[Gwypaas]

Take the 20% cost reduction the last two generations lead to. That would change Flamanville 3 from exorbitantly expensive to exorbitantly expensive.

The French nuclear program as a whole has had a huge negative learning curve. The more they've built and learned the more expensive they have become. Sure you can brush of 20% with a lot of money down the drain, but that does not make it in any way economical.

[Manuel_D]

At the end of the day, the cost of reactors built when there was large scale serial production was considerably cheaper than they are now: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...

The "negative learning curve" both in France and in the USA happened as the pace of reactor construction slowed. The "negative learning curve" you're referring to is actually the loss of the economies of scale.

[Schroedingersat]

Your paper shows a very nearly monotonic increase in costs with no dip at any pont between the peak of construction and when the reactors started during that peak were all finished. It also shows that in the US at least, the negative learning rate was much steeper between the end of the turnkey error and both TMI and the construction peak. It's also not normalised for availability factor or upgrades/reliability retrofits.

You can't just post evidence of the opposite to your claim and then repeat it.

[Gwypaas]

We had economies of scale in the 50s when it was the cheapest? Or was it because we had this attitude towards nuclear engineering?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core#Second_incident

[Manuel_D]

It was in the 1960s and early 70s that it was cheapest. And the Demon Core incident was part of the nuclear weapons program, not nuclear electric power - this is a common pattern in misleading anti-nuclear rhetoric.