[littlestymaar]

It's not the regulations, it's the financing scheme: if it's not state backed with a long investment horizon, it's very expensive because private investors expect 10% yields in the middle of a ZIRP to cover from the possible political reversal.

The Hinckley Point C EPR reactor would have produced electricity at a rate below £20/MWh instead of a planned £80/MWh if it was financed by government bonds.

[pfdietz]

It's not just political reversal risk; there's the risk of technological obsolescence. It's very much a stretch to assume a nuclear plant will remain operationally viable (in the sense of being competitive) for 40 years, never mind the 60 or 80 years sometimes mentioned, because the competition isn't standing still.

[littlestymaar]

The only credible competition against a state funded nuclear plant is hypothetical next gen geothermal power though.

Nuclear won't save the planet, as few countries can develop a nuclear industry. But for countries that have one, it should be a no brainer if not for irrational nuclear bomb fears.

[pfdietz]

> The only credible competition against a state funded nuclear plant is hypothetical next gen geothermal power though.

If we extend renewables and batteries on historical experience curves they could become incredibly cheap, with solar well below $0.01/kWh. Nuclear couldn't even make an operating profit in an environment with solar that cheap.

[littlestymaar]

Price is irrelevant when you need most of your electricity in a season when there's barely any sun.

Most of the European population leave on places that are more northern then Montreal, we have less than 8 hours of daylight per day, and a significant fraction of it is cloudy.

There's no storage solution that can store the excess summer solar exposure (when we get more than 16hours on sun per day) to reinject it into the grid in winter. That's literally science fiction tech, and that's what you'd need to make solar + storage a reliable source in Europe.

Solar in California, India or the middle east? Sure. Solar in Europe, Canada and even Japan, good luck (and yes, these countries constitute most of nuclear power plants operators).

[pfdietz]

Even taking into account intermittency and seasonality, nuclear would have a very hard time surviving in a $0.01/kWh PV world.

[littlestymaar]

Again, price is irrelevant if there's no electricity available at all when you need it.

[mastermage]

looking at the current Geopolitical Climate this does not seem like an Irrational Fear. And I do not mean the fear of a reactor meltdown. But if you refine Uranium for a Powerplant you can also Refine it for a bomb.

[littlestymaar]

Any country that can make a nuclear bomb could decide to make one whether or not they chose to have a civil nuclear industry (Israel being the prime example).

And in the current geopolitical climate, expect more countries to build a bomb.

[TheOtherHobbes]

If we're talking about war, what does more damage to the surroundings - dropping a nuke on a solar plant, or dropping a nuke on a nuclear plant?

[littlestymaar]

Dropping a nuke on a city where nuclear plants aren't … And it's not even close. That'd be exactly like the difference between the sole victim of the Fukushima nuclear accident vs the 19 000 dead from the tsunami that caused the accident.

If nukes get involved, all bets are off no matter what, millions of people would die and the consequences of a subsequent reactor meltdown would be negligible compared to the mess you've got already.

And even compared to a conventional war, nuclear accidents are benign next to armed conflicts. (Not only during the war, but also decades after: most people are familiar with the Chernobyl red zone, but there's red zone in France due to the eternal pollution caused by WWI ammunitions).

[ViewTrick1002]

”If we compare apples to oranges nuclear power is cheap”.

You can finance the competition in the same way and get similarly cheaper prices.

Hinkley Point C just got a loan at a 7% interest rate to finish the plant. That is after about all uncertainty should already have been discovered.

Now add making a profit and factor in the risk on top and you’ll end up with electricity costing $400 per MWh

[thatcat]

If risk and disposal is factored into coal, gas, solar power, what would be cheaper? Nuclear has recyclable fuel processes and fail safe systems available.

[ViewTrick1002]

That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet.

Not sure what risk you think come from renewables and storage?

[littlestymaar]

> That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet

There's still some cost factored in, unlike any other industry where the government is expected to clean up after the fact.

> Not sure what risk you think come from renewables

The grid collapse risk (See what happened in Spain last year, which caused 8 deaths, more than every nuclear power plant accidents in the Western world combined…). Grid operators are currently investing a trillion Euro in the EU alone in order to adapt the grid to the new challenges caused by intermittent and distributed energy sources, and this will never be accounted for in renewable electricity prices… (hence the paradox: the more “cheap energy” is being deployed in Europe, the more expensive the electricity prices become).

> and storage

"Storage" doesn't exist yet as a most people imagine it. Batteries can help ease a few hours of peak load/low supply but that's pretty much it, pumped storage is very situational with limited deployment capabilities. So the risk is that the technology simply never materialize.

[TheOtherHobbes]

It's €1.6tn up to 2040. And it's not being built to fix problems "caused by intermittent sources" so much as a complete overhaul of a grid for 27 countries, some of which are relatively backward, with standardised digital control, plus significant new interconnectors.

The finished grid will be far more robust, better able to handle local outages and issues, and generally more adaptive and open to development in various directions.

As for "cheap energy" raising prices - prices rose a little after Covid, but there's been no constant march upwards. The main driver of higher prices is gas, and eliminating gas dependence, for both for financial and strategic reasons, is a key goal.

The current situation in Iran is likely to increase that motivation.

A key point about renewables is that power doesn't rely on imports from war zones.

[ViewTrick1002]

It is not included.

In my part of the world the authorities can demand a clean up bond as part of giving permission to build the project. That is done to ensure that you can’t skimp on your responsibilities.

Then I just see misinformation on the Iberian blackout. Please go ahead and tell me how thermal planes not delivering the expected reactive power was caused by renewables.

Please tell me how renewables can’t deliver reactive power when the US and all other sane grids have required them to do it for close to a decade.

And with that we’re solving high 90s% of the grid. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough when we still need to solve agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping, industry and so on.

All ignoring that storage on larger scales already exists.

[littlestymaar]

Wow, there's literally not a single accurate sentence in your comment. Not a single one!

I'm stopping here since you don't seem to be interested in facts at all.

[mpweiher]

HPC is 2 EPR reactors. At their design CF they will produce 25 TWh per year. Over the expected operating life of 80 years that will be 2000 TWh.

At the $400/MWh you are postulating, that would be €800 billion of income.

Although I am sure the operators wouldn't mind (15% ROI per year over 80 years is...nice) I am going to go with "your numbers are BS".