3 ms·

The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? It goes 7 GW negative. The problem with nuclear power is that about all costs are fixed. It cost

The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? It goes 7 GW negative. The problem with nuclear power is that about all costs are fixed. It costs 18-24 cents/kWh when running at 100% for 40 years excluding backup, transmission, final waste disposal and taxes. Now remove any earning potential from large portions of the day coming from renewables and storage and the economics simply does not pan a out.

Moldoteck 7mo ago
Are you sure with the numbers? Maybe for failed projects like Vogtle it may be true but otherwise, the cost is about 4.7ct/kwh everything included looking at swiss open data. And Goesgen didn't run at 100% CF all these years.
- ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
  Same costs for HPC, FV3, Polish AP1000s and EPR2s as well. I don't see the relevance comparing with a plant that start construction over half a century ago?
  - Moldoteck 7mo ago
    Do you want to compare maybe with barakah which was not a foak and didn't have the supply chain issues like with epr/ap1000?
    - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
      You mean middle eastern labor and design that doesn’t fly with western regulations? Sounds applicable! Let’s first acknowledge that KHNP pulled out of all western projects except the Czech one after their settlement with Westinghouse. They don’t exist as an option. Then let’s look at the Czech subsidies. They aren’t materially different compared to any other modern western nuclear construction. They’ve shaved a few billion from the headline number but the project is still pure cost plus putting all construction and financial risk on the governments tab.
      - mpweiher 7mo ago
        Hmm...any evidence for your weird and to be frank a bit racist claims about "middle eastern labor and design" as well as regulations? You may not be aware of this, but the UAE is one of the richest countries in the world, on par with with the United States and ahead of Denmark and most of the European nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... The design is South Korean. So: where is your evidence that labor/design/regulations are sub-par?
      - Moldoteck 7mo ago
        Barakah is Korean design partly based on Westinghouse patents. That's why for Barakah they had a deal with Westinghouse just like with Czechia. The design is in line with western regulations. Labor is not that relevant for such projects. By far the biggest problems are depleted supply chain and immature design (Both EPRs and Vogtle started when their design wasn't finalized. On top, EPR suffered major design changes for each build due to specific regulations, especially in UK) Czechian govt subsidies were approved by EC and are pretty ok cost-wise. Even 11bn/reactor is fine considering FLA3 is 23bn. On the other hand, Germany spends on EEG alone each year almost a full equivalent of a failed FLA3. And with new transmission subsidies it's even higher. Both EEG and transmission subsidies are not subject to EC approval, unlike subsidies for nuclear But agree with the other comment - your remarks sound rather racist
stinkbeetle 7mo ago
> The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? Right. Due to solar/wind.
stinkbeetle 7mo ago
> The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? Right. Due to solar/wind. Gross demand is much flatter. Not completely flat, but it's obvious that it does not require anywhere near the amount of storage or variation that renewables alone would require.
mpweiher 7mo ago
That is incorrect. The profitability floor of even the catastrophic FOAK FV 3 build is 9 cents/kWh for a 2% ROI, with around €130 for 4%. The EPR2 units are lower, around €90/MWh for 4% return and €70-80 for 2% return. Contrast this with French intermittent renewables projects, which are not profitable at all, EDF receives massive subsidies for them.
- ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
  Thanks for confirming how insanely expensive new built nuclear power is by using absolutely insanely low discount rates. Hinkley Point C just got a bridging loan to finalize the plant, after 8 years of building so the remaining risk should be minimal. They got an 7% interest rate. Then EDF needs to make profit on top of that. When using real world discount rates for FV3 you end up towards 20 cents/kWh. I love how you quote the EPR2 units cheaper than the proposed subsidies. This looks like blind conviction rather than a factual statement. The proposed subsidies for the EPR2 fleet is a 10 euro cents CFD and interest free loans. Sum freely, but you end up towards 20 cents per kWh. And that is excluding for example the backup needed when suddenly half your fleet is offline at the same time. Like happened in France during the energy crisis and multiple times in Sweden last year.
  - mpweiher 7mo ago
    Nonsense assertions, as always without a shred of evidence.
    - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
      Please. These are easily found facts. It seems like you just have trouble accepting reality. https://www.reuters.com/business/apollo-provide-6-billion-funding-uks-hinkley-point-nuclear-project-ft-reports-2025-06-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/apollo-provide-6-billion-fu...
      - mpweiher 7mo ago
        Not what you claimed. Do better. 10 Cents CFD is not a 10 cent subsidy.

