[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.

[Moldoteck]

It's an admission that the plant can operate for a long time

"do realize that across such a lifespan essentially the entire nuclear plant except the pressure vessel and outer shell is replaced?" - so you are saying that EDF replaced/will replace all the components except PV of it's plants to reach 60-80y? This sounds ridiculous. Maintenance isn't free but is part of opex of a plant which for existing ones is rather low.

[ViewTrick1002]

No. It is trying to reframe the cost question in a way that laymen don’t understand.

For anyone understanding economics it’s an admission of how far you need to twist the numbers to just make it horrifyingly expensive.

The OPEX calculated in for example Lazard is not including all replacements and maintenance needed for LTO.

Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?

[Moldoteck]

I'm not afraid of renewables. I encourage building them. I do also realize, that if sufficient nuclear isn't built, gas will be used for firming (or coal in case of China). That's literally what's happening in Germany. Denmark managed to avoid it by relying on nordics which already got pissed and by burning literal wood from America and marking it as renewable.

Lazard doesn't (or at least didn't) estimate the plants to work for 60y either considering all gen 3 are licensed for this period. Lazard also has interesting numbers about LCOE of ren+cheap gas firming. Would be interesting to see the added cost of transmission, considering Germany spends 10x more than France per year on it

[ViewTrick1002]

You do realize that nuclear power and renewables fundamentally compete for the same slice of the market: The cheapest and most inflexible.

Due to renewables having zero fuel cost they win this handily. Which now also extends to when storage from either wind or solar delivers.

Which is what we see in action:

From night to noon: France’s reactors are now bending for European solar

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2026/05/14/from-night-to-noon-fr...

EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.

And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-02-16/edf-warns...

They do. They have a diamond which is Vogtle with a 97% capacity factor and 70 year economic lifespan. Still leading to horrifyingly expensive electricity.

Like I said. It is an admission in how far you need to tilt the numbers to still get it to be horrifyingly expensive.

We have studies like that. But I know people like you desperately try to dismiss them.

Here, a modern article modeling "System LCOE". In other words, the whole grid including transmission backup and everything else.

It starts by giving new built nuclear power the benefit of doubt, having it cost 40% less than Flamanville 3 and 70% less than Hinkley Point C. Since no one would ever be stupid enough to greenlight a project like that again.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036054422...

It finds that for Denmark, a country with very low insolation and awful winters that renewablws are 53% cheaper than the nuclear system.

[Moldoteck]

No, they don't compete for the same slice of the market, that's silly

Nuclear is more flexible than coal and on par with some gas plants. BWR's are even faster. Your second link about french modulation proves that. Or you can check directly on RTE website

EDF is crying because ren get CFD's and curtailment payments while EDF does not.

The paper you posted is so funny. The author is also the chief editor of the journal the paper was published. He is also one of the founders of DK antinuclear movement which resulted in DK becoming one of the largest coal consumers at that time. His previous paper was subject to correction due to favorably "omitted details". His current paper still assumes for some reason dirt cheap hydrogen firming for renewables. Shall we check the cost of pure H2 firming per Lazard?

Not only DK has worse emissions than France - it also managed to piss off Norway and Sweden https://montelnews.com/news/0138d712-3afd-4590-883e-4b9221fd...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/sweden-pauses-plans-...