7 ms·
But the "negative learning" was exactly because they abandoned the standardized approach. "Conversely, the gradual erosion of EDF’s determination to standardiz
by mpweiher 2y ago
But 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.