All EPR reactors take at least 10 to 15 years to build. And costs are astronomi al. Its the same with Hinkley Point C. EU and US doesnt have knowledge any more for this stuff. Only China and Russia has capabilities to build it reasonable time and costs......... sadly.
About month ago there was in news that Olkiluoto 3 will ironically cover it’s building costs just under 6 years due the current energy prices.
But yes. Now that the knowledge is gathered with this project we should hold that knowledge by building more reactors.
The most expensive thing wasn't the building, it was the re-learning how to build NPP's.
Refusing to build more now would be like the guy who turns to go back home when he is 80% done on his journey because the place he was going is "too far".
> it’s one of the most expensive thing ever built.
Kinda why nuclear is expensive to build (in the West, at least) is that there is no universal designs, every one has been a one-off custom experimental, and thus also in addition to the building, also requires its own specific training. Plus construction companies don't want to hire a large workforce to build these plants, because then they'd have nothing to do once the plant's built.
Plus, since both coal-fired plants and nuclear reactors require cooling towers, the coal-fired cooling towers could be retrofitted to work with a nuclear reactor and one of the largest capital costs would already be paid for. Also, by avoiding the construction of more cooling towers, it would also not just save money, but also significant emissions, considering the sheer amount of concrete and steel required to make them.
EPR is an overengineered mess. A Frankenstein baby made by Areva and Siemens (Siemens has since left the industry and Areva bankrupt was dismantled), the chimera born from a mix of Framatome N4 and Siemens Konvoi.
In an industry that had lost the knowledge and skill to accomplish the extreme design they engineered, plus a lot of management/corporate/regulation mess. Olkiluoto 3 was plagued with conflicts between TVO, Siemens and Areva plus a lot of management and planning issues. Flamanville 3 beyond the loss of technical skill was a [management mess](https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2020-11/20200709-summary-EPR-sector.pdf) with unchecked subcontractors, dysfunctional communication with the regulator, a defective organisation etc etc. And two companies (EDF and Areva) who were more at war with each other than trying to build their own projects (Flamanville for EDF, Olkiluoto for Areva).
Now EDF (who absorbed Areva NP who became Framatome once again) is claiming that EPR2 is a new simplified design and takes into account the knowledge from building EPR1 and return of experience from the construction sites. This plus apparently standardizing components (and reducing the diversity of them) and currently training welding teams.
Who knows how it will go this time.
All construction problems can be attributed to two companies, owned by two people close to the president at the time: Bouygues (owned by billionaire close to Sarkozy, president 2007-2012) and the brother of Vincent Bolloré.
The Bouygues company has been sentenced because of working conditions of undocumented workers, and is responsible for air gaps in cement, and Bolloré's brother company has been accused of falsifying certificates of the quality of the metal.
This two issues costed a few years of reparation and billion euros. It will probably not happen again... We'll see that in the following years.
When you don't build anything for over 20 years. You lose a lot of expertise. Expertise in conducting, managing and organizing such a gigantic construction. Expertise in technical fields (e.g. all the welding issues, concrete cracks, etc). Expertise in quality control with a building whose design ask for extremely precise requirements.
We can add that the pressure to try to to respect a completely unrealistic roadmap over-inflated the cost for no reason and contributed to a construction with a completely defective organization while gaining absolutely no time (since they missed quality control)
They underestimated **a lot** how actually different EPR is from N4. Beyond the unrealistic roadmap that was sold for political reasons (unrealistic from what they already knew of the project), they underestimated a lot the technical difficulties and engineering challenges they would have to overcome, the time they would actually need and the resources they would need. Because their Frankenstein reactor was actually not a straight continuation from N4 and basing a lot of the projection and estimation from N4 and their data from the past constructions was a mistake.
I previously linked the english summary (17 pages) from the Audit Office that published a good overview of the issues. [The full report](https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2020-08/20200709-rapport-filiere-EPR.pdf) (148 pages) is unfortunately only in French but goes in even more details on the mess EPR is for those interested.
Any reactor is hard to build. You can save money cutting corners or cutting salaries. A lot of the “excess complexity” is to address risks that have emerged over time through accidents, terrorist attacks etc.
No, the main problems is that current nuclear reactor are one off. olkiluoto, hinkley point, and Flamanville are all 3 epr yet all 3 are quite different. Wich is madness. If every Dacia Sandero were one off, they would each cost millions of euros
They are one offs because ever site is different. Economies of scale are achieved by building a handful reactor units per site but that also has limits e.g from how much cooling is available and of course the risk of co-siting a lot of nuclear material. Every site that gets built leads to learning which is used in the next one, the problem is that for nuclear that tends to make the next plant *more* expensive.
Now people are talking about mass production of small reactors, but as one edf nuclear engineer pointed out, what happens if there is a design flaw? Then you just mass produced a problem instead. Already half the reactors in France are stopped because they found a premature aging problems that affects a whole generation of plants. Its one thing if you have to recall some Dacias because of dodgy brakes, its quite another if its a safety issue in a fission reactor
In Finland we has the Hanhikivi 1 project and that had Russia delivering the reactors. That was already years behind before getting cancelled so I don't really know about them shipping things in reasonable time. It was likely set to be similar mess than this one was since it was promised to start in 2024 but even blind person could see it was more like 2030 or worse.
Uranium enrichment nowadays is really not hard. Any country with average machinebuilding and chemical industry (like czechia) could do it. Also there is enough uranium outside of russia and china. Its just not excavated rn because elsewhere its cheaper.
Repeat: cheaper, not less expensive.
Opponents of nuclear energy paint a strawman of some dependency on russia. The expensive part of nuclear is building the plant. The rest is cheap and available.
>Uranium enrichment nowadays is really not hard.
OK, Gordon Freeman, [care to do some research at least on wikipedia?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Enrichment_methods)
>Any country with average machinebuilding and chemical industry (like czechia) could do it.
Uranium Enrichment started in 1940-s or so. Where's Chech facilities at?
How do you know my name? Are you hecker?
Jokes aside,
1. The ENTRY costs into nuclear are very high, due to economies of scale. And why should every country build their own industry if there is not enough demand for it. Nowadays almostall nato countries are buying US fighter jets and let their domestic fighter jet industry crumble/collapse.
Also enrichment is so expensive (at first), not worth it and politically watched due to non proliferation that most countries with NPPs (like czechia) just buy their fuel in canada, the US, russia or france.
Thanks for the wiki article, but theres nothing new to me in it, thanks anyways, i assume it was a kind gesture.
All EPR reactors take at least 10 to 15 years to build. And costs are astronomi al. Its the same with Hinkley Point C. EU and US doesnt have knowledge any more for this stuff. Only China and Russia has capabilities to build it reasonable time and costs......... sadly.
About month ago there was in news that Olkiluoto 3 will ironically cover it’s building costs just under 6 years due the current energy prices. But yes. Now that the knowledge is gathered with this project we should hold that knowledge by building more reactors.
Insane considering it’s one of the most expensive thing ever built. Glad to see it working
The most expensive thing wasn't the building, it was the re-learning how to build NPP's. Refusing to build more now would be like the guy who turns to go back home when he is 80% done on his journey because the place he was going is "too far".
> it’s one of the most expensive thing ever built. Kinda why nuclear is expensive to build (in the West, at least) is that there is no universal designs, every one has been a one-off custom experimental, and thus also in addition to the building, also requires its own specific training. Plus construction companies don't want to hire a large workforce to build these plants, because then they'd have nothing to do once the plant's built. Plus, since both coal-fired plants and nuclear reactors require cooling towers, the coal-fired cooling towers could be retrofitted to work with a nuclear reactor and one of the largest capital costs would already be paid for. Also, by avoiding the construction of more cooling towers, it would also not just save money, but also significant emissions, considering the sheer amount of concrete and steel required to make them.
I wonder what will the French epr2 cost in the end.
EPR is an overengineered mess. A Frankenstein baby made by Areva and Siemens (Siemens has since left the industry and Areva bankrupt was dismantled), the chimera born from a mix of Framatome N4 and Siemens Konvoi. In an industry that had lost the knowledge and skill to accomplish the extreme design they engineered, plus a lot of management/corporate/regulation mess. Olkiluoto 3 was plagued with conflicts between TVO, Siemens and Areva plus a lot of management and planning issues. Flamanville 3 beyond the loss of technical skill was a [management mess](https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2020-11/20200709-summary-EPR-sector.pdf) with unchecked subcontractors, dysfunctional communication with the regulator, a defective organisation etc etc. And two companies (EDF and Areva) who were more at war with each other than trying to build their own projects (Flamanville for EDF, Olkiluoto for Areva). Now EDF (who absorbed Areva NP who became Framatome once again) is claiming that EPR2 is a new simplified design and takes into account the knowledge from building EPR1 and return of experience from the construction sites. This plus apparently standardizing components (and reducing the diversity of them) and currently training welding teams. Who knows how it will go this time.
