4 ms·

The European EPR aren’t underwhelming: the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned. The underwhelming part comes from delay and cost overruns cau

by IMTDb 1y ago

The European EPR aren’t underwhelming: the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned. The underwhelming part comes from delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision, as well as difficulties finding builder with the required know-how. Despite this both France (which has just finished building an EPR) and the UK (which is building one right now) are doubling down and launching new projects to capitalise on the knowledge gained. In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more. This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience, causing cost overruns on the new constructions. This is not inherent to the technology itself but a symptom of our decision to put it aside for a while. As an example when I was in engineering school I remember being told “don’t do a nuclear physics major there is no job for that in the future”. Not easy retaining excellence in a field when that’s what you tell your children. All the dude that went there anyway are in very very high demand today, as you might expect. The new generation of reactors is more complex, mainly because of additional security and reliability requirements, which is a good thing. Those are certified for a lifespan of 60 years and costs are computed on that base. Some old gen reactors in the us are looking to extend their lifespan to 80 years. It’s extremely likely the new - safer - reactors will be able go beyond that, reducing the MW costs compared to current estimates. We are slowly re-learning to build reactors, and mastering a new technology at the same time. The more reactors we build based on that experience the more that initial cost will be distributed. There is nothing underwhelming in what was delivered; the process to get there was, but we will get better at that.

jeffbee 1y ago
> difficulties finding builder If your ideal power plant can only be built by a hypothetical builder, then it cannot be built Literally a farmer can build a solar power plant.
- chickenbig 1y ago
  > Literally a farmer can build a solar power plant. Can the farmer legally connect it to the grid in your location?
  - jeffbee 1y ago
    Yes? In California we adopted a streamlined process for new renewable connections. The first project was recently approved under the new lightweight process. It is being built by an irrigation district on a bunch of retired farmland. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2025-06/cec-approves-worlds-largest-solar-battery-storage-project-fresno-county-under https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2025-06/cec-approves-worlds-l...
    - chickenbig 1y ago
      "The Darden project, which is owned by IP Darden I, LLC, a subsidiary of Intersect Power" [0] "Intersect has closed ~$6B in project financings and raised ~$2.1B in corporate equity to support the buildout of clean energy assets including data center opportunities across the U.S." [1] Not exactly farmers. Solar farmers, perhaps. [0] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/06/13/largest-battery-storage-project-wins-fast-track-approval-in-california/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/06/13/largest-battery-stora... [1] https://www.intersectpower.com/who-we-are/ https://www.intersectpower.com/who-we-are/
      - chickenbig 1y ago
        Oh, note that Intersect Power has a commercial relationship with Google. [0] https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/new-approach-to-data-center-and-clean-energy-growth/ https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/new-approac...
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Farms quite often have fairly bulky connections that allow them to use their existing grid connection for smaller scale solar. Enough for them to have steady consistent income unconnected to seasons and weather, and a very good tradeoff. You see a ton of these in rural Minnesota because the utility, Xcel, is one of the very few utilities in the country that's not stuck in the 1970s, and can adapt to new technology.
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
The French experienced negative learning by doing throughout their entire nuclear program? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... For both the French and British the current investments are fueled by wanting to subsidize their military nuclear ambitions. As per expected Sizewell C costs it will be even more expensive than Hinkley Point C, nothing learned. The ”lifespan” you proclaim is also an extremely rosy picture. About the entire plant except outer shell and a few core components like the pressure vessel gets replaced over it. You also have no idea if expensive nuclear power will have an economical lifespan lasting as long. We already see existing nuclear plants all over Europe being forced out of the market by cheap renewables. This will only worsen leading to nuclear power having fewer and fewer hours to amortize its insanely high costs over.
natmaka 1y ago
> the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned No. The load factor of the pair of EPRs built in China (5 years late and 60% above the budget) at Taishan is quite bad (.55 and .76). In France the EPR isn't even producing electricity, while it was to be delivered in 2012 (budget 3.3 billions €, real cost > 23.7 billions €) > delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision Source? An official report (dubbed the "Folz report") explains why the EPR project in France (Flamanville) was a failure, I cannot find "local political opposition" among the causes. French ahead: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parlementaires/commissions-permanentes/developpement-durable/rapport-epr-flamanville-folz https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme... > In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more. The context was quite different: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl... ... and the real total cost of this "nuclearization" is already huge. > This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience The Civaux-2 reactor was delivered in 1999. In 2000 the French nuclear sector (at the time "Areva") was trying to sell EPRs (even in France). In 2003 Finland ordered an EPR and work began in 2005. How exactly are we supposed to believe that all knowledge vanished, without anyone in the industry to act accordingly, especially while the existing French fleet of reactors (56 at the time) had to be maintained? > our decision to put it aside for a while Cause: oil counter-shock (~1985), which (sadly) reducing electricity competitivity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?ta... Even EDF, as early as 1986, considered the nuclear fleet too large: "We will have two to four too many nuclear reactors by 1990," ( https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1986/01/17/nous-aurons-de-deux-a-quatre-reacteurs-nucleaires-de-trop-en-1990_2937823_1819218.html https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1986/01/17/nous-auro... ) and this was confirmed by the 1989 Rouvillois-Guillaume-Pellat report. The reason is well known: after the oil price shock, hydrocarbon prices had fallen significantly and sustainably, and they were competing with electricity. However, reactors were built until the end of the 1990s. Three of them were started after 1985, and four were built in the 1990s. Some were ready to go in 1999 but did only diverge the generate electricity in 2002... > certified for a lifespan of 60 years Subject to a successful technical in-depth inspection every 10 years.

