[Moldoteck]

I know about it, affected components were replaced. They still built it relatively on time and on budget

"On 7 February 2014, the Nuclear Safety and Security Commission declared that its investigation since mid-2013, they found eight cases out of 2,075 samples of foreign manufactured reactor components that were supplied with fake documents."

[natmaka]

Hopefully all little tricks are now known...

> relatively on time and on budget

Nope. 7 years late (plan: 2017, last reactor diverged in 2024).

Total cost not known, at least 24.5 billion USD and maybe up to 32 according to Bloomberg (plan: 20). Koreans are even fighting: KHNP (a subsidiary of KEPCO, the company building the plant) officially seeks for about 1.2 billion USD in compensation ( https://www.businesskorea.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=... ) and it may worsen up.

Such a resounding success... as usual: https://www.fastcompany.com/90844859/why-massive-wind-and-so...

[Moldoteck]

8bn/unit is successful considering fla3 was 23bn. 8y/unit is successful, several in parallel with 1y distance, considering fla3/vogtle took about 20y.

Yes. It is a success.

Korea also announced they plan to build two additional reactors domestically by 2038

I've seen what a success Energiewende was. Really top notch execution to spend more than the entire french fleet and after 25y to have much worse emissions, while planning to have 80GW gas firming per Fraunhofer ISE to cover under generation periods

[natmaka]

> 8bn/unit is successful considering that FL3 was 23bn.

Yes, a failure is better than a disaster. As we say in France, "in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

> Korea also announced their plan.

For 25 years, numerous announcements of this kind have been made by many nations, without any real intention of following through, and for various reasons (electoral considerations, will to create competition for renewable energy suppliers, etc.).

Only projects that are actually starting (on the ground) provide a good indication.

> Energiewende > spends more than the entire French fleet

The actual cost of this fleet is considerably higher than official estimates. Details and sources in French: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....

> after 25 years to have much worse emissions

This comparison is invalid, for many reasons.

On the one hand, France's transition to nuclear power began with the first industrial nuclear power reactor (dubbed "EDF1") in 1957. In 1959, the project for the power plant that would be completed in Chooz in 1967 began, and as early as 1964, nuclear power was presented to the public as the energy source that would take over in 1975 (correctly predicting that in Europe it would produce 25% of electricity 20 years later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6Xfu8u3Yqw).

As early as 1972, two years before the launch of the Messmer Plan, nuclear power in France produced 15 TWh, or about 11% of its electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-primary-energy-fos...

Then the Messmer Plan, considerably accelerating this nuclearization, started in 1974 and was completed in 1999 (Civaux-2 reactor): https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-...

This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years.

Furthermore, nuclear power did not replace a huge set of existing electricity-producing sector, such as coal in Germany, because in 1970 France produced about four times less electricity than at the end of its nuclear power deployment: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

Moreover, this was a very prosperous period, as France fully benefited from the "Thirty Glorious Years": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses

Other major differences exist.

In short: comparing France's nuclearization with the Energiewende is extremely difficult, and a direct comparison absurd.

> planning to have 80GW of gas-fired power plants

In early 2026, Germany announced it would deploy new gas-fired power plants. The impact depends on the corresponding emissions. If they are only all active for a few hours a year to get through critical periods and (as planned) replace coal or primarily burn green hydrogen, for example, then it will be progress (reducing emissions). The best-case scenario is a full renewable fleet but Rome wasn't built...

[Moldoteck]

1- 8bn/unit is pretty acceptable if you adjust for capacity factors and compare to solar projects in say Germany that would on avg deliver same power per year and even better if you want firm power.

2- announcement is recent and made by a somewhat antinuclear PM which changed the course seeing that ren alone are not sufficient. It's in the context when Korea will soon finish 2 units locally. In fact if for some reason govt will change there, plans will probably accelerate

Why should I read a nonsensical antinuclear article by a rando on the internet when there are official numbers from court of auditors? The numbers of french nuclear program are available. And even if you bump them by 50%, it'll still be cheaper than german EEG expenditure alone and the difference only grows

"This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years." But messmer plan took much less. We are talking about accelerated deployment and spending. France beat Germany in both. Or maybe we should start counting for germany from the moment first solar panel was deployed there instead of Energiewende proposal? It'll make things look even worse. A direct comparison isn't absurd. Numbers are known in both cases and you clearly want to ignore them. Talking about french prosperous period when DE is biggest EU economy is strange too.

