4 ms·

As far as I understood it takes so long because UK has some customization requirements which impacted a lot delivery time

mpweiher 2y ago
That's one of the reasons. Others include, but are not limited to: 1. The EPR is a FOAK build of a new design All of the EPR instances were started before any other instances were completed. FOAK (First of a Kind) builds are notoriously more difficult, costly and risky than NOAK (Nth of a Kind) builds. Think how much more a prototype of car costs than one you get off the assembly line. The difference is not quite that pronounced, but it's there. 2. No nuclear industry/workforce I think the article goes into this, but a lot of the cost of HPC, Olkiluoto and Flamanville (as well as Vogtle-3/4) is simply for rebuilding nuclear expertise both in industry and in the workforce. China also buit both EPRs and AP-1000s, and they did it quite a bit more quickly and cheaply, because they have an experienced workforce and industry at hand. They current have 20+ reactors under construction. That makes a huge difference as we know from experience. Just in Germany, the difference between one-off reactors and the Konvois that were built at the same time in series was around 2x. However, even in China the EPR took longer than other reactors. Partly due to it being a FOAK design, but also for the third reason: 3. The EPR is too complicated For various reasons, the EPR is far too complicated, and in the end not a good design. Which is one of the things you find out in FOAK builds (see point 1). That's not me saying this, it's the manufacturer, EDF. They have abandoned the EPR design, all new French reactors will be the vastly simplified EPR2. I haven't been able to find out whether Sizewell C and subsequent will also be EPR2 or whether the UK will stick with its heavily modified EPR. One example is that the EPR has quadruple independent cooling systems. This is in order to maintain triple redundancy while doing maintenance on the cooling system, so being able to do that maintenance without having to take the reactor offline. Considering the German PWRs were above 90% capacity factor with "just" triple redundancy, this seems to be gold-plating. Nice-to-have if you can pull it off, but it appears they couldn't pull it off. Also, all those cooling systems have to be active in order to comply with German nuclear regulations. The somewhat silly reason is that German regulators both (a) had no experience with passive cooling systems and (b) had a prescriptive approach to regulation, rather than a requirements-based approach. So "you must build a cooling system like this" rather than "your cooling system must be able to do this". It's is also obviously a bit redundant considering that Germany no longer operates nuclear power plants and isn't exactly currently in the market for an EPR. The Westinghouse AP-1000 uses at least some passive cooling, which is not only more reliable but also simpler, smaller and cheaper and makes the total plant a lot smaller. Once you've built one, the EPR is apparently a great reactor (the Fins are very happy with theirs), and should last a long time, but it's just a pain to build.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  thanks for additional contribution! Agree, AP-1000 is extremely cool, China already has 4 reactors with it and more are in building phase
  - chickenbig 2y ago
    The localised version being the CAP1000 (with a scaled up CAP1400 in the works). The main competition is the Hualong One (a.ka. HPR1000), a more conventional plant based on an imported French design (itself an evolution of a Westinghouse PWR).
- chickenbig 2y ago
  > Once you've built one, the EPR is apparently a great reactor https://youtu.be/6fM2k1xEHGg?feature=shared&t=2137 https://youtu.be/6fM2k1xEHGg?feature=shared&t=2137 with World Nuclear Association's China lead Francois Morin Now, if you look at the price per kilowatt, for instance, Chinese yuan per kilowatt, the, the, the Ap1000 are more expensive than the EPR. > I haven't been able to find out whether Sizewell C and subsequent will also be EPR2 or whether the UK will stick with its heavily modified EPR. Sticking to the UK EPR. There is no point in building another FOAK for marginal benefit.
- throw0101b 2y ago
  > That's one of the reasons. Others include, but are not limited to: These probably also apply to Vogtle 3 in the US; IIRC, Vogtle 4 was less expensive. Economies of scale applies to large nuclear plants as much as it does to small widgets: the more you build the easier it becomes to build them.
  - Moldoteck 2y ago
    yep, V4 did cost 30% cheaper than unit 3. It's interesting if the next plant will be built and if yes - how much cheaper/faster
    - chickenbig 2y ago

