5 ms·
4x300 MWe for 20.9B CAD for this vs Vogtle 3 and 4 are 2x 1117 MWe for 36.8B USD. So the starting stated price is only 20% cheaper than that train wreck. Will
by _aavaa_ 1y ago
4x300 MWe for 20.9B CAD for this vs Vogtle 3 and 4 are 2x 1117 MWe for 36.8B USD.
So the starting stated price is only 20% cheaper than that train wreck. Will love to see how high this number gets given it's a first of its kind.
- epistasis 1y agoIt will likely be more expensive than Vogtle, smaller reactors are just more expensive and they go big because it's more cost effective. What's slightly different is the financial risk profile. Failing on a 1x 300WM $5B project is slightly easier than a $18B 1GW project. My personal hypothesis is that nuclear decisions are made almost entirely along financial lines, instead of the safety concerns that dominate most debate about nuclear.
- _aavaa_ 1y agoI think this is actually backwards. The reactors are build big to get economies of scale. Building 4 small ones, each of which will also go over budget, only to produce a more expensive product out of each (electricity) puts your economics backwards.
- epistasis 1y agoIt's about the amount of capital at risk, not the per kWh unit economics. The risk is of complete failure of build and getting $0.
- _aavaa_ 1y agoI don’t know of that many plants that failed to finishing building after construction started. Unit economics are important. Managing to build doesn’t mean much if you can’t turn a profit.
- philipkglass 1y agoThis list has 43 reactors that started construction in the US but never finished: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_react... That's a lot considering that the US currently has 94 operating power reactors: https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=US https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails....