undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMoldoteck5d ago0 comments

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

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

ViewTrick10025d ago· 2 in thread

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.

MoldoteckOP5d ago

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.

ViewTrick10025d ago

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?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse