Hacker News Reader

Although I'm not a huge proponent of nuclear power over renewables, I'm not sure the overruns in those projects are a good argument. These projects become hard to cost and understand up front because so few are built. If the UK built 10 then the costs would come down and the knowledge and experience would grow.

That's the problem: the cost doesn't really go down. You can only operate nuclear if you guarantee the prices a decade ahead. That's just not realistic and the end result is that you'll end up subsidizing ever KWh produced and then you still have to factor in decommissioning costs. Nuclear is fantastic technology, but we can do so much better.

Sweden builts a lot of nuclear reactors and they have been amazingly profitable for us. Unfortunately, many were dismantled before their end of life and we are now stuck with high energy prices.

There is no natural law that says nuclear must be expensive. Correctly managed, it is an excellent power source.

How many trillions in subsidies should we hand out to "try one more time" with nuclear power when renewables and storage already is the cheapest energy source in human history?

What “trillions”?

Achieving putative cost reduction from Nth-of-a-kind plants would involve large subsidies of large numbers of plants. The cost could well be in 13 digits.

Cost overruns are a great argument even if you ignore the massive time overruns, which you can't. All those cost overruns factor into the electricty price forever. Flamanville has a 60 year lifespan for this reason and even then has an estimated cost of €138/MWh [1]. Compare that to Cestas at €108/MWh [2].

Go further south and Spain has recently been paying €25/MWh [3].

[1]: https://www.powermag.com/flamanville-3-europes-hard-won-nucl...

[2]: https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/currencies/new-frenc...

[3]: https://ratedpower.com/blog/spanish-government-solar/

Compare it to Swedish electricity prices in the winter which are around SEK 3/kWh, or roughly €300/MWh.

Are you offering to cut my energy bill in half? Yes please!

During the most expensive month in recent years, the price has (on average) been <150 öre/kWh.

Like prices of dinosaur soup at the pump, the majority of the cost for an individual end consumer is not the electricity itself. On top of the market price, you pay fixed two fixed fees, transfer tariffs, surcharges, sales tax (moms), energy tax and other things I have forgotten.

> Compare it to Swedish electricity prices in the winter which are around SEK 3/kWh, or roughly €300/MWh.

The averge electricity price in SE3 this winter, which had nuclear outages, was €100-110/MWh.

New built nuclear power requires €170-230/MWh for 40 years after the completion. Adding on taxes, VAT etc. means that to power the average Swedish home with new built nuclear power the average monthly bill needs to be €540. That is summer as winter.

Using extremely CAPEX heavy nuclear power to fix problems existing a few percent of the year is economic lunacy.

Where are you getting those numbers? I can't find a single source that quotes levelized cost of new nuclear above €150/MWH for newly constructed nuclear?

Some put it below €100/MWH!

Wikipedia for example puts it at $97/MWH

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...

Below €100/MWh is pure fantasy. The proposed subsidy scheme for the French EPR2 fleet is a €100/MWh CFD for 40 years and interest free loans. Summing up to ~€200/MWh in total.

Then you have studies like this:

https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...

And like the Hinkley Point C CFD which is somewhere around €170 per MWh.

It’s quite typical that you refer to the data from IPCC AR3 WG3. A study which came out in 2001.

I suggest some curiosity and updating your priors to 2026 instead.

Your source provided several numbers for nuclear. One is $34/MWH, which is a average cost of existing plants, another number is $169/MWH a number they describe as "Represents illustrative LCOE values for Vogtle nuclear plant’s units 3 and 4"

Your source doesn't even support your statement!

As for Hinckley, I have 2 objections. A you have cherry picked the least cost effective reactor in the world, and are trying to pass it off as typical, and B, it's levelized cost of energy is £128/MWh which translates to €146.

Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.

Unfortunately the anti-nuclear crowd in Europe has a very loose relationship with reality, but I think it's only prudent we stick to actual numbers here on HN.

Relevant excerpt from the Wikipedia article:

For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), based on undisclosed portfolio of projects, estimated nuclear power LCOE at €190-375/MWh which is up to 900% higher than the published LCOE of €30/MWh for an actual existing Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, even after accounting for construction delays in OL3 block, although this number is based on an average LCOE with new and old reactors.

My data might be old, but at least it isn't made up!

Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked?

> The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation.

97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have:

2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114

Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity.

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.

And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out?

> Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.

You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating.

The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost.

Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out.

Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building.

Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost?

Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C.

EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s.

Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme?

- The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B

- The state takes all financial and construction risk

- The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant.

How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?

Wait, are you saying nuclear is bad because the reactors will produce energy for a long time?

Stop and think about that argument for a second

I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture.

You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is?

The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh.

Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?

Are you ever going to produce a source that backs up any of your statements?

Read the Wikipedia article, that's the minimum amount of research required for any subject.

Instead you've cited a lobby groups "illustrative numbers", and even misrepresented them!

Sorry it was €60 per MWh, I suppose 65 is the number in USD.

https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/fran...

I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality.

What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space.

And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent.

It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive.

You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.

They're hard to cost, which means that the numbers that are given are more aspirational than realistic. It's in the interest of those touting projects to be as optimistic as is tolerable when the estimate costs -- and everyone expects them to do this, so if they didn't and were more realistic they'd go nowhere.

Not arguing that solar+wind are more and more viable and economical.

But there's a weird juxtaposition here: You criticize the fact that nuclear power must be subsidized to be accomplished, but support strong social safety nets. To me, relative energy independence is a core societal goal and nuclear is a hell of a lot better than coal or oil or NG. It still requires fissile material, though.

It requires 15 years from plan to energy being produced, at best. We don’t have all that time.

The best time to plant a tree was 15 years ago. The second best time is now.

The best time is now, but for solar.

The best time to have given up on new nuclear construction was decades ago. The second best time is now.

> SMR (also mentioned in the article) doesn't make sense. Nuclear plants are better when they're bigger.

I have always found this an odd argument. Granted, thermodynamically, nuclear plants' efficiency scales with size. But allegedly fuel only makes up 10% of the lifetime cost of a plant. Even more if you think construction costs overrun.

So let's say you make a plant that is smaller and requires 50% more fuel, but is also 10% cheaper to build. You're already ahead by 4%. And SMRs at least promise far more than 10% savings.

The argument that SMRs could be cheaper due to economies if scale is often dismissed as pie in the sky - and maybe it is - but this is also precisely what brought down the cost of renewables. Germany bought their wind turbines a mere few years ago and paid way more than they would have done today.

Operational costs are more that just fuel, they are also the cost of staffing and fixed maintenance. These can also be considerable, especially if one amortizes the upgrades needed for extended service life.

Right. Bht it's only fuel cost that needs the reactors to be big, no?

With SMRs there's nothing stopping you from sticking 10 on one site, where previously you'd put 1 or 2.

Is it worth the price of energy sovereignty though? You are not just buying electricity, you are buying future independence. It might be worth it if you factor that in.

And don’t forget all the other expertise that comes from being a country that is able to build reliable nuclear reactors. China is _the_ production superpower not just because it can build x or y, it’s because it has all the supply chains to be able to do it at scale.

If a country invests into that expertise - you get a lot of very capable engineers, a lot of tech and supply chains to deal with making it all happen, again and again, at scale. That in itself would be something that can offset the raw “price” of a single reactor, though it is very hard to quantify.

Like how much has USA actually lost by relinquishing its historical role of guarding international trade? Maybe it won some independence, but maybe the upstream effects to its economy would be bad?

We don’t know for sure about nuclear, but when a similar scientific project was put on a national scale - the space race - USA got silicon valley out of it.

in 2018 the administration warned Europe of the dangers of Russian gas and badgered Germany into building an LNG port with the Trump-Juncker agreement

I don’t know how fair that is. Modern leaders looked at Appeasement in pre-WW2 and thought they could pull it off by tying their economies to that of their enemy so that war would be ruinous for both. It didn’t work but only because we now know China is bankrolling Russia’s sham economy.

Has Germant's Energewiende helped with solving this energy issue?

Given how much the administration under Merkel tried to block it: yes

And by the money the energy companies made by keeping some of the fossil plants alive.

Guess who created that pricing model?

I see Germany now has the third highest price for industrial electricity in Europe. Why is that then?

I am mostly in agreement with everything you say, including the push for solar and wind.

The only disagreement is that I think nuclear should be pursued even when building the plants is expensive. It is clean and mostly safe. I think energy should be abundant. It's the sort of thing you want a surplus.

The biggest disgrace is the vassalage to the US in terms of defense, which fuels the US MIC. Whenever Trump speaks of leaving NATO, I quietly hope he actually follows along this threat.

> I think nuclear should be pursued even when building the plants is expensive.

