←back to thread

Nuclear energy key to decarbonising Europe, says EESC

(www.eesc.europa.eu)
129 points mpweiher | 2 comments | 12 Dec 25 17:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
retrac ◴[12 Dec 25 19:57 UTC] No.46248101[source]▶
Here in Ontario, residentially we pay about 0.09 USD per kWh at night and 0.18 USD with demand peak pricing on weekday afternoons. Or if you have flat rate it's about 0.13 USD per kWh. This is considered very expensive by Canadian standards and it's due to our nuclear power program where about 55% of electricity is from nuclear, the rest from a mix of wind/hydro/solar/biofuel and gas. The increased price during the day is due to the need to burn a bit of gas at peak demand. The grid is otherwise nearly carbon neutral, and the long-term plan is to phase out the gas with a mix of wind, nuclear and pumped storage.

We pay less in practice than the rates given above for power, because the government also subsidizes it. But even without that I understand such rates would be relatively cheap in most European countries.

replies(5): >>46248233 #>>46248446 #>>46249068 #>>46249343 #>>46252030 #
ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Dec 25 21:17 UTC] No.46249068[source]▶
Existing nuclear power is something to keep around as long as it is safe and needed.

The problem is that new built western nuclear power requires ~18 cents/kWh (Vogtle, FV3, HPC etc.) when running at 100% 24/7 all year around, excluding backup, transmission costs and taxes.

Now try sell that electricity to a home owner with solar PV and maybe a battery and you will get laughed out of the room almost the entire year. A firming new built nuclear plant with ruinously high CAPEX and acceptable OPEX is economic lunacy.

This does not even take into account that new built nuclear power requires ~15-20 years from political decision to working plants.

As soon as new built nuclear power’s costs and timelines are confronted with reality it just does not work out.

replies(3): >>46249211 #>>46249231 #>>46249311 #
mpweiher ◴[12 Dec 25 21:30 UTC] No.46249211[source]▶
Where are you getting 18 cents/kWh? Lazard?

Anyway, even if that were correct numbers, it would misleading on several fronts, as the only new western reactors were unrepresentative FOAK builds, and also troubled beyond just regular FOAK status.

Furthermore, the costs tend to be calculated for the period while they are repaying the loans, so it's mostly capital costs. Once the plant is paid off, the price drops dramatically.

The average build time is currently 6.5 years, median slightly less, trend downwards.

replies(1): >>46249251 #
ViewTrick1002 ◴[12 Dec 25 21:34 UTC] No.46249251[source]▶
The currently proposed handout from tax money for the French EPR2 fleet is 11 cents/kWh and interest free loans. Sum freely.

That is with the first reactor coming online 2038 with a perfectly executed project.

I suggest you stop referencing unsourced statistics when the topic at hand is new built european nuclear power.

Edit - toned it down

replies(2): >>46249324 #>>46249881 #
1. mpweiher ◴[12 Dec 25 22:38 UTC] No.46249881[source]▶
I asked you where you were getting the 18 cents/kWh hour from.

Which you did not answer.

And then you accuse me of referencing unsourced statistics and lying.

Hmm...

The 6.5 years figure is from here:

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

"Current european nuclear" is completely atypical and unrepresentative. The numbers are too low to be statistically significant anyhow, but on top of that they were all FOAK builds, all of a single (base) design that has been deemed too difficult to build by its manufacturer and thus discontinued, and mostly built in countries with little recent nuclear experience.

The HPC build, for example, was very explicitly intended to build up the UK nuclear industry, which was a significant part of the cost.

replies(1): >>46253220 #
2. ViewTrick1002 ◴[13 Dec 25 09:09 UTC] No.46253220[source]▶
I think this response embodies the problem with new built nuclear power.

1. Start with ignoring the EPR2 costs.

2. Cherry-pick data that does not represent western timelines. Of course ignoring the best case for the first EPR2 reactor is 12 years if they start today.

3. Blame everything on ”FOAK”. Despite Hinkley point C being reactor 5 and 6 in the EPR series. But that is of course ”FOAK”.

4. Allude that the next UK reactor will be cheaper. Despite the projected cost for Sizewell C is £38B before even starting compared to the current projection at £42-48B for Hinkley Point C.

Sizewell C truly shows the state of new built European nuclear power. EDF is too financially weak to take on any further nuclear construction liability like a fixed price contract, and the CFD would be ruinously expensive.

Instead it is a pure cost-plus contract where an extra surcharge is added to all ratepayers as soon as construction starts having people today pay for electricity hopefully delivered 10-15 years in the future. Hiding the true all-in cost in terms the average tax payer doesn’t understand rather than a trivially understood CFD.

Like I said. As soon as new built nuclear power is confronted with reality it becomes economic and opportunity cost lunacy unless you can motivate it with for example military ambitions.