5 ms·

Iter is a research project that Europe is a part of, along with the rest of the world. That has nothing to do with building power plants, at least not anytime s

by hvb2 10mo ago

Iter is a research project that Europe is a part of, along with the rest of the world. That has nothing to do with building power plants, at least not anytime soon. We haven't built a reactor in a long time. So those EPRs being built are all way behind schedule and thus costing substantially more. You can design whatever you want. Building one is a whole different story. That's not an opinion that's just what happened at the first 2 EPRs and Hinckley point isn't going great either

sigmar 10mo ago
>We haven't built a reactor in a long time. France finished Flamanville 3 in 2024. Finland finished Olkiluoto 3 in 2022. Are those not recent enough? both were EPR designs
- hvb2 10mo ago
  Have you looked when they started construction and what their projected end date was? Yes there are new ones but both of those are perfect examples of the lack of knowledge [1]. I'll quote: > Many of the organisations chosen to work on the different parts of the plant did not have any experience in nuclear, and little understanding of the safety requirements. We'll get there. But yes, we're rebuilding a lot of lost knowledge and paying for the teething issues. 1: https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-tale-for-the-uk/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-...
- t_tsonev 10mo ago
  Those are not really great construction examples, are they? Both projects took 15+ years to complete with huge cost overruns. And for those two "successful" projects, you can find 2 or 3 that failed.
  - llsf 10mo ago
    It takes time between the plan and putting it online. It is mostly due to regulations. Relax the regulations and it would be cheaper and faster.
    - hvb2 10mo ago
      The Finnish reactor had one delay because the concrete used for the containment building wasn't of the 'nuclear grade'. That's why those regulations thankfully exist. Building more will help though. This whole thread started about how we had lost important knowledge
laurencerowe 10mo ago
Yup. Europe can absolutely still build reactors, just not at a price that is economically competitive. Olkiluoto 3 started regular production in 2023, taking 18 years to build at a cost of €11 billion (3x over budget). Flamanville 3 started regular production in 2024, taking 17 years to build at a cost of €13.2 billion (4x over budget) or €19.1 billion including financing in 2015 prices. Hinkley Point C (two reactors) is currently estimated to have its first unit come online around 2030, taking 14 years with total costs now estimated at £31-35 billion / €36–41 billion (2x over budget) in 2015 prices.
- mpweiher 10mo ago
  Funny, the Finns are super happy with their "uneconomic" nuclear reactors. Current approval rating for nuclear is now 81%, up from 77% last year. The UK is so disappointed by their HPC project (which is the most expensive nuclear reactor project in history, AFAIK), that they just completed the investment decision for the follow-up Sizewell-C, which will also be 2 UK-EPRs. Oh, the guarantee price for HPC is the same as that for various off-shore wind-projects. So obviously economically uncompetitive. At 10 pence/kWh the two reactors at HPC will produce electricity worth £200 billion. Which does put the cost of £41 billion into perspective, despite that being the most ridiculously over-time and over budget nuclear project in history. Actually, Flamanville 3 did not start "regular" production in 2024, they were just given go-ahead to go to full power a few days ago. It was first grid-connected in 2024 and then started a lengthy ramp-up phase. It slowly coming online was the time for the Cour des Comptes to give its verdict, which was pretty damning. Flamanville 3 was probably the worst run nuclear project in French history. And even so, this "damning" verdict was that it FV3 would only be somewhat and in the worst case marginally profitable. But still profitable. Which is better than pretty much every intermittent renewables project out there, certainly in Europe. EDF is often accused of receiving heavy state subsides, with the implication that this is to keep the nuclear power plants going or subsidize nuclear electricity. It is true that EDF gets state subsidies. For their intermittent renewable projects. Ba-da-dum-tss. The nuclear party of their business is tremendously profitable, despite being forced to subsidize industry through the ARENH program.
  - 10mo ago

by hvb2 10mo ago

sigmar 10mo ago

>We haven't built a reactor in a long time. France finished Flamanville 3 in 2024. Finland finished Olkiluoto 3 in 2022. Are those not recent enough? both were EPR designs

hvb2 10mo ago
Have you looked when they started construction and what their projected end date was? Yes there are new ones but both of those are perfect examples of the lack of knowledge [1]. I'll quote: > Many of the organisations chosen to work on the different parts of the plant did not have any experience in nuclear, and little understanding of the safety requirements. We'll get there. But yes, we're rebuilding a lot of lost knowledge and paying for the teething issues. 1: https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-tale-for-the-uk/ https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-nuclear-finlands-cautionary-...
t_tsonev 10mo ago
Those are not really great construction examples, are they? Both projects took 15+ years to complete with huge cost overruns. And for those two "successful" projects, you can find 2 or 3 that failed.
- llsf 10mo ago
  It takes time between the plan and putting it online. It is mostly due to regulations. Relax the regulations and it would be cheaper and faster.
  - hvb2 10mo ago
    The Finnish reactor had one delay because the concrete used for the containment building wasn't of the 'nuclear grade'. That's why those regulations thankfully exist. Building more will help though. This whole thread started about how we had lost important knowledge

laurencerowe 10mo ago

Yup. Europe can absolutely still build reactors, just not at a price that is economically competitive. Olkiluoto 3 started regular production in 2023, taking 18 years to build at a cost of €11 billion (3x over budget). Flamanville 3 started regular production in 2024, taking 17 years to build at a cost of €13.2 billion (4x over budget) or €19.1 billion including financing in 2015 prices. Hinkley Point C (two reactors) is currently estimated to have its first unit come online around 2030, taking 14 years with total costs now estimated at £31-35 billion / €36–41 billion (2x over budget) in 2015 prices.

mpweiher 10mo ago
Funny, the Finns are super happy with their "uneconomic" nuclear reactors. Current approval rating for nuclear is now 81%, up from 77% last year. The UK is so disappointed by their HPC project (which is the most expensive nuclear reactor project in history, AFAIK), that they just completed the investment decision for the follow-up Sizewell-C, which will also be 2 UK-EPRs. Oh, the guarantee price for HPC is the same as that for various off-shore wind-projects. So obviously economically uncompetitive. At 10 pence/kWh the two reactors at HPC will produce electricity worth £200 billion. Which does put the cost of £41 billion into perspective, despite that being the most ridiculously over-time and over budget nuclear project in history. Actually, Flamanville 3 did not start "regular" production in 2024, they were just given go-ahead to go to full power a few days ago. It was first grid-connected in 2024 and then started a lengthy ramp-up phase. It slowly coming online was the time for the Cour des Comptes to give its verdict, which was pretty damning. Flamanville 3 was probably the worst run nuclear project in French history. And even so, this "damning" verdict was that it FV3 would only be somewhat and in the worst case marginally profitable. But still profitable. Which is better than pretty much every intermittent renewables project out there, certainly in Europe. EDF is often accused of receiving heavy state subsides, with the implication that this is to keep the nuclear power plants going or subsidize nuclear electricity. It is true that EDF gets state subsidies. For their intermittent renewable projects. Ba-da-dum-tss. The nuclear party of their business is tremendously profitable, despite being forced to subsidize industry through the ARENH program.
- 10mo ago