[tialaramex]

What counts as "fast and cheap" ?

For the renewables "Fast and cheap" turns out to mean you get the paperwork in the winter and you build a solar farm that summer, it's not quite sowing wheat - teams of competent people building the farm isn't the same thing as just chucking the seeds into the dirt with a machine, but the timeframe isn't so different.

Sweden's nuclear plants seem to have taken maybe 6+ years from breaking ground (not paperwork) to first power, so if you begin today you might have a plant in 2032 at the earliest. I can't see any prices, not even a CfD strike price for Sweden's new proposed plants.

The UK agreed £92.50 strike price (2012 prices) for the new nukes it may never actually receive, but unlike Sweden the UK has never pledged to relinquish nuclear weapons so to some extent having a native "nuclear" capability is relevant to national security.

[Gud]

It took 5 years from construction start to grid connection for Oskarshamn R3, at the time the reactor with the world’s highest rated output. Since it began operating it has produced 350TWh.

That nuclear power must take forever is a myth and is only due to dysfunctional politics.

That “you get a permit in the winter and it’s done by summer” is a totally bogus claim. Perhaps for some tiny installation compared to a power plant with 1.5GW output.

https://world-nuclear.org/nuclear-reactor-database/details/o...

[ViewTrick1002]

And now France target 2038 at the earliest for the first reactor in the EPR2 fleet. With a 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans, summing to over 20 cents per kWh.

It is easy to dream about what could have been half a century ago, but that doesn’t change reality today.

[Moldoteck]

Yes, EPR2 is overcomplicated mess. But the subsidy is not that great either... considering many EU countries are subsidizing biomass today at 18ct/kwh...

[ViewTrick1002]

Always the false comparisons.

Please do tell me the expected capacity factor of these biomass plants, even if 18 cents per kWh is correct, after renewables, storage, hydro if available and existing nuclear plants with 80 year LTOs do the heavy lifting.

Can you see the difference compared to new built nuclear power which requires that absolutely insane price when running at 100% 24/7 for 40 years?

[Moldoteck]

Why only 40y for new nuclear? When min license is 60 for gen3 and many gen2 already got extensions to 80y. And where did you get the 100% 24/7 number? The min profitability of FLA3 doesnt assume that. And that's for an ultimately failed project which could have been much better if not EDF incompetence

[ViewTrick1002]

You do realize that trying to smear the costs across almost 100 years is an admission in how horrifyingly expensive new built nuclear power is?

And you do realize that across such a lifespan essentially the entire nuclear plant except the pressure vessel and outer shell is replaced?

Steam generators, turbines, generators, control systems, piping, valves etc. Everything is replaced. Is that free?

There’s no trouble building renewables with similar lifespans. It is just not done because predicting profitability until the 2100 is absolute lunacy.

[Shitty-kitty]

Utility-scale solar projects in California are experiencing interconnection delays averaging 3 to 5 years, primarily due to grid congestion, slow utility study pipelines, and aging substation equipment.