6 ms·

Nuclear is the most expensive form of clean energy. It is likely to bankrupt at least one company. When Finland contracted with France to build their latest re

Nuclear is the most expensive form of clean energy. It is likely to bankrupt at least one company. When Finland contracted with France to build their latest reactor, they wisely had a fixed price contract where the French company would pay for const overruns. At groundbreaking in 2005, they planned for a 2009 completion. In 2016 it bankrupted Areva, with the French government owned EDG saving parts of the company crucial to the nation. It wasn't completed u tip 2023: https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/25890-hs-olkiluoto-3-has-been-a-financial-catastrophe-for-areva-siemens.html https://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/2... When the US last decided to build nuclear, Westinghouse AP1000s, two in South Carolina and two in Georgia, it resulted in the bankruptcy on Westinghouse, putting all of Toshiba, its owner, at risk: https://www.csis.org/analysis/westinghouses-bankruptcy-and-its-implications https://www.csis.org/analysis/westinghouses-bankruptcy-and-i... The two South Carolina reactors were abandoned at the cost of a substantial fraction of the build cost, in the billions, and utility executives went to jail for deception about it. Georgia finished its two reactors, but only by creating some of the most expensive electricity out there today. Storage and renewables are cheaper, faster to deploy, and work really really really well in Texas and Arizona. Despite nearly free natural gas in Texas due its state as a by-product of oil extraction, most of the new electricity grid assets in Texas are wind, storage, and solar, and that's independent third party investors making those choice in the grid to make money, as Texas has perhaps the "freest" electricity market in the United States when it comes to who is allowed to build grid assets and make money off them. If the far north places have hydro that's already built and not being used, that makes sense for data centers. But new nuclear is not a serious technology, it exists mostly based on vibes.

SoftTalker 6d ago
This is Finland. A third of the country is above the Arctic circle. In the winter the sun barely gets above the horizon. Nuclear makes a lot of sense there.
- deleted 6d ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 5d ago
  Agreed, it makes sense for Finland, one of the very few places it does. But in the future of global energy supply, nuclear will be a far less serious player than it was in the 20th century.
sfn42 6d ago
> new nuclear is not a serious technology It seems to me the main problem is we build so little of it that we don't have the people, skills, supply chains etc to do it well. China generally builds it's reactors on schedule and within budget.
- machomaster 5d ago
  Russia builds a lot of reactors as well. Hence, they were hired to build the Hanhikivi one in Finland, after the French disaster. Unfortunately, the project was cancelled for moronic political reasons.
  - epistasis 5d ago
    When your supplier is threatening to invade and kill your people, and has critical control over supply of parts of your reactor, and regularly commits acts of nuclear terrorism such as droning the newly completed sarcophagus around Chornobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_drone_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_... Well, avoiding business deals with that neighbor is the only rational action. Building a Russian nuclear reactor as one of their neighbors is suicidally stupid. At least go to South Korea instead. The US is also finding out that when it threatens its neighbors and allies that it will lose out on crucial industrial deals, such as Canada and Europe moving away from US military contractors.
    - machomaster 5d ago
      There would not be a critical control over the reactor, just the opposite. Finland would control everything and could have even bought fuel elsewhere. Loviisa station is Soviet-built, has been working amazingly well and till this day has been supplied with the fuel from Russia, despite the war and all. Nuclear station being a big target on its own is the only negative, among a pile of positives. That's why: 1. Mini-reactors should be developed 2. No, even nowadays, Putin has not really attacked nuclear stations for real in Ukraine. It's been a big no-no. All the rest of the energy infra - yes, but not nuclear stations. 3. If the real war starts with nuclear stations being bombed, it will not matter who build the station, Finland is going to be completely fucked, considering how much of the energy is nuclear. Taking this argument into a logical conclusion, Finland (or any other country) should not have any nuclear reactors on the chance that they will be attacked. This is a silly level of risk management, a very shallow and blind view.

SoftTalker 6d ago

This is Finland. A third of the country is above the Arctic circle. In the winter the sun barely gets above the horizon. Nuclear makes a lot of sense there.

deleted 6d ago
[deleted]
epistasis 5d ago
Agreed, it makes sense for Finland, one of the very few places it does. But in the future of global energy supply, nuclear will be a far less serious player than it was in the 20th century.

sfn42 6d ago

> new nuclear is not a serious technology It seems to me the main problem is we build so little of it that we don't have the people, skills, supply chains etc to do it well. China generally builds it's reactors on schedule and within budget.

machomaster 5d ago
Russia builds a lot of reactors as well. Hence, they were hired to build the Hanhikivi one in Finland, after the French disaster. Unfortunately, the project was cancelled for moronic political reasons.
- epistasis 5d ago
  When your supplier is threatening to invade and kill your people, and has critical control over supply of parts of your reactor, and regularly commits acts of nuclear terrorism such as droning the newly completed sarcophagus around Chornobyl: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_drone_strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Power_Plant_... Well, avoiding business deals with that neighbor is the only rational action. Building a Russian nuclear reactor as one of their neighbors is suicidally stupid. At least go to South Korea instead. The US is also finding out that when it threatens its neighbors and allies that it will lose out on crucial industrial deals, such as Canada and Europe moving away from US military contractors.
  - machomaster 5d ago
    There would not be a critical control over the reactor, just the opposite. Finland would control everything and could have even bought fuel elsewhere. Loviisa station is Soviet-built, has been working amazingly well and till this day has been supplied with the fuel from Russia, despite the war and all. Nuclear station being a big target on its own is the only negative, among a pile of positives. That's why: 1. Mini-reactors should be developed 2. No, even nowadays, Putin has not really attacked nuclear stations for real in Ukraine. It's been a big no-no. All the rest of the energy infra - yes, but not nuclear stations. 3. If the real war starts with nuclear stations being bombed, it will not matter who build the station, Finland is going to be completely fucked, considering how much of the energy is nuclear. Taking this argument into a logical conclusion, Finland (or any other country) should not have any nuclear reactors on the chance that they will be attacked. This is a silly level of risk management, a very shallow and blind view.