Why? Do you have a fetish for wasting money?

No, I think nuclear plants look pwetty.

If it's just the cooling towers you're jonesing for, I know where you can get it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didcot_power_stations

> It was voted Britain's third worst eyesore in 2003 by Country Life readers.

rofl

> Renewables, particularly wind and solar, are the path forward

You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement.

Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? Plenty of things cost a lot - healthcare, social spending, roads, all of it. Those war machines that exist to prop up the fossil fuel industry cost a pretty penny as well. It's only when we get to nuclear that the talking point becomes cost. If governments don't even want to provide energy independence then perhaps they should end the slavery they call income tax.

> You missed the asterisk where endless dependence on coal, gas or oil is a non-optional requirement.

Please don't lie like this. Renewables do not require endless dependence on fossil fuels.

Ah yes, the sun shines at night and wind comes from trees. If you can name a country using solar and wind that isn't dependent on fossil fuels I'd love to hear about it.

You insult our intelligence by making such a transparently ridiculous argument. Try again.

Ya it’s insulting to provide a single success case.

I see. You make a claim, and your argument is "you haven't proved me wrong". Classic crank behavior.

You then back it up with the transparently nonsensical argument that "the sun doesn't shine at night." Batteries exist, you know.

You made the claim renewables require indefinite use of fossil fuels, you show your reasoning. An argument that ignores the existence of storage is not an argument, it's insulting verbal vomit.

No, batteries do not exist. Just like solar technology wasn't developed to a point where it was barely useful until relatively recently, battery technology is no where near what is required for any national grid. That's why there is a fundamental dependence on fossil fuels, and why there isn't a single country who can depend on wind or solar. Because there is no way to store that energy.

The only countries with a successful secondary fallback are those who use geothermal or hydro, with the latter being opposed by the same environmentalists who oppose nuclear. Not every country has geothermal energy, nor do most countries have hydro, and most of the countries with either of those don't have enough to power their grid. The only ones that do have no real manufacturing. The issue is front and center: the ones that need it the most are the ones who are unable to utilize it.

In the interim, until meaningful storage exists, it's the 'environmentalist' anti-nuclear crowd who have plunged the world into chaos and contributed to endless destruction of the planet. The world is still using fossil fuels because the world has no alternative other than nuclear.

There needs to be a stepping stone - and that stepping stone is nuclear. Until then, the stepping stone is oil, coal and gas. Which means Middle Eastern wars, environmental destruction and fracking. Dealing with whatever fallout that comes from nuclear, with room for those who can't support nuclear to use fossil fuels, while the rest of the world figures out a real way forward on how to collect and store solar and wind is the only path forward.

> Who the hell cares if nuclear is expensive to get going? The people care.

The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price.

But let’s ignore the price.

There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste.

And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants.

I don’t hear much worries in wars that rockets could hit a WEC.

Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from?

BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave

> But let’s ignore the price

I mean, European energy policy in a nutshell.

Quite the opposite. That‘s why Russian gas was such a big factor.

More like let’s ignore the long term consequences

> The only things that ever comes up in elections about energy is the price.

Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive. The point is that the price isn't worth it.

> There is still no long time storage for the nuclear waste.

This is a non-argument, just like it was last year.

> And even if we ignore that. People are worried about drones flying over airports. Wait when drones fly over nuclear power plants.

2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above.

> Talking about energy independence, what do you think where the nuclear fuel comes from?

There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it.

> BTW if you don’t want to pay the membership fee of a country aka taxes, you’re free to leave

The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country. It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.

> Yeah, because solar and wind are both expensive and unreliable, and fossil fuels are both expensive and destructive.

Compared to nuclear energy wind and solar are cheap. For reliability we need energy storage

> This is a non-argument, just like it was last year.

That doesn’t make any sense. It’s a problem and it isn’t solved. Or let me use your logic: it’s a problem like it was last year.

> 2026, new argument dropped. Almost as much of a non-argument as the one above.

Yeah sure, safety isn’t an argument.

>There's uranium everywhere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_r... and it's not much more of a search away to find out who already refines it.

Another safety issue plus environmental damage for mining.

> The membership fee isn't giving up your money, the membership fee is participating in improving the country.

A membership fee is literally giving up money. PV put power in the hand of people. That is participation and independence.

> It's this backwards ethos that has most European countries in the toilet.

Nuclear energy is backwards. Why invest in something that is dangerous, slow, expensive and creates centralized energy sources?