3 ms·
And still ended up with negative learning by doing where every additional reactor became more expensive than the previous. The costs of the French nuclear scal
by ViewTrick1002 2y ago
And still ended up with negative learning by doing where every additional reactor became more expensive than the previous.
The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
- mpweiher 2y agoBut the "negative learning" was exactly because they abandoned the standardized approach. "Conversely, the gradual erosion of EDF’s determination to standardize (caving in to proposals of numerous design changes in the wake of the ‘‘frenchifying’’ of the Westinghouse de- sign—the P’4 reactor series—and above all to the new N4 reactor design pushed by the CEA), as well as the abrupt slowdown of the expansion program after 1981, paved the way towards a gradual demise of the French success model, as borne out in lengthened construction times and ever higher cost escalation towards the end of the program (cf. Section 4 below)." https://endexiresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/the-cost-of-french-nuclear-scale-up-a.-grubler.pdf https://endexiresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020...
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoI don’t get the need to lie? If you read the article you will clearly see that for all generations it got more expensive over time. The first, the second, the third and fourth. All of them. Standardization did not make it cheaper.
- mpweiher 2y agoThat's a direct quote I copy-pasted from the article. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- ViewTrick1002 2y agoI don’t see any standardization wins in this graph. It points up throughout the entire program. Flamanville 3 and the EPR2s are incomprehensibly far above even the last one. https://i.imgur.com/97E0zdn.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/97E0zdn.jpeg
- mpweiher 2y agoThe text I quoted is the last paragraph of section 3, page 5 of the article.