3 ms·

In Finland, brought from Areva-Siemens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Powe

by E_x_B 5y ago

In Finland, brought from Areva-Siemens. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#... Total cost to owner (TVO) for this 1600 MW EPR will be little less than 6 billion euros and the rest of the cost (5 billion euros) will be paid by Areva i.e. French citizens as taxes. Building of the plant started 2005 and after the latest delays the reactor is supposed to go critical for the first time during January 2022. It was supposed to be ready during 2010. As you can see: Cheap and fast to build. Areva figured that this was an easy way to open the European nuclear power plant markets after the political damage to the industry due to Chernobyl. They did not take into account the fact that a lot of the professionals required were already retired and at the same time the safety regulations were much tighter than before.

guscost 5y ago
> After the construction of the unit started in 2005, Areva began constructing EPRs in Flamanville, France, and in Taishan, China. However, as of 2019, the construction of the EPR in France is ten years behind schedule.[35] Taishan 1 in China became the first EPR to start power generation on 29 June 2018,[36] and the second one (Taishan 2) came online in 2019.[37] Sounds like it has a lot to do with the regulations/regulators.
- E_x_B 5y ago
  It has a lot to do with the regulations and probably more to do with the fact that in Finland they require the regulations actually to be fulfilled. This was written in the contract and Areva-Siemens was aware of the requirements at the time of the signing. They gambled and lost. Interestingly the City of Helsinki is now considering compact nuclear reactors as a replacement for the energy source required for district heating. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12098463 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12098463 (in Finnish only) Currently they are running on coal which is to be replaced by a bio fuel (wood chips) based power plant by year 2024. Many are not happy about the projected increase of traffic from trucks bringing in the bio fuel. The nuclear option will not happen due to too many diehard Green party voters in Helsinki but it is a sign of the times. Even the Green party in Finland is at least partly supportive to nuclear power.
  - guscost 5y ago
    We probably agree that the reactor in Taishan might be less safe than it is designed to be, might have some critical stress parts made of cast pot-metal, and so forth. Do you believe the regulations/regulators in Europe are acting reasonably? You could try to argue that extreme risk aversion is the better failure mode, but that’s hard to prove in the long term.
    - E_x_B 5y ago
      Extreme risk aversion is costly and probably causes on average more damage to the people than operating based on a realistic risk assessment. Problem is the out of proportion fear of ionizing radiation fuelled by the campaigns of the various Green movements. I am pro nuclear power due to the fact that producing the same amount of energy using coal power causes more loss of human lives. This has been true even when comparing just the real radiation exposure from the fly ash of an operating coal powered plant and the maximum allowed radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant. It is still true when comparing the loss of lives per produced energy when both the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima accident are accounted for.
runeks 5y ago
> [...] Building of the plant started 2005 and after the latest delays the reactor is supposed to go critical for the first time during January 2022. It was supposed to be ready during 2010. > As you can see: Cheap and fast to build. How is 17+ years (with a 12+ year delay) "fast"?
- E_x_B 5y ago
  It is not. And the total cost of 6+5 billion euros for the nuclear power plant is not cheap. Due to the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents any nuclear power projects today are always an uphill battle with the increasingly difficult to fulfill regulations. At the same time there will be strong political pressures from outside sources like Greenpeace. If the safety regulations for cars were as stringent with respect to the risks involved there would be no cars at all. Even walking on the streets would be forbidden without using a helmet.

by E_x_B 5y ago

guscost 5y ago

> After the construction of the unit started in 2005, Areva began constructing EPRs in Flamanville, France, and in Taishan, China. However, as of 2019, the construction of the EPR in France is ten years behind schedule.[35] Taishan 1 in China became the first EPR to start power generation on 29 June 2018,[36] and the second one (Taishan 2) came online in 2019.[37] Sounds like it has a lot to do with the regulations/regulators.

E_x_B 5y ago
It has a lot to do with the regulations and probably more to do with the fact that in Finland they require the regulations actually to be fulfilled. This was written in the contract and Areva-Siemens was aware of the requirements at the time of the signing. They gambled and lost. Interestingly the City of Helsinki is now considering compact nuclear reactors as a replacement for the energy source required for district heating. https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12098463 https://yle.fi/uutiset/3-12098463 (in Finnish only) Currently they are running on coal which is to be replaced by a bio fuel (wood chips) based power plant by year 2024. Many are not happy about the projected increase of traffic from trucks bringing in the bio fuel. The nuclear option will not happen due to too many diehard Green party voters in Helsinki but it is a sign of the times. Even the Green party in Finland is at least partly supportive to nuclear power.
- guscost 5y ago
  We probably agree that the reactor in Taishan might be less safe than it is designed to be, might have some critical stress parts made of cast pot-metal, and so forth. Do you believe the regulations/regulators in Europe are acting reasonably? You could try to argue that extreme risk aversion is the better failure mode, but that’s hard to prove in the long term.
  - E_x_B 5y ago
    Extreme risk aversion is costly and probably causes on average more damage to the people than operating based on a realistic risk assessment. Problem is the out of proportion fear of ionizing radiation fuelled by the campaigns of the various Green movements. I am pro nuclear power due to the fact that producing the same amount of energy using coal power causes more loss of human lives. This has been true even when comparing just the real radiation exposure from the fly ash of an operating coal powered plant and the maximum allowed radiation exposure from a nuclear power plant. It is still true when comparing the loss of lives per produced energy when both the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima accident are accounted for.

runeks 5y ago

> [...] Building of the plant started 2005 and after the latest delays the reactor is supposed to go critical for the first time during January 2022. It was supposed to be ready during 2010. > As you can see: Cheap and fast to build. How is 17+ years (with a 12+ year delay) "fast"?

E_x_B 5y ago
It is not. And the total cost of 6+5 billion euros for the nuclear power plant is not cheap. Due to the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents any nuclear power projects today are always an uphill battle with the increasingly difficult to fulfill regulations. At the same time there will be strong political pressures from outside sources like Greenpeace. If the safety regulations for cars were as stringent with respect to the risks involved there would be no cars at all. Even walking on the streets would be forbidden without using a helmet.