3 ms·

It took 5 years from construction start to grid connection for Oskarshamn R3, at the time the reactor with the world’s highest rated output. Since it began oper

• ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
  And now France target 2038 at the earliest for the first reactor in the EPR2 fleet. With a 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans, summing to over 20 cents per kWh. It is easy to dream about what could have been half a century ago, but that doesn’t change reality today.
  • Moldoteck 4mo ago
    Yes, EPR2 is overcomplicated mess. But the subsidy is not that great either... considering many EU countries are subsidizing biomass today at 18ct/kwh...
    • ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
      Always the false comparisons. Please do tell me the expected capacity factor of these biomass plants, even if 18 cents per kWh is correct, after renewables, storage, hydro if available and existing nuclear plants with 80 year LTOs do the heavy lifting. Can you see the difference compared to new built nuclear power which requires that absolutely insane price when running at 100% 24/7 for 40 years?
      • Moldoteck 4mo ago
        Why only 40y for new nuclear? When min license is 60 for gen3 and many gen2 already got extensions to 80y. And where did you get the 100% 24/7 number? The min profitability of FLA3 doesnt assume that. And that's for an ultimately failed project which could have been much better if not EDF incompetence
        • ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
          You do realize that trying to smear the costs across almost 100 years is an admission in how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is? And you do realize that across such a lifespan essentially the entire nuclear plant except the pressure vessel and outer shell is replaced? Steam generators, turbines, generators, control systems, piping, valves etc. Everything is replaced. Is that free? There’s no trouble building renewables with similar lifespans. It is just not done because predicting profitability until the 2100 is absolute lunacy.
          • Moldoteck 4mo ago
            It's an admission that the plant can operate for a long time "do realize that across such a lifespan essentially the entire nuclear plant except the pressure vessel and outer shell is replaced?" - so you are saying that EDF replaced/will replace all the components except PV of it's plants to reach 60-80y? This sounds ridiculous. Maintenance isn't free but is part of opex of a plant which for existing ones is rather low.
            • ViewTrick1002 4mo ago
              No. It is trying to reframe the cost question in a way that laymen don’t understand. For anyone understanding economics it’s an admission of how far you need to twist the numbers to just make it horrifyingly expensive. The OPEX calculated in for example Lazard is not including all replacements and maintenance needed for LTO. Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?
              • Moldoteck 4mo ago
                I'm not afraid of renewables. I encourage building them. I do also realize, that if sufficient nuclear isn't built, gas will be used for firming (or coal in case of China). That's literally what's happening in Germany. Denmark managed to avoid it by relying on nordics which already got pissed and by burning literal wood from America and marking it as renewable. Lazard doesn't (or at least didn't) estimate the plants to work for 60y either considering all gen 3 are licensed for this period. Lazard also has interesting numbers about LCOE of ren+cheap gas firming. Would be interesting to see the added cost of transmission, considering Germany spends 10x more than France per year on it