Yes, because we stopped building. Once we start building again, those problems go away by themselves.
And no, the handout of tax money you complain about is to intermittent renewables, not to nuclear. Exactly the reverse of your claims. Just look at the EDF financial reports. Nuclear produces profits that are returned to their owner, despite having to finance ARENH.
Oh, of course EDF does receive state subsidies. For their intermittent renewables projects. Ba-da-dumm-tss.
Same in Germany: renewables are subsidized in production with around €20 billion per year just for the EEG, never mind the feed-in priority they get that lets them shunt the massive problems of their intermittency onto the other suppliers. That's probably worth more. Oh, and the preferential loan conditions and reduced regulatory burden etc.
Nuclear power in Germany never got a single cent for production. And had to account for all the sorts of costs others get to externalize, such as waste.
So once again: exactly the opposite of your claims.
The problem is not building new. The problem is building the first new.
For evidence of this, just look to China: they also built FOAK AP-1000 (Vogtle) and EPR (FV3, HPC).
And lo-and-behold: their FOAK versions of these also took around 10 years to build, whereas China typically builds in 5, so twice as long. In absolute terms they were a little faster, because they actually have industrial experience with nuclear (currently building 20+ reactors, lots more planned), the thing that needs to be rebuilt in Europe and the US.
Nowadays, they are building their NOAK AP-1000s in 5 years, for $3.5 bn. They didn't go for more EPR, as the AP-1000 is a better design. The EPR also hasn't won any of the recent tenders for nuclear reactors, for example in Poland (AP-1000) and the Czech Republic (South Korean APR-1400)
So to repeat: the problems with FOAK builds are well-known, as are the ones with building up nuclear expertise in a country. These go away by themselves once you build a number plants, preferable of the same design. The problems with the EPR design go away once you stop building EPRs.
Now these are actual facts.
Whereas all you've come up with is empty slogans and emotional fantasies.
Then trying to justify it with paid off nuclear plants.
So it will be profitable sometime in 2060? Until then we should just persist with horrifyingly expensive electricity as they get paid off?
That sounds like a lunatic talking.
There’s no feed in priority. Renewables just bid zero which is their marginal cost. Nuclear power bids negative until prices are so low for so long that they withdraw from the grid.
You can try to force nuclear costs on the consumers but that will only lead to an explosion of rooftop solar and home storage.
I also love how everything becomes ”FOAK” when you need to justify the boondoggles.
Apparently reactor 5 and 6 of the EPR line is now ”First of a Kind”. That does not seem very logical to me.
You know that nuclear power as a share of the Chinese grid is backsliding? They also keep pushing their targets further into the future and lowering them.
And South Korea then withdrew from all other bids in Europe after the settlement with Westinghouse.
The Polish AP-1000 lands somewhere around €180/MWh when considering all costs and subsidies.
Then you blather on about FOAK while making it blindingly obvious that you are in over your head. You do know that we have research on it rather than you making up ”facts”?
> If you look at the data specifically you're going to find learning but for that there's a several requirements:
> - It has to be the same site
> - It has to be the same constructor
> - It has to be at least two years of of gap between one construction to the next
> - It has to be constant labor laws
> - It has to be a constant regulatory regime
> When you add these five you only get like four or five examples in the world.
From a nuclear energy professor at MIT in the Decouple nuclear power industry podcast, giving an overly positive but still sober image regarding the nuclear industry as it exists today.
But that is something a trillion dollars in a handout will fix! Any day now! They'll start paying it back.... never!
Insanity.
You keep posting this talking point, despite the fact that it is patently untrue, and in fact the reverse is true.
Please stop.
While of course still being unable to compete on marginal price leading to them being forced out of the market regularly.
Just another trillion in handouts to get there! When will they get paid back? Never!