7 ms·

Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be

Nuclear doesn't have a great record in other countries either. I might have the wrong figures but Hinkley Points C is over 2 times over budget and likely to be 5+ years late. The exemption being France and maybe China? France did a programme of nuclear power stations rather than the 1 or 2 offs that seem to be the norm elsewhere and that seems to have worked pretty well. I'd be surprised if HPC is competitive with solar + wind + BESS when it comes online but I could well be wrong

looofooo0 1y ago
South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia.
- mpweiher 1y ago
  United Arab Emirates. Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years. Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years. Just before we stopped building altogether. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years. We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively. Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them.
  - natmaka 1y ago
    During the past 25 years there were projects aiming at building industrial nuclear reactors. They all ended badly (canceled, way over budget or delay...).
    - mpweiher 1y ago
      That's completely false. The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start.
      - natmaka 1y ago
        I wrote "During the past 25 years" Please describe any nuclear reactor which was successfully built in France or Germany during the past 25 years. France: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
        mpweiher 1y ago
        Germany didn't build any. France built hardly any. And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply. Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the industrial base to do so, for example by making it illegal to build more (or at all) is exactly how you don't do it.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix. A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution! But nuclear is fast to build, if we ignore all modern western examples!
        looofooo0 1y ago
        Just because in Germany the bill was footed by the consumer and geopolitical dependcies (Russia) does not make its CO2 free electricity cheaper. It also still lacks behind France in CO2 emission.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        This argument is like nuclear power was a waste for France in the 1980s because they weren't done removing all oil from their grid. As per recent French nuclear construction they are on a path of replacing it with renewables because it is horrifically expensive and they are unable to finance new construction.
- natmaka 1y ago
  > South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia. Barakah (delivered March 2024) was late (by about 3 years?), undersold (KEPCO hadn't any other ongoing project and the Korean government at the time wanted a nuclear phase-out) and various tricks are now known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal
tatref 1y ago
In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
- tuetuopay 1y ago
  We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.
  - pfdietz 1y ago
    Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction. What you're blaming the opposition for is exposing that and holding the nuclear people responsible. How dare they, right? /s
    - natmaka 1y ago
      > Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): 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...
- natmaka 1y ago
  At least 5 times, indeed: it was due to cost 3.3 billion euros, its cost to date is 23.7, it it not running at full power and a major update (reactor cover) is already planned. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-flamanville-la-cour-des-comptes-estime-le-cout-total-a-23-7-milliards-d-euros_6497010_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...
- mpweiher 1y ago
mpweiher 1y ago
No, the exceptions are builds like HPC. The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic. There have always been outliers, so if you focus on those you can "prove" anything you like. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  Which for western construction creates a dataset weighted around ~1980. Not sure why that is relevant half a century later? Instead taking the average of all modern western construction and we get close to 15 years. With the recent insanely subsidies european projects being proposed even the initial timeline calls for a ~10 years build time. Assuming everything goes to plan.
Nursie 1y ago
It won’t be competitive with anything. But that’s OK, Theresa May signed a guarantee that they’d get paid an uncompetitive price by the taxpayer, regardless.
- ZeroGravitas 1y ago
  But that expensive guaranteed price still wasn't enough to cover the actual costs and the EdF CFO resigned in protest. Once that became too obvious to deny, after the French government had renationalised EdF, they were begging the UK government to give them more money, possibly buried in the contract for the second plant build. For that build they stopped using CFD, a financial instrument designed for nuclear but which has massively helped renewables, be ause it couldn't hide the nuclear cost overruns. They're now charging electricity users in advance for the nuclear they are going to build with no guarantee of eventual costs.

looofooo0 1y ago

South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia.