mpweiher 2y ago

That's one of the reasons. Others include, but are not limited to: 1. The EPR is a FOAK build of a new design All of the EPR instances were started before any other instances were completed. FOAK (First of a Kind) builds are notoriously more difficult, costly and risky than NOAK (Nth of a Kind) builds. Think how much more a prototype of car costs than one you get off the assembly line. The difference is not quite that pronounced, but it's there. 2. No nuclear industry/workforce I think the article goes into this, but a lot of the cost of HPC, Olkiluoto and Flamanville (as well as Vogtle-3/4) is simply for rebuilding nuclear expertise both in industry and in the workforce. China also buit both EPRs and AP-1000s, and they did it quite a bit more quickly and cheaply, because they have an experienced workforce and industry at hand. They current have 20+ reactors under construction. That makes a huge difference as we know from experience. Just in Germany, the difference between one-off reactors and the Konvois that were built at the same time in series was around 2x. However, even in China the EPR took longer than other reactors. Partly due to it being a FOAK design, but also for the third reason: 3. The EPR is too complicated For various reasons, the EPR is far too complicated, and in the end not a good design. Which is one of the things you find out in FOAK builds (see point 1). That's not me saying this, it's the manufacturer, EDF. They have abandoned the EPR design, all new French reactors will be the vastly simplified EPR2. I haven't been able to find out whether Sizewell C and subsequent will also be EPR2 or whether the UK will stick with its heavily modified EPR. One example is that the EPR has quadruple independent cooling systems. This is in order to maintain triple redundancy while doing maintenance on the cooling system, so being able to do that maintenance without having to take the reactor offline. Considering the German PWRs were above 90% capacity factor with "just" triple redundancy, this seems to be gold-plating. Nice-to-have if you can pull it off, but it appears they couldn't pull it off. Also, all those cooling systems have to be active in order to comply with German nuclear regulations. The somewhat silly reason is that German regulators both (a) had no experience with passive cooling systems and (b) had a prescriptive approach to regulation, rather than a requirements-based approach. So "you must build a cooling system like this" rather than "your cooling system must be able to do this". It's is also obviously a bit redundant considering that Germany no longer operates nuclear power plants and isn't exactly currently in the market for an EPR. The Westinghouse AP-1000 uses at least some passive cooling, which is not only more reliable but also simpler, smaller and cheaper and makes the total plant a lot smaller. Once you've built one, the EPR is apparently a great reactor (the Fins are very happy with theirs), and should last a long time, but it's just a pain to build.

Moldoteck 2y ago
thanks for additional contribution! Agree, AP-1000 is extremely cool, China already has 4 reactors with it and more are in building phase
- chickenbig 2y ago
  The localised version being the CAP1000 (with a scaled up CAP1400 in the works). The main competition is the Hualong One (a.ka. HPR1000), a more conventional plant based on an imported French design (itself an evolution of a Westinghouse PWR).
chickenbig 2y ago
> Once you've built one, the EPR is apparently a great reactor https://youtu.be/6fM2k1xEHGg?feature=shared&t=2137 https://youtu.be/6fM2k1xEHGg?feature=shared&t=2137 with World Nuclear Association's China lead Francois Morin Now, if you look at the price per kilowatt, for instance, Chinese yuan per kilowatt, the, the, the Ap1000 are more expensive than the EPR. > I haven't been able to find out whether Sizewell C and subsequent will also be EPR2 or whether the UK will stick with its heavily modified EPR. Sticking to the UK EPR. There is no point in building another FOAK for marginal benefit.
throw0101b 2y ago
> That's one of the reasons. Others include, but are not limited to: These probably also apply to Vogtle 3 in the US; IIRC, Vogtle 4 was less expensive. Economies of scale applies to large nuclear plants as much as it does to small widgets: the more you build the easier it becomes to build them.
- Moldoteck 2y ago
  yep, V4 did cost 30% cheaper than unit 3. It's interesting if the next plant will be built and if yes - how much cheaper/faster
  - chickenbig 2y ago