Let's see if those nuclear fanboys are showing up in this thread
post
Surprising absolutely nobody...
Nononono, nuclear power is cheap and safe!
Also, nuclear plants can't explode!
And don't forget the simple matter of sourcing, enriching, using, possibly reprocessing, storing, and then disposing. Simples!
No, you don't understand. Uran and the tech to enrich and process it is widely available and they all are totally not dependent on Russia. Why so many still import from Russia then and fight sanctions year after year, you ask? Well... it's because... Look! There! A squirrel!
That's the cost of around 20 GW in wind turbines btw.
A nuthead will still tell you that wind is no equivalent because of missing winds.
You might have to factor PV and batteries in to make a even better point.
Makes you think how any of the old plants were ever built. Is it just mismanagement and corruption?
I live not that far away from a (now decommissioned) nuclear power station, and from what I keep hearing from old people who lived through the time of its construction, there was a lot of lenience and looking the other way involved. For instance, (A very persistent) Rumor has it, that many houses built in the nearest town around that time, had their foundation, cellar walls, and floors poured with the heavy anti-radiation concrete intended for the power station, because quite a number of the concrete trucks destined for the containment building (which is made of an awful lot of concrete) did conveniently take a wrong turn and ended up at the wrong construction site for some odd reason. (Maybe the drivers getting a case of beer for every detour they took might have been a factor)
Makes you think how any of the old plants were ever built.
Experience. The first one you build will have massive teething problems, but then the second one will just be a copy of the first.
The problem nowadays is that we in the west go "Oh no, learning stuff was expensive! Lets not use any of that and instead never do this again!" then, ten years later we start over again.
Except this one is being built by a company owned by the French government which has loads of experience, so corruption it is.
We're talking about a country that spent Β£40.5 billion on a high speed rail, had to cut the scope because estimated cost rose 200% and reached Β£100 billion and still doesn't know when and if it will be finished. Of course they are not able to build a nuclear plant.
Chinas reactors are build for 3.5 billion and are more or less on time.
I beg to differ. For a start the 3.5 billion figure is for the reactor alone. The whole project was calculated to cost 8 billion and of course it got more expensive.
Not to be pedantic, but Wikipedia shows US$7.5 billion for the entire plan that means 3.75 billion for each reactor that is more or less in line with what stated above. Still, 7.5 is much cheaper then 35.
Well, let's start with the obvious: Why is the second Chinese bar not burgundry?
Next: Why are specific projects listed against an average for China? That's the cheapest trick in the book for skewing statistics. Compare specific instances against averages.
Finally: Sources? Trust us, bro!
Hereβs another similar article:
https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/p/china-is-mass-producing-nuclear-reactors

Hinkley Point C is getting built by EDF (France) and China General Nuclear Power Group.


top 50 comments