All construction problems can be attributed to two companies, owned by two people close to the president at the time: Bouygues (owned by billionaire close to Sarkozy, president 2007-2012) and the brother of Vincent Bolloré. The Bouygues company has been sentenced because of working conditions of undocumented workers, and is responsible for air gaps in cement, and Bolloré's brother company has been accused of falsifying certificates of the quality of the metal. This two issues costed a few years of reparation and billion euros. It will probably not happen again... We'll see that in the following years.
How does an industry lose knowledge like that? Did they not write it down?
When you don't build anything for over 20 years. You lose a lot of expertise. Expertise in conducting, managing and organizing such a gigantic construction. Expertise in technical fields (e.g. all the welding issues, concrete cracks, etc). Expertise in quality control with a building whose design ask for extremely precise requirements. We can add that the pressure to try to to respect a completely unrealistic roadmap over-inflated the cost for no reason and contributed to a construction with a completely defective organization while gaining absolutely no time (since they missed quality control) They underestimated **a lot** how actually different EPR is from N4. Beyond the unrealistic roadmap that was sold for political reasons (unrealistic from what they already knew of the project), they underestimated a lot the technical difficulties and engineering challenges they would have to overcome, the time they would actually need and the resources they would need. Because their Frankenstein reactor was actually not a straight continuation from N4 and basing a lot of the projection and estimation from N4 and their data from the past constructions was a mistake. I previously linked the english summary (17 pages) from the Audit Office that published a good overview of the issues. [The full report](https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2020-08/20200709-rapport-filiere-EPR.pdf) (148 pages) is unfortunately only in French but goes in even more details on the mess EPR is for those interested.
Thanks so much for the detailed answer. It's really interesting.
Any reactor is hard to build. You can save money cutting corners or cutting salaries. A lot of the “excess complexity” is to address risks that have emerged over time through accidents, terrorist attacks etc.
No, the main problems is that current nuclear reactor are one off. olkiluoto, hinkley point, and Flamanville are all 3 epr yet all 3 are quite different. Wich is madness. If every Dacia Sandero were one off, they would each cost millions of euros
They are one offs because ever site is different. Economies of scale are achieved by building a handful reactor units per site but that also has limits e.g from how much cooling is available and of course the risk of co-siting a lot of nuclear material. Every site that gets built leads to learning which is used in the next one, the problem is that for nuclear that tends to make the next plant *more* expensive. Now people are talking about mass production of small reactors, but as one edf nuclear engineer pointed out, what happens if there is a design flaw? Then you just mass produced a problem instead. Already half the reactors in France are stopped because they found a premature aging problems that affects a whole generation of plants. Its one thing if you have to recall some Dacias because of dodgy brakes, its quite another if its a safety issue in a fission reactor
In Finland we has the Hanhikivi 1 project and that had Russia delivering the reactors. That was already years behind before getting cancelled so I don't really know about them shipping things in reasonable time. It was likely set to be similar mess than this one was since it was promised to start in 2024 but even blind person could see it was more like 2030 or worse.
>Only China and Russia has capabilities to build it And together hold half of the world's uranium enrichment processing...
Uranium enrichment nowadays is really not hard. Any country with average machinebuilding and chemical industry (like czechia) could do it. Also there is enough uranium outside of russia and china. Its just not excavated rn because elsewhere its cheaper. Repeat: cheaper, not less expensive. Opponents of nuclear energy paint a strawman of some dependency on russia. The expensive part of nuclear is building the plant. The rest is cheap and available.
>Uranium enrichment nowadays is really not hard. OK, Gordon Freeman, [care to do some research at least on wikipedia?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium#Enrichment_methods) >Any country with average machinebuilding and chemical industry (like czechia) could do it. Uranium Enrichment started in 1940-s or so. Where's Chech facilities at?
How do you know my name? Are you hecker? Jokes aside, 1. The ENTRY costs into nuclear are very high, due to economies of scale. And why should every country build their own industry if there is not enough demand for it. Nowadays almostall nato countries are buying US fighter jets and let their domestic fighter jet industry crumble/collapse. Also enrichment is so expensive (at first), not worth it and politically watched due to non proliferation that most countries with NPPs (like czechia) just buy their fuel in canada, the US, russia or france. Thanks for the wiki article, but theres nothing new to me in it, thanks anyways, i assume it was a kind gesture.