by IMTDb 1y ago

jeffbee 1y ago

> difficulties finding builder If your ideal power plant can only be built by a hypothetical builder, then it cannot be built Literally a farmer can build a solar power plant.

chickenbig 1y ago
> Literally a farmer can build a solar power plant. Can the farmer legally connect it to the grid in your location?
- jeffbee 1y ago
  Yes? In California we adopted a streamlined process for new renewable connections. The first project was recently approved under the new lightweight process. It is being built by an irrigation district on a bunch of retired farmland. https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2025-06/cec-approves-worlds-largest-solar-battery-storage-project-fresno-county-under https://www.energy.ca.gov/news/2025-06/cec-approves-worlds-l...
  - chickenbig 1y ago
    "The Darden project, which is owned by IP Darden I, LLC, a subsidiary of Intersect Power" [0] "Intersect has closed ~$6B in project financings and raised ~$2.1B in corporate equity to support the buildout of clean energy assets including data center opportunities across the U.S." [1] Not exactly farmers. Solar farmers, perhaps. [0] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/06/13/largest-battery-storage-project-wins-fast-track-approval-in-california/ https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/06/13/largest-battery-stora... [1] https://www.intersectpower.com/who-we-are/ https://www.intersectpower.com/who-we-are/
    - chickenbig 1y ago
      Oh, note that Intersect Power has a commercial relationship with Google. [0] https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/new-approach-to-data-center-and-clean-energy-growth/ https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/new-approac...
- epistasis 1y ago
  Farms quite often have fairly bulky connections that allow them to use their existing grid connection for smaller scale solar. Enough for them to have steady consistent income unconnected to seasons and weather, and a very good tradeoff. You see a ton of these in rural Minnesota because the utility, Xcel, is one of the very few utilities in the country that's not stuck in the 1970s, and can adapt to new technology.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago

The French experienced negative learning by doing throughout their entire nuclear program? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... For both the French and British the current investments are fueled by wanting to subsidize their military nuclear ambitions. As per expected Sizewell C costs it will be even more expensive than Hinkley Point C, nothing learned. The ”lifespan” you proclaim is also an extremely rosy picture. About the entire plant except outer shell and a few core components like the pressure vessel gets replaced over it. You also have no idea if expensive nuclear power will have an economical lifespan lasting as long. We already see existing nuclear plants all over Europe being forced out of the market by cheap renewables. This will only worsen leading to nuclear power having fewer and fewer hours to amortize its insanely high costs over.

natmaka 1y ago

> the power plants are delivering precisely what was planned No. The load factor of the pair of EPRs built in China (5 years late and 60% above the budget) at Taishan is quite bad (.55 and .76). In France the EPR isn't even producing electricity, while it was to be delivered in 2012 (budget 3.3 billions €, real cost > 23.7 billions €) > delay and cost overruns caused by local political opposition and lack of vision Source? An official report (dubbed the "Folz report") explains why the EPR project in France (Flamanville) was a failure, I cannot find "local political opposition" among the causes. French ahead: https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parlementaires/commissions-permanentes/developpement-durable/rapport-epr-flamanville-folz https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme... > In France all historical reactors worked so well that we did not feel the need to build more. The context was quite different: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl... ... and the real total cost of this "nuclearization" is already huge. > This lead to talented engineers going to retirement without having a chance to pass on their knowledge and experience The Civaux-2 reactor was delivered in 1999. In 2000 the French nuclear sector (at the time "Areva") was trying to sell EPRs (even in France). In 2003 Finland ordered an EPR and work began in 2005. How exactly are we supposed to believe that all knowledge vanished, without anyone in the industry to act accordingly, especially while the existing French fleet of reactors (56 at the time) had to be maintained? > our decision to put it aside for a while Cause: oil counter-shock (~1985), which (sadly) reducing electricity competitivity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?tab=chart&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-generation?ta... Even EDF, as early as 1986, considered the nuclear fleet too large: "We will have two to four too many nuclear reactors by 1990," ( https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1986/01/17/nous-aurons-de-deux-a-quatre-reacteurs-nucleaires-de-trop-en-1990_2937823_1819218.html https://www.lemonde.fr/archives/article/1986/01/17/nous-auro... ) and this was confirmed by the 1989 Rouvillois-Guillaume-Pellat report. The reason is well known: after the oil price shock, hydrocarbon prices had fallen significantly and sustainably, and they were competing with electricity. However, reactors were built until the end of the 1990s. Three of them were started after 1985, and four were built in the 1990s. Some were ready to go in 1999 but did only diverge the generate electricity in 2002... > certified for a lifespan of 60 years Subject to a successful technical in-depth inspection every 10 years.