> Compare it to Swedish electricity prices in the winter which are around SEK 3/kWh, or roughly €300/MWh.
The averge electricity price in SE3 this winter, which had nuclear outages, was €100-110/MWh.
New built nuclear power requires €170-230/MWh for 40 years after the completion. Adding on taxes, VAT etc. means that to power the average Swedish home with new built nuclear power the average monthly bill needs to be €540. That is summer as winter.
Using extremely CAPEX heavy nuclear power to fix problems existing a few percent of the year is economic lunacy.
Where are you getting those numbers? I can't find a single source that quotes levelized cost of new nuclear above €150/MWH for newly constructed nuclear?
Below €100/MWh is pure fantasy. The proposed subsidy scheme for the French EPR2 fleet is a €100/MWh CFD for 40 years and interest free loans. Summing up to ~€200/MWh in total.
Your source provided several numbers for nuclear. One is $34/MWH, which is a average cost of existing plants, another number is $169/MWH a number they describe as "Represents illustrative LCOE values for Vogtle nuclear plant’s units 3 and 4"
Your source doesn't even support your statement!
As for Hinckley, I have 2 objections. A you have cherry picked the least cost effective reactor in the world, and are trying to pass it off as typical, and B, it's levelized cost of energy is £128/MWh which translates to €146.
Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.
Unfortunately the anti-nuclear crowd in Europe has a very loose relationship with reality, but I think it's only prudent we stick to actual numbers here on HN.
Relevant excerpt from the Wikipedia article:
For example, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), based on undisclosed portfolio of projects, estimated nuclear power LCOE at €190-375/MWh which is up to 900% higher than the published LCOE of €30/MWh for an actual existing Olkiluoto nuclear power plant, even after accounting for construction delays in OL3 block, although this number is based on an average LCOE with new and old reactors.
My data might be old, but at least it isn't made up!
Did you even read the footnote of the number you linked?
> The analysis is based on publicly available estimates and suggestions from selected industry experts, indicating a cost “learning curve” of ~30% between Vogtle units 3 and 4. Analysis assumes total operating capacity of ~2.2 GW, total capital cost of ~$32.3 billion, capacity factor of ~97%, operating life of 70 years and other operating parameters estimated by Lazard’s LCOE v14.0 results, adjusted for inflation.
97% capacity factor for 70 years. Meaning for a "Vogtle" started today, i.e. entering planning in 2006 and operational by 2023 = 17 years we have:
2026 + 17 + 70 = 2114
Do you realize the absolute insanity of trying to predict the profitability of a new built nuclear plant into the 2100s? For anyone with a basic level of economic understanding that number is an admission that new built nuclear power is absolute insanity.
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
And now you see the next part. That 97% capacity factor is also insanity in a world increasingly driven by renewables. EDF is today having trouble with their capacity factors reducing. How do you think that will play out?
> Since we're apparently in the business of cherry picking, I chose Olkiluoto, with a levelized cost of €30/MWH.
You do know that's wrong? Olkiluoto is also sitting up there with Hinkley, Flamanville and similar, but there are no public figures on the total cost. Only the settlement half a decade before the plant was completed, as costs and interest kept accumulating.
The only difference is that they signed a fixed price contract and the French paid for the vast majority of the plant. So you can in some cases argue that the Finnish side had an acceptable cost.
Not sure how you'll get the French to pay for this new built nuclear plant of yours. But I'm sure you'll work something out.
Flamanville 3 is also sitting at ~180 per MWh. I also love that you quickly dimissed Hinkley Point C as the "worst project ever", even though the contract was signed before they even started building.
Why don't you dare face reality? Why must new built nuclear power be the solution no matter the cost?
Do you dare look up the proposed subsidies for Sizewell C? Even before they have started building the expect cost is almost up there with Hinkley Point C.
EDF is at this point refusing any notion of a fixed price contract and are instead forcing a pure cost-plus expected profit pay as you go financing scheme. Where the ratepayers today pay enormous sums to maybe get some electricity in the 2040s.
Have you looked at the Polish subsidy scheme?
