guangdong Yudean, the province’s largest power producer, owns 19 per cent stake, and CGN’s French technology partner EDF holds 30 per cent stake. > CGN said the capital injection serves “to enhance its financing ability so as to meet its fund requirements for engineering construction.” > The project, which CGN said on track to become the world’s first third-generation nuclear reactor built on the European pressurised reactors (EPR) design to achieve commercial operation, was originally expected to have its first generating unit come online in December 2013 followed by the second in October 2014. > The timetable of the two units subsequently slipped to the first and second half of this year, and further to the first and second half of next year after “comprehensive evaluation on subsequent engineering construction plan and relevant risks,” said CGN a year ago.
  - Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
    Sure but we're talking about 20% overrun, which I could call a good upfront guess

Gwypaas 6y ago

Flamanville, France: The project was planned to involve around €3.3 billion of capital expenditure from EDF, but latest cost estimates (from 2019) are at €12.4 billion. Pierre Moscovici, president of the Court of Audit, gave a statement on 9 July 2020 concerning the release of the report on the delay costs of the Flamanville 3. The report of the Court of Audit reveals that the cost of Flamanville 3 could reach €19.1 billion when taking in account the additional charges due to the delay in construction. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi...

realusername 6y ago
This one is a bit different though, it's the first of a kind of a new design (so count a lot of R&D there) and the original schedule was very unrealistic, not sure why anybody agreed on a timescale so short for a new design in the first place.
- dv_dt 6y ago
  France hasn't built any reactors of the old design in what decades?
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  Worth noting that Unit 3 at Olkiluoto in Finland was started before Flamanville and it hit massive cost overruns and delays as well. It was another EPR -- it's not like Flamanville was the very first build of this design, they had another to learn with.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    You should also add that China started to build two EPRs after France and Finnland and they are both already operating commercially.
    - bobthepanda 6y ago
      They were both also late and over budget though. Less so than the two European units, but still. https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 https://archive.is/MT9fA#selection-2255.0-2337.266 > CGN Power, the listed unit of state-owned China General Nuclear Power, China’s largest nuclear power projects developer, has announced a 17 per cent capital increase at its Taishan nuclear project, raising concern cost overruns and commissioning delays will continue. > The company will inject 2.94 billion yuan into its 51 per cent-held unit Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture, which will see the unit’s total registered capital to 28.6 billion yuan from 24.4 billion yuan, the company said in a filing to Hong Kong’s bourse late on Tuesday. Provincial government-controlled Guangdong Yudean, the province’s largest power producer, owns 19 per cent stake, and CGN’s French technology partner EDF holds 30 per cent stake. > CGN said the capital injection serves “to enhance its financing ability so as to meet its fund requirements for engineering construction.” > The project, which CGN said on track to become the world’s first third-generation nuclear reactor built on the European pressurised reactors (EPR) design to achieve commercial operation, was originally expected to have its first generating unit come online in December 2013 followed by the second in October 2014. > The timetable of the two units subsequently slipped to the first and second half of this year, and further to the first and second half of next year after “comprehensive evaluation on subsequent engineering construction plan and relevant risks,” said CGN a year ago.

fnord77 6y ago

don't forget the NIMBYs

mikeyouse 6y ago
I don’t know how anyone can look at the state of corporate America and not be a NIMBY when it comes to a new nuclear plant... which company exists right now that you would trust to run something correctly for the next 50 years and resist the pressure to cut costs as close to the bone as possible..
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- orthecreedence 6y ago
  Why is this downvoted? I wouldn't trust a nuclear power plant run by a private company.
- loeg 6y ago
  The Navy. Semi-serious; they’ve been operating nuclear reactors safely for decades.
  - fnord77 6y ago
    I was skeptical, but it's true https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/jun/09/john-mccain/navys-record-unblemished/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2008/jun/09/john-mccai...
- oconnor663 6y ago
  I trust airlines with my life without even thinking about it. Sometimes we even make fun of people who are afraid of flying. Incentives make a big difference here. Ignoring everything else, airlines don't want to lose their hundred million dollar machine in an accident. And the person most directly responsible for the safety of the flight -- the pilot -- is sitting right there in the machine with the rest of us. It's a good arrangement with a long track record. I could imagine corporate-run nuclear plants that have the same incentives as airlines. I could also imagine bad ones, run by Homer Simpson. It probably makes more sense to judge case by case.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

"The problem is with US regulation, politics and CYA hand-wringing" The article specifically addresses your cynicism about "regulation and politics", only they call it "safety regulations". They found it not to be the deciding factor. Lack of construction outside the US would seem to support that conclusion or, alternatively, to accept those factors as unchanging, sort-of like the laws of nature, and to blaming democracy for all ills of society.