Og.klik påb For sources and references:
Og.klik påb Click on the yellow and see if you get useful details.
Og.klik påb Click on pictures for more details.
Og.klik påb They say Jeppe drinks.
Og.klik påb But you do not say why Jeppe drinks.

Surely this applies when you talk about nuclear energy becoming more expensive.   .

First something, apparently being facts:
When nuclear power was new and France and Sweden, together with other countries started to go nuclear.
Back then, the cost were probably half of what it today will be for the UK to get the new EPR reactors.
At the same time Korea builds and exports nuclear to the UAE at the old low prices.
China claims to be on track with the same prices and e.g. Egypt buys new nuclear power in Russia, probably because the price is lower.

Unfortunately, most players keep their cards close to the chest and it is difficult to get reliable information.
Thus we must be satisfied with the following:
– Cheapest nuclear power from an ‘old system’ (Sweden): € 26/MWh
– Cheapest nuclear power from new power plants (Korea): € 27/MWh
– Most expensive new nuclear power (Hinