[Meandering]

Large reactors currently take at least 10 years to construct. The new small reactors are estimated to take at least 2-5 years.

These plants offer continuous power with minimal maintenance. Renewable equipment needs to be replaced and repaired at a higher frequency. They will also need storage and grid upgrades to stand as a direct replacement. They absolutely have a place in the energy profile. But, nuclear provides a type of base power that cannot be easily or cost efficiently accomplished by renewable technologies. We need to take advantage of the pros and mitigate the cons of each technology.

[fy20]

> nuclear provides a type of base power that cannot be easily or cost efficiently accomplished by renewable technologies

I'm pro nuclear, but the numbers I'm seeing say this statement isn't true. The UK is currently building a new nuclear power station, being called the most expensive nuclear power station in the world by the media. It has a strike price (guarantee wholesale rate) of £90/MWh[0], where as offshore wind has a strike price of £40/MWh[1], and will probably get cheaper.

I understand this isn't the whole picture, as wind energy isn't a constant supply, but the UK is well placed to transition to a smart grid to adjust a large amount of demand dynamically (a lot of homes have electric heating which was designed to be switched on remotely 'off peak' [2]).

I wouldn't say the UK is against nuclear, and this plant is being built by the French multinational EDF - they have some experience building and running nuclear power stations. So why is it so expensive? Where are all these cheap nuclear power stations?

[0] https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/NN_Strike_price_deal_for_...

[1] https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-record-low-uk-offshore-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_7

[petre]

Big = expensive. We are talking about two EPR 1600 MWe gen3 reactors here. The parent is talking about SMRs, small modular reactors.

"The plant, which has a projected lifetime of 60 years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion"

"Financing of the project is still to be finalised, but the construction costs will be paid for by the mainly state-owned EDF of France and Chinese state-owned China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN)"

"In September 2019, further costs were identified that bring the estimated total to £22.9 billion, and may further delay operations. The involvement of state-owned CGN was also questioned after it was sanctioned by the United States government for espionage."

"The European Commission has previously estimated £24.5 billion, including financing costs during construction"

So, an additional £2.6bn (~13%) cost overrun and geopolitics involving China. The EU estimation is +£4.2 bn. There were also competions ahead of schedule despite the pandemic, so it's not all that bad [1].

UK offshore wind also has a capacity factor of <40% [2]. Wind will also be sold cheaper, because when wind blows all over Europe, everyone wants to sell their wind generated electricity. For these reasons comparing the wholesale rates is kind of short sighted. I'm not picking one over of the other, but stressing that a balanced energy mix needs both. The UK's geographic position also enables the usage of offshore tidal plants. They just launched one of the biggest tidal plants recently, the Orbital O2 [3].

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
  2. https://energynumbers.info/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors
  3. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-57991351