"France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (€290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less €400 billion."
Whoever managed to build plants in the past must have retired. "Flamanville is just one of three projects being built in Europe using the next-generation EPR technology. The other two are the Olkiluoto project in Finland, which is more than a decade late, and the UK’s Hinkley Point, which is also delayed and mired in controversy over its high costs."
https://www.ft.com/content/877eedae-f987-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d...
Yes, in theory new nuclear plants could be small, modular and safe.
In practice, the biggest challenge is political rather than technical. How do you set up institutions that can deliver these projects on time and on budget?
In the time these plants have been delayed, solar prices have dropped more than 80%. By the time they're scheduled to be finished, solar should cost 50% less than today.
Germany overpaid by a lot, which is the price for building a local industry and being pioneers in a new technology. I hope it works out for them. Either way, humanity will owe them a debt for this.
Many (mostly indirect) costs related to nuke plants construction in France were not published and therefore cannot be taken into account.
Some were military programs aiming at producing weapon-grade plutonium (=> opaque budgets), part of them necessary to the plants. In fact it was the main political reason behind the French nuclear program, and the inherited opacity remains.
Part of this are R&D paid for by the taxpayer under other programs, many not financially linked to nuke plants, mainly done by a huge and very costly monster named CEA (its current yearly budget is 4.7 billion euros).
I so happen to disagree, but well reasoned point. However, please abstain from using theory in that context. What you mean is a conjecture, or hypothesis. Anything substantiated by evidence is in fact a theory. Those that are not are hypotheses. In fact, theories work in practice. That’s why they are theories - quantum theory, germ theory, general and special relativity theory. Etc..
Whoever managed to build plants in the past must have retired. "Flamanville is just one of three projects being built in Europe using the next-generation EPR technology. The other two are the Olkiluoto project in Finland, which is more than a decade late, and the UK’s Hinkley Point, which is also delayed and mired in controversy over its high costs." https://www.ft.com/content/877eedae-f987-11e9-a354-36acbbb0d...
Yes, in theory new nuclear plants could be small, modular and safe.
In practice, the biggest challenge is political rather than technical. How do you set up institutions that can deliver these projects on time and on budget?
In the time these plants have been delayed, solar prices have dropped more than 80%. By the time they're scheduled to be finished, solar should cost 50% less than today.
Germany overpaid by a lot, which is the price for building a local industry and being pioneers in a new technology. I hope it works out for them. Either way, humanity will owe them a debt for this.