- The state gives a direct handout of ~€15B
- The state takes all financial and construction risk
- The plant gets a 40 year CFD which is adjusted to guarantee a profit for the plant.
How can you square that with your view of nuclear power being cheap to build?
I am saying that trying to justify new built nuclear power by projecting an economic life into the 2100s is just accepting that nuclear power is horrifyingly expensive but trying to use economic terms the general public does not understand to smudge the picture.
You also do realize that to have a nuclear reactor be operational for ~80 years everything but the outer shell and reactor pressure vessel is replaced. How cheap do you think that is?
The French have projected the cost to operate their paid off fleet until EOL to be €65 per MWh.
Are you starting to realize the conundrum? Or will you cherry-pick another study to not have to face reality?
I think you should show some curiosity. You are using the few sentences you cherry-picked from that Wikipedia article to shield yourself from reality.
What I linked was not a lobby group, but one of the largest institutional investors in the energy space.
And you did the same thing in that document. Finding the lowest number where the calculations they are based on make their real world application near non-existent.
It’s the report authors saying: even if we assume absolutely insane numbers new built nuclear power is still horrifyingly expensive.
You can go through comments and ask your favorite chat bot about the statements I have made. You will find that all are true, within the margin of error of like this not remembering if the source number was euros or usd.
How many trillions in subsidies should we hand out to "try one more time" with nuclear power when renewables and storage already is the cheapest energy source in human history?
Achieving putative cost reduction from Nth-of-a-kind plants would involve large subsidies of large numbers of plants. The cost could well be in 13 digits.
Because the commission is proposed by the national governments through the European council.
Meaning any attempt at making the commission directly elected reduces the national governments powers.
What you see isn’t the commission watering down the proposals, what you see is the natural tug of war between the national governments and the European Parliament.
The problem is the economics. They’re just horrifyingly expensive to build. The equivalent to each new large scale reactor in GWe requires tens of billions in subsidies.
The next problem comes from incentives. Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?
Why should their neighbors not buy surplus renewables and instead pay out of their nose for expensive nuclear powered electricity?
EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for the existing french nuclear fleet. Let alone the horrifyingly expensive new builds.
And that is France which has been actively shielding its inflexible aging nuclear fleet from renewable competition, and it still leaks in on pure economics.
The French have used their nuclear system for 20+ years as a giving tree.
The forced EDF to sell nuclear at very cheap prices to fossil fuel companies and then buy it back at much higher price.
The French forced EDF to give subsides to solar even when that actually hurts their economics.
The French randomly in the 2010s decided to replace nuclear in a short time-frame (completely 100% unrealistic) but it sounds good to politicians. And they decided to delay all maintenance and didn't do any of the upgrades many other nations did.
Once of the secrets of French nuclear is, that their grandfather were so good in providing them these nuclear plants, the french absolutely suck at running them. Other countries like the US and ironically Germany managed to run their reactors at higher factors.
The problem is the solar is cheap when its being produced and makes the economics of base lose worse, without actually solving base load. Solar has been cross subsidized this way for a long time. And has been more explicitly subsidized. But its a private good, it helps only private people, it is negative on a system level.
Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.
> Why should anyone with solar or storage buy this expensive grid based nuclear electricity?
If somebody privately wants to build solar/storage that's fine, but they should get no support. Also prices should be adjust to actually reflect peak demand. Historically the way the system operated is with much simpler pricing models because it was understood that everybody shares in this infrastructure. In such a situation, the majority of people wouldn't build solar and batteries.
But really, the question we should ask, what the best thing to run a modern economy on and the German solution of 'lets build a massive electricity pipeline to solar farms in Greece' isn't a great model.
All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.
Then when asked what method to price in the Swedish nuclear fleet having ~50% of capacity offline multiple times last year and France famously having 50% of the capacity offline during the energy crisis I always get crickets for answers.
It’s apparently fine when nuclear plants doesn’t deliver, but not renewables.
The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
> Once you think on a systemic level, how to provide reliable energy for a whole country, nuclear is not more expensive and France saved a huge amount of money buy doing what they did.
Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
The French made a good choice half a century ago. The equivalent choice in 2026 are renewables and storage.
Just look at the proposed EPR2 fleet. A 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans. Summing up to over 20 cents per kWh for the electricity. With the first reactor coming online at the earliest in 2038.
It’s just complete insanity at this point.
> All this new energy transfer infrastructure is incredibly expensive. It cost at least as much as the generation itself, and sometimes more.
The 10 GW HVDC links being built costs €20B. That’s equivalent to the subsidies needed for one new large scale reactor. Then you have the market price of electricity on top of that.
France has treated its nuclear fleet like literally shit. They have literally delayed maintenance because the government believed that they were just about to replace all nuclear with renewables. In addition to that, France has so much nuclear that they have become incredibly lax in operating their nuclear, they take ages to do basic shit most other countries do in just a few days. All of this is literally just related to the French government of the last 10-20 years not giving a shit about nuclear.
The reality is that in most western countries even 50+ year old nuclear plants often have an 80% uptime and usually are down at times when the capacity is not needed. If a government properly cares for their reactors, up-times of 90-95% are very possible.
Switzerland has a capacity factor of 90% with some of the oldest reactors in the world.
> The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
The fact is that is overall much less available and much less flexible on when you do the generation and when you want more or less energy.
> Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
Nuclear is to slow is something renewable fans have been arguing since the 1970s.
The fact about cost is that on a system level its cheaper and France has been able to have cheaper energy then Germany for the last 50+ years.
Once you don't just look at generation but total cost, including all the cost of building out the grid, the cost is much higher. And if you ever want to be 100% renewable you better have weeks of battery at least, and that is a thing people barley calculate. Gas peakers plants will remain the solution for a very long time and when gas prices go up, it will cause an energy crisis.
In addition you will need to replace the wind energy far sooner.
In addition, with nuclear, a huge part of the cost is going to salaries of local highly educated people and technicians. You capture much more of the value in your own economy for the next 60+ years.
> Given that new built nuclear power costs 18-24 cents per kWh and won’t come online until the 2040s what you’re trying to tell me is that multiplying the current electricity cost 3-4x and creating a self made energy crisis isn’t so bad.
> Just look at the proposed EPR2 fleet. A 11 cent per kWh CFD and interest free loans. Summing up to over 20 cents per kWh for the electricity. With the first reactor coming online at the earliest in 2038.
The West has so totally and completely fucked the industry and did every possible thing wrong for the last 30 years. And now we are paying for it. This is what 30+ years of renewable orthodox has brought us, high energy prices and a complete collapse of the nuclear industry. France has dropped all its advanced reactor as well now we are building EPRs again. Its beyond sad.
What we could build are APR1400 units like in the UAE. If you do a proper build, yes it takes 10 year for the first to finish but after you start a new years 3 years later, and then another every year and then 2 each after that and later 3 each year. In 20 you can build pretty much as much capacity as you need and your learning curve is going to be amazing, likely you will finish a new build in less then 5 years at much lower cost. The problem is if you only look at 'when will the first reactor finish' instead of 'how fast can we build 20 reactors'.
Capital-recovery component for APR1400 alone works out to about 3.2–4.3 US¢/kWh at 5–7% financing, but this is for only 4 reactors built in with no background. But we should finance this with government bonds directly, so really capital alone is only 2 USc/kWh and less as build cost go down the learning curve. The fuel cost is also only 3-4 USc/kWh (hopefully we again have reliable European fuel and reduce the price further, another thing destroyed by the last 30 years). And operation and maintenance around 10USc/kWh isn't crazy for a proper fleet with centralized staff training and local industry.
As with everything in nuclear, one nation building 1 plant is going to be expensive and makes the numbers look worse then they are. And remember this was build in a country with no experience and no train workforce and only 4 reactors built, not the 10s of reactors people should build. A country like Poland could easily do a 20 year flash build program, and that would be much faster for them then Poland.
> The 10 GW HVDC links being built costs €20B. That’s equivalent to the subsidies needed for one new large scale reactor. Then you have the market price of electricity on top of that.
> Are you starting to realize the conundrum?
Try looking up total grid upgrade cost if you want to achieve 100% renewables. We are literally talking the same amount of money as all the generation combined. I heard interviews with people responsible for even only part of Germany where they admitted they will have to go to private markets to fund 100+ billion $ in investments. And these investors will want their money back. Total grid cost will be higher then to total cost of renewable installs. And of course wind turbines need to be rebuilt.
But I guess Germany is making it easier on itself by losing so much industry that they have fewer problems in the future for renewables to solve. Germany by the way since 2018 is spending 50 billion $ per year on direct energy subsidies. Yes that is partly heating but France because of its cheap electricity has far more heating converted to electric. So it is related to electricity policy.
What I want is rock solid energy that is reliable and served from a simple centralized grid, nuclear + 1-2h battery peak shaving with lithium or sodium batteries. Anything longer then that isn't great. Not some scheme where we somehow hope that the combination of Greek solar and Danish wind produce enough, and then trying produce hydrogen in Canada and ship it to Germany, or whatever other nonsense people want to come up with.
The current proto-market system has all the wrong intensives built in and we were much better of in a system where there was simply one centralized utility that made rational engineering choices about how to get cheap energy to everybody.
Not to mention that having a well functioning nuclear industry has lots of other advantages that 'buy solar panels from China' doesn't bring.
The subsidies for the EPR2 fleet is a 10 euro cents per kWh CFD and interest free loans. With the first reactor coming online in 2038 at the earliest.
That sums up towards 20 cents per kWh in total.
It’s an absolutely horrifyingly expensive boondoggle before they have even started, and it won’t deliver any electricity in the relevant timeframes for electrifying industry and society.
On top of this EDF is already crying about renewables cratering the earning potential and increasing maintenance costs for their existing paid off nuclear fleet. Let alone new builds.
And that is France which has been extremely protectionistic shielding their nuclear fleet from renewable
competition, and even then its already leaking in on pure economics.
A 10c€/kWh CfD is not strictly speaking a subsidy, at the government will recover the average market price.
That being said, the total cost per kWh could well reach 20c/kWh, which is ridiculous. It's not only not competitive against renewables, but also not competitive with natural gas (CCGT are probably around 10-15c€/kWh).
The average day ahead price in France in 2025 was 6 cents per kWh.
This is with carbon trading starting to make fossil production very expensive, on top of LNG fossil gas. Which will quickly start to diminish as more renewables and storage comes online.
While the CFD runs for 40 years so into the 2080s for all but the first reactor.
Then when asked what method to price in the Swedish nuclear fleet having ~50% of capacity offline multiple times last year and France famously having 50% of the capacity offline during the energy crisis I always get crickets for answers.
It’s apparently fine when nuclear plants doesn’t deliver, but not renewables.
The difference with renewables is that it’s even easier to manage. Their intermittency is entirely expected and the law of large numbers ensure we never have half the capacity offline due to technical issues at the same time.
That’s just a consequence of how they bid. The marginal cost for a renewable plant is zero. It’s non-zero for nuclear power.
But nuclear power don’t want to shut down since that both increases wear and tear and makes them unable to capture revenue when the prices become higher again.
So they bid negative expecting to eat the losses and let more flexible plant shut down first.
Hydropower and solar have much lower operating costs.
All thermal power plants experience wear and tear and have to be regularly repaired and maintained. Nuclear power plants can load-follow (within technical limits), but as the operating costs (maintance, repair, staffing, fuel) are much lower then capital costs it makes economic sense to run them at full power.
The averge electricity price in SE3 this winter, which had nuclear outages, was €100-110/MWh.
New built nuclear power requires €170-230/MWh for 40 years after the completion. Adding on taxes, VAT etc. means that to power the average Swedish home with new built nuclear power the average monthly bill needs to be €540. That is summer as winter.
Using extremely CAPEX heavy nuclear power to fix problems existing a few percent of the year is economic lunacy.
reply