To say gas plants will burn hydrogen when merely 25% mix is already worse economically than failed nuclear projects like Vogtle is at least laughable. The announced gas plants dont match the numbers demanded by Fraunhofer, mostly because EU rules dont allow that. So basically germany is stuck in a strange position where it needs firming but it cannot build it.

Again, France spent considerably less and did the job much faster while Germany still struggles while it's best hope is to have some magical cheap hydrogen to replace gas...

[natmaka]

> capacity factors

Deeming dispatchable power necessary was valid as long as the technical means (long-distance, high-capacity transmission, smart grids, energy storage, network management software capable of reacting quickly enough and optimizing the system, voltage stabilization and current frequency synthesis tools, etc.) that would have allowed for a mostly non-dispatchable way to generate electricity were too expensive, insufficient, or simply nonexistent.

Now these means exist, and experts assert that it is no longer necessary to deploy a large proportion of dispatchable generation capacity. Therefore, from a technical standpoint, an electrical system based on renewables with the largest resources (wind and solar, which are not dispatchable) is feasible: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...

> compare to solar projects

"With the cost of storing electricity at $65/MWh, storing 50% of a day’s solar generation for use during the night-time hours adds $33/MWh to the total cost of solar. The global average price of solar in 2024 was $43/MWh. Turning this cheap daytime electricity into a dispatchable profile that is closer to an actual demand profile, would therefore result in a total electricity cost of $76/MWh." https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/how-cheap-is-batter...

The total cost of nuclear power, even when building and managing waste without exceeding the budget, even without accidents, even without uranium supply problems..., is already much higher than that.

He's dead, Jim.

> 2- announcement > plans will probably accelerate

Indeed, let's see if the current trend will be reversed: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

> Why should I read a nonsensical antinuclear article by a rando on the internet

It is sourced (or you may pinpoint what isn't).

> when there are official numbers from court of auditors?

The referenced article quotes thems!

> even if you bump them by 50%, it'll still be cheaper than german EEG expenditure alone

The cost of the energy transition in Germany is sometimes cited as €300 billion, €500 billion, or even €1.5 trillion.

These figures are worthless because no reputable source publishes a specific figure along with its scope (some aspects of the investments needed for the electricity grid are independent of the energy source) and at least a timeframe.

These figures are actually projections published by various sources, covering distant timeframes (2050, etc.) and encompassing the entire electricity system (including non-renewable energy sources).

We had the same sort of propaganda in France, then EDF (Big Chief of the French nuclear sector) boss stated in public that about 50% of the projected network-related costs are not tied to renewables ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEdQz3hGlf0&t=328s ).

> "This nuclearization lasted approximately 40 years." But messmer plan took much less.

Nope: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

> Numbers are known in both cases and you clearly want to ignore them.

The afore-referenced articles states and sources facts and data. You don't.

> Talking about french prosperous period when DE is biggest EU economy

'Prosperous' is more-or-less 'density', not extension. This past prosperity (massively benefitting to the Messmer Plan) is an historical indeniable fact ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ).

> gas plants > hydrogen when merely 25% mix is already worse economically than failed nuclear projects like Vogtle

This is not valid as in this context those hydrogen plants are prototypes, while Vogtle (and other recent projects aiming at building nuclear reactors) are theoritically mastered since the 1970's (Messmer Plan...).

> The announced gas plants dont match the numbers demanded by Fraunhofer, mostly because EU rules dont allow that. So basically germany is stuck in a strange position where it needs firming but it cannot build it.

Indeed, and it may imply that more coal will be burnt. This is ridiculous.

> magical cheap hydrogen

This is indeed a bet, but a non-inept one ( https://www.spglobal.com/energy/en/news-research/latest-news... ), especially as the amount of electricity overproduced by renewables, reflected by episodes of low or even negative spot prices, is constantly increasing.