mpweiher 1y ago
United Arab Emirates. Fastest build times are Japan with under 4 years. Germany built its Konvois in just shy of 6 years. Just before we stopped building altogether. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years. We know how to build nuclear quickly, reliably and (relatively) cheaply. We also know how to do it slowly, eratically and expensively. Fortunately the former comes almost but not entirely automatically with building lots of them.
- natmaka 1y ago
  During the past 25 years there were projects aiming at building industrial nuclear reactors. They all ended badly (canceled, way over budget or delay...).
  - mpweiher 1y ago
    That's completely false. The Konvois in Germany were extremely successful. France built 50+ reactors in 15 years from a standing start.
    - natmaka 1y ago
      I wrote "During the past 25 years" Please describe any nuclear reactor which was successfully built in France or Germany during the past 25 years. France: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
      - mpweiher 1y ago
        Germany didn't build any. France built hardly any. And that's the complete answer: we know how to build nuclear reactors quickly and cheaply. Building only very few of different novel designs while slowly (or quickly) losing the industrial base to do so, for example by making it illegal to build more (or at all) is exactly how you don't do it.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        The EPR2 program is in absolute shambles. Currently they can’t even agree on how to fund the absolutely insanely bonkers subsidies. Now targeting investment decision in H2 2026… And the French government just fell because they are underwater in debt and have a spending problem which they can’t agree on how to fix. A massive handout to the dead end nuclear industry sounds like the perfect solution! But nuclear is fast to build, if we ignore all modern western examples!
        looofooo0 1y ago
        Just because in Germany the bill was footed by the consumer and geopolitical dependcies (Russia) does not make its CO2 free electricity cheaper. It also still lacks behind France in CO2 emission.
        ViewTrick1002 1y ago
        This argument is like nuclear power was a waste for France in the 1980s because they weren't done removing all oil from their grid. As per recent French nuclear construction they are on a path of replacing it with renewables because it is horrifically expensive and they are unable to finance new construction.
natmaka 1y ago
> South Korean company build a NPP in 7 years in Saudi Arabia. Barakah (delivered March 2024) was late (by about 3 years?), undersold (KEPCO hadn't any other ongoing project and the Korean government at the time wanted a nuclear phase-out) and various tricks are now known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_scandal

tatref 1y ago

In France, the last construction is Flamanville EPR. It is at least 5 times over budget and 15 years late https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Pl...

tuetuopay 1y ago
We’ve had our share of anti-nuclear activists in France. The project got endlessly stalled, with shifting legislative grounds, and general opposition. Also, the general inefficiency and incompetence from Areva meant this was a match made in heaven (or hell, depends) to get nearly infinite delay.
- pfdietz 1y ago
  Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction. What you're blaming the opposition for is exposing that and holding the nuclear people responsible. How dare they, right? /s
  - natmaka 1y ago
    > Flamanville 3 failed because of screwups in the design and construction Indeed, and it is so undeniable that it is the official conclusion. Source (French): 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...
natmaka 1y ago
At least 5 times, indeed: it was due to cost 3.3 billion euros, its cost to date is 23.7, it it not running at full power and a major update (reactor cover) is already planned. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-flamanville-la-cour-des-comptes-estime-le-cout-total-a-23-7-milliards-d-euros_6497010_3234.html https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...
mpweiher 1y ago

mpweiher 1y ago

No, the exceptions are builds like HPC. The average build time is currently 6.5 years. The median is lower at 5.8. The variations across both time and space of those average are neither large nor particularly systematic. There have always been outliers, so if you focus on those you can "prove" anything you like. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
Which for western construction creates a dataset weighted around ~1980. Not sure why that is relevant half a century later? Instead taking the average of all modern western construction and we get close to 15 years. With the recent insanely subsidies european projects being proposed even the initial timeline calls for a ~10 years build time. Assuming everything goes to plan.

Nursie 1y ago

It won’t be competitive with anything. But that’s OK, Theresa May signed a guarantee that they’d get paid an uncompetitive price by the taxpayer, regardless.

ZeroGravitas 1y ago
But that expensive guaranteed price still wasn't enough to cover the actual costs and the EdF CFO resigned in protest. Once that became too obvious to deny, after the French government had renationalised EdF, they were begging the UK government to give them more money, possibly buried in the contract for the second plant build. For that build they stopped using CFD, a financial instrument designed for nuclear but which has massively helped renewables, be ause it couldn't hide the nuclear cost overruns. They're now charging electricity users in advance for the nuclear they are going to build with no guarantee of eventual costs.