• Sir_Osis_of_Liver@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Just like assuming a perfectly spherical cow, or a frictionless surface, you can completely ignore the economics, the massive cost and schedule overages to make nuclear work.

    Flamanville-3 in France started construction in 2007, was supposed to be operational in 2012 with a project budget of €3.3B. Construction is still ongoing, the in-service date is now sometime in 2024, and the budget has ballooned to €20B.

    Olkiluoto-3 is a similar EPR. Construction started in 2005, was supposed to be in-service in 2010, but finally came online late last year. Costs bloated from €3 to €11B.

    Hinkley Point C project is two EPRs. Construction started in 2017, it’s already running behind schedule, and the project costs have increased from £16B to somewhere approaching £30B. Start up has been pushed back to 2028 the last I’ve heard.

    It’s no different in the US, where the V.C. Summer (2 x AP1000) reactor project was cancelled while under construction after projections put the completed project at somewhere around $23B, up from an estimate of $9B.

    A similar set of AP1000s was built at Vogtle in Georgia. Unit 3 only recently came online, with unit 4 expected at the end of the year. Costs went from an initial estimate of $12B to somewhere over $30B.

    Note that design, site selection, regulatory approvals, and tendering aren’t included in the above. Those add between 5-10 years to the above schedules.

    • Ertebolle@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gee, I wonder if the cost might go down if we built more of them, as is the case with, y’know, basically every other complicated thing that humans build.

      • Quacksalber@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So even if I follow your logic, that nuclear plants will get cheaper and faster to build, wich I’m not, you still have to build the first generation of plants slow and expensive. So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

        • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          So we either wait 15 years to get better at building those plants, or we just build renewables right now.

          We do both. This isn’t a binary choice.

          • gmtom@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Money and manpower are not infinite. Any money spent on one is a choice not to spend it on the other.

            • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Money and manpower are not infinite.

              Functionally they are because different Capital Groups will chase different projects. For instance Bill Gates / TerraPower is heavily backing both Fusion and SMR Fission technology.

              Meanwhile other Capital Groups like Anschutz are piling money into Wind Farms then there’s yet other groups like Silicon Ranch pouring money into Solar Farms.

              It seems to have escaped the notice of most Netizens but the big money Capitalists have finally come out to play in the Green / Renewable Energy space. Sure there’s an absolute limit on the money and manpower that even they can afford but practically speaking those limits are so high that we’re unlikely to reach them.

    • Plantee@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I think this is the most overlooked aspect, besides it never being in time to do any good for the crisis we are in now.

      I believe, the increasing cost and loss in efficiency compared to alternatives will always be an issue for NE to be out-priced by solar and wind (Dunai, 2019; WNSIR, 2022). These cost will eventually come back to the end user.
      Most definitely the reason why nuclear advocates want the government to give securities and don’t dear to be the entrepreneurs they claim to be (NOS Nieuws, 2018). Please give me some welfare state, but I’d rather have some more solid solutions.

      Costs. Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) analysis by U.S. bank Lazard shows that between
      2009 and 2021, utility-scale solar costs came down 90 percent and wind 72 percent, while
      new nuclear costs increased by 36 percent. The gap continues to widen. Estimates by the
      International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has seen the LCOE for wind drop by
      15 percent and solar by 13 percent between 2020 and 2021 alone. IRENA also calculated that
      800 GW of existing coal-fired capacity in the world have higher operating costs than new
      utility-scale solar photovoltaics (PV) and new onshore wind (WNSIR, 2022).