by mpweiher | 2025-09-14 18:09:58+00:00
> [renewables massively increased electricity prices, not decreased them as claimed]

> We all have to consider the total cost on the long term.

Yes, we do. When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money when you consider the long term.

> I analyzed it for France.

With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion.

> Nope [to having little effect on CO₂ emissions]

The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable. France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. Have been for decades, at a fraction of the cost.

> France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed.

Again, the opposite is true. Those projects did not "fail". They all produce reliable power, which intermittent renewables cannot do, at better prices than intermittent renewables.

Of course, compared to other nuclear projects, they were massive failures, but not when compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different.

And your reasoning is also wrong: those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds, and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years.

FOAK builds are slow and expensive (and slow is extra expensive, as most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments). NOAK builds tend to go much quicker and be a lot cheaper. As an example, China builds much faster and cheaper. People incorrectly claim this is because they skimp on safety, labor, tech etc.

Not true. Their first AP-1000 took 9 years, almost as long as Vogtles, especially when you take into account the COVID years. They are now building their version in 5 years. Essentially the same reactor, certainly the same country. Half the time.

FOAK vs. NOAK is the ticket.

> .. therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all.

France's primary problem was lack of maintenance due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years and deferred maintenance during COVID.

And you don't build just one kind. Build 2-3 kinds and 10-20 of each.

Oh, and don't build them too quick. These things last for 100 years, so to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers.

> Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure.

No it didn't. Relative to the standards of nuclear power plants it was horrific. But even under fairly negative assumptions for the price of electricity it will have "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects.

And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project.

> There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.

That is false. The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 and later on to build 8 more. Sites have been selected for the first 6, and engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded to the tune of several billion €.

If that's "nothing", then can I have just a bit of that "nothing" from you? Can send you my bank details.