5 ms·

Russia built two Gen III+ reactors with 1200 MW each at the site of the existing Novovoronezh nuclear power plant for just about three billion Euros (250 billi

Russia built two Gen III+ reactors with 1200 MW each at the site of the existing Novovoronezh nuclear power plant for just about three billion Euros (250 billion Rubles). > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Plant_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novovoronezh_Nuclear_Power_Pla... Germany spends 20-30 billion Euros every year on its subsidies for renewable energies (EEG-Umlage): > https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Mediathek/Monitoringberichte/Monitoringbericht_Energie2021.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2 https://www.bundesnetzagentur.de/SharedDocs/Mediathek/Monito... (page 32) Nuclear isn’t expensive if you do it right.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Currently not going swimmingly adapting the VVER to western standards though. Looking to be at least €8 B if everything goes to plan, which would be lunacy to bank on given all other western examples. I wonder why only autocratic governments manage to build them? > On 21 December 2018, Fennovoima announced that it had received a new schedule to receive the construction license and start construction of the plant in 2021. The commercial operation should start in 2028.[21] > In April 2021, Fennovoima announced that bringing the design and licensing material to the level of Finnish requirements has taken longer than expected. The company estimated that it could obtain the construction license in 2022 and that construction of the power plant would begin in 2023. Commercial operation of the plant would begin in 2029.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- fuoqi 5y ago
  First, let's start with the fact that €8B is a wrong number. The last estimate is €7–7.5B. Next, you should consider the following factors: - The Finish nuclear regulation is quite paranoid, even by "western" standards. Also add political pressure on the top of it. - The project probably includes significant modification of the standard Russian design. Meaning additional design and certification costs. While Russia and most other foreign countries use mostly "standard" designs. But note that it's effectively a one-time cost, i.e. it will not apply to the same extent to additional reactors in the same country. - It's a greenfield project, meaning the cost includes supporting infrastructure. Building additional reactors at an existing site or close to it will be noticeably cheaper (as the case with VVERs build today in Russia). - Usually, in such projects the hosting side wrestles as much as possible for stuff to be built and procured locally. Meaning, labor and materials which are relatively cheap in Russia/Turkey/Egypt/etc. will cost 1.5-3x more in Finland.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Unsubsidized Wind is basically cheaper per the second graph on that report. Unsubsidized Solar is right in the middle of nuclear Coal is already uncompetitive, it's existence in the market is driven by availability of financing and material to replace it: energy companies are losing money on coal. The holy grail is unsub wind/solar beating gas combined cycle, but I'll take subsidized. Coal and nat gas are implicitly subsidized: aside from the usual subsidies oil/gas get, they aren't subject to realistic carbon taxes. I was going to make a comment saying the nuclear was fundamentally noncompetitive today, but that's not true per the graph. Nuclear is surprisingly still competitive, it's just that those plants are ancient and dangerous PWR/LWR almost across the board, Fukushimas waiting to happen. What is needed is LFTR or other new generation projects, but the issue with those is they are 10-20 years out, even if we had a proven design. Solar/wind have a lot of price dropping still to go as economies of scale kick in. No one knows what the costs will be in 10-20 years, so how do you finance a nuke plant given you don't know a realistic profitable cost? Also, Yucca mountain was a crappy idea. We should have had LFTRs in use at a minimum to be used to process/breed spent nuclear fuel rods and waste. As I understand it, LFTR can burn/use/convert nuke waste to power or other usable fuel. Or we should have been on LFTR the whole time with its ability to use 99% of nuclear fuel. But the boat was missed on this two or three decades ago. We are riding solar/wind and whatever remains for baseload/evening and storage. What we NEED is a rapid phase-in carbon tax on coal/gas that is directly fed to consumer solar/storage and utility solar/wind.
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  Keep in mind that the second graph is the marginal cost. The first graph includes the numbers necessary for the initial investment in new builds. Fram that it is easy to see that nuclear new builds are completely uneconomical.

Gwypaas 5y ago

Currently not going swimmingly adapting the VVER to western standards though. Looking to be at least €8 B if everything goes to plan, which would be lunacy to bank on given all other western examples. I wonder why only autocratic governments manage to build them? > On 21 December 2018, Fennovoima announced that it had received a new schedule to receive the construction license and start construction of the plant in 2021. The commercial operation should start in 2028.[21] > In April 2021, Fennovoima announced that bringing the design and licensing material to the level of Finnish requirements has taken longer than expected. The company estimated that it could obtain the construction license in 2022 and that construction of the power plant would begin in 2023. Commercial operation of the plant would begin in 2029.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanhikivi_Nuclear_Power_Plant

fuoqi 5y ago
First, let's start with the fact that €8B is a wrong number. The last estimate is €7–7.5B. Next, you should consider the following factors: - The Finish nuclear regulation is quite paranoid, even by "western" standards. Also add political pressure on the top of it. - The project probably includes significant modification of the standard Russian design. Meaning additional design and certification costs. While Russia and most other foreign countries use mostly "standard" designs. But note that it's effectively a one-time cost, i.e. it will not apply to the same extent to additional reactors in the same country. - It's a greenfield project, meaning the cost includes supporting infrastructure. Building additional reactors at an existing site or close to it will be noticeably cheaper (as the case with VVERs build today in Russia). - Usually, in such projects the hosting side wrestles as much as possible for stuff to be built and procured locally. Meaning, labor and materials which are relatively cheap in Russia/Turkey/Egypt/etc. will cost 1.5-3x more in Finland.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-levelized-cost-of-storage-and-levelized-cost-of-hydrogen/ https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... Unsubsidized Wind is basically cheaper per the second graph on that report. Unsubsidized Solar is right in the middle of nuclear Coal is already uncompetitive, it's existence in the market is driven by availability of financing and material to replace it: energy companies are losing money on coal. The holy grail is unsub wind/solar beating gas combined cycle, but I'll take subsidized. Coal and nat gas are implicitly subsidized: aside from the usual subsidies oil/gas get, they aren't subject to realistic carbon taxes. I was going to make a comment saying the nuclear was fundamentally noncompetitive today, but that's not true per the graph. Nuclear is surprisingly still competitive, it's just that those plants are ancient and dangerous PWR/LWR almost across the board, Fukushimas waiting to happen. What is needed is LFTR or other new generation projects, but the issue with those is they are 10-20 years out, even if we had a proven design. Solar/wind have a lot of price dropping still to go as economies of scale kick in. No one knows what the costs will be in 10-20 years, so how do you finance a nuke plant given you don't know a realistic profitable cost? Also, Yucca mountain was a crappy idea. We should have had LFTRs in use at a minimum to be used to process/breed spent nuclear fuel rods and waste. As I understand it, LFTR can burn/use/convert nuke waste to power or other usable fuel. Or we should have been on LFTR the whole time with its ability to use 99% of nuclear fuel. But the boat was missed on this two or three decades ago. We are riding solar/wind and whatever remains for baseload/evening and storage. What we NEED is a rapid phase-in carbon tax on coal/gas that is directly fed to consumer solar/storage and utility solar/wind.

Gwypaas 5y ago
Keep in mind that the second graph is the marginal cost. The first graph includes the numbers necessary for the initial investment in new builds. Fram that it is easy to see that nuclear new builds are completely uneconomical.