Moldoteck 7mo ago

Are you sure with the numbers? Maybe for failed projects like Vogtle it may be true but otherwise, the cost is about 4.7ct/kwh everything included looking at swiss open data. And Goesgen didn't run at 100% CF all these years.

ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
Same costs for HPC, FV3, Polish AP1000s and EPR2s as well. I don't see the relevance comparing with a plant that start construction over half a century ago?
- Moldoteck 7mo ago
  Do you want to compare maybe with barakah which was not a foak and didn't have the supply chain issues like with epr/ap1000?
  - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
    You mean middle eastern labor and design that doesn’t fly with western regulations? Sounds applicable! Let’s first acknowledge that KHNP pulled out of all western projects except the Czech one after their settlement with Westinghouse. They don’t exist as an option. Then let’s look at the Czech subsidies. They aren’t materially different compared to any other modern western nuclear construction. They’ve shaved a few billion from the headline number but the project is still pure cost plus putting all construction and financial risk on the governments tab.
    - mpweiher 7mo ago
      Hmm...any evidence for your weird and to be frank a bit racist claims about "middle eastern labor and design" as well as regulations? You may not be aware of this, but the UAE is one of the richest countries in the world, on par with with the United States and ahead of Denmark and most of the European nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)... The design is South Korean. So: where is your evidence that labor/design/regulations are sub-par?
    - Moldoteck 7mo ago
      Barakah is Korean design partly based on Westinghouse patents. That's why for Barakah they had a deal with Westinghouse just like with Czechia. The design is in line with western regulations. Labor is not that relevant for such projects. By far the biggest problems are depleted supply chain and immature design (Both EPRs and Vogtle started when their design wasn't finalized. On top, EPR suffered major design changes for each build due to specific regulations, especially in UK) Czechian govt subsidies were approved by EC and are pretty ok cost-wise. Even 11bn/reactor is fine considering FLA3 is 23bn. On the other hand, Germany spends on EEG alone each year almost a full equivalent of a failed FLA3. And with new transmission subsidies it's even higher. Both EEG and transmission subsidies are not subject to EC approval, unlike subsidies for nuclear But agree with the other comment - your remarks sound rather racist

stinkbeetle 7mo ago

> The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? Right. Due to solar/wind.

stinkbeetle 7mo ago

> The net demand curve varies 30 GW over the period you posted? Right. Due to solar/wind. Gross demand is much flatter. Not completely flat, but it's obvious that it does not require anywhere near the amount of storage or variation that renewables alone would require.

mpweiher 7mo ago

That is incorrect. The profitability floor of even the catastrophic FOAK FV 3 build is 9 cents/kWh for a 2% ROI, with around €130 for 4%. The EPR2 units are lower, around €90/MWh for 4% return and €70-80 for 2% return. Contrast this with French intermittent renewables projects, which are not profitable at all, EDF receives massive subsidies for them.

ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
Thanks for confirming how insanely expensive new built nuclear power is by using absolutely insanely low discount rates. Hinkley Point C just got a bridging loan to finalize the plant, after 8 years of building so the remaining risk should be minimal. They got an 7% interest rate. Then EDF needs to make profit on top of that. When using real world discount rates for FV3 you end up towards 20 cents/kWh. I love how you quote the EPR2 units cheaper than the proposed subsidies. This looks like blind conviction rather than a factual statement. The proposed subsidies for the EPR2 fleet is a 10 euro cents CFD and interest free loans. Sum freely, but you end up towards 20 cents per kWh. And that is excluding for example the backup needed when suddenly half your fleet is offline at the same time. Like happened in France during the energy crisis and multiple times in Sweden last year.
- mpweiher 7mo ago
  Nonsense assertions, as always without a shred of evidence.
  - ViewTrick1002 7mo ago
    Please. These are easily found facts. It seems like you just have trouble accepting reality. https://www.reuters.com/business/apollo-provide-6-billion-funding-uks-hinkley-point-nuclear-project-ft-reports-2025-06-20/ https://www.reuters.com/business/apollo-provide-6-billion-fu...
    - mpweiher 7mo ago
      Not what you claimed. Do better. 10 Cents CFD is not a 10 cent subsidy.