←back to thread

129 points mpweiher | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
DarkNova6 ◴[] No.46247903[source]
So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired. Demanding high quality, no-fault tolerance production. Dependent on resources not found in Europe.

Look, I love nuclear technology. But time has moved on. The costs to rebuild this industry is astronomical and means we lose out on key-future technology like batteries.

Edit: But then there are bombs. And especially French love their nukes due national security. This is the only reason to keep pushing for nuclear, since Russia, the US and China are not gonna change direction on this either. But the very least we could do is be honest about it.

Edit 2: Changed from "World has moved on" to "time has moved on", since evidently China has invested for a good 2 decades to build their own fully functional nuclear-industry. Proving my point that it takes dedicated investment, network effects and scale to rebuild this industry. After all, they too want to mass produce nukes.

replies(9): >>46247968 #>>46248061 #>>46248083 #>>46248299 #>>46248343 #>>46248710 #>>46249288 #>>46250139 #>>46253448 #
sailingparrot ◴[] No.46248343[source]
> So you want to create a completely new industry. From the ground. With all existing experts having retired.

This is an article about Europe. Do you really believe France alone is operating 57 nuclear reactors, and producing 70% of its energy via fission, without the industry, the knowledge, and with no experts left? Is chatgpt running everything?

replies(3): >>46248414 #>>46249290 #>>46249670 #
DarkNova6 ◴[] No.46248414[source]
If you are so smug about this, answer me:

1: How man reactors were built in the 1970s and are nearing end-of-life?

2: How many reactors has Europe built since 2005?

3: What's the overrun time of reactors in Europe, compared to China?

The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that the industry has existed. It was world class, but the institutional knowledge to bring it back to this quality does not exist and would need to be rebuilt for the new generation of reactors. And we are not even talking Generation 4 here.

replies(7): >>46248658 #>>46248733 #>>46248805 #>>46248880 #>>46249298 #>>46249448 #>>46262849 #
sigmar ◴[] No.46248805[source]
These questions are inane. No, "all existing experts" did not retire. not making new plants was a decision made by politicians.

Europe has never stopped working on creating new and better nuclear reactor designs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

replies(1): >>46248910 #
hvb2 ◴[] No.46248910[source]
Iter is a research project that Europe is a part of, along with the rest of the world. That has nothing to do with building power plants, at least not anytime soon.

We haven't built a reactor in a long time. So those EPRs being built are all way behind schedule and thus costing substantially more.

You can design whatever you want. Building one is a whole different story. That's not an opinion that's just what happened at the first 2 EPRs and Hinckley point isn't going great either

replies(2): >>46248983 #>>46249329 #
laurencerowe ◴[] No.46249329[source]
Yup. Europe can absolutely still build reactors, just not at a price that is economically competitive.

Olkiluoto 3 started regular production in 2023, taking 18 years to build at a cost of €11 billion (3x over budget).

Flamanville 3 started regular production in 2024, taking 17 years to build at a cost of €13.2 billion (4x over budget) or €19.1 billion including financing in 2015 prices.

Hinkley Point C (two reactors) is currently estimated to have its first unit come online around 2030, taking 14 years with total costs now estimated at £31-35 billion / €36–41 billion (2x over budget) in 2015 prices.

replies(3): >>46249626 #>>46250049 #>>46251360 #
1. mikestorrent ◴[] No.46251360[source]
The problem is that we insist on building nuclear plants like cathedrals, when we need to build them like Model T Fords.

Small modular reactors need to be rolling out of a factory ready to go, so we can do large redundant arrays of them, put them on trains to transport them around, etc.

A nuclear power station making a couple MW should cost maybe a few million tops once we have the ability to make hundreds of them a year from a factory instead of creating these 20 year projects for gigantic facilities that are all bespoke

replies(1): >>46252848 #
2. laurencerowe ◴[] No.46252848[source]
It’s far from certain that SMRs will end up having lower costs than large nuclear reactors. Maybe they will work out but there is a huge amount of hype.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2025-10-30/silicon-v...

(https://archive.ph/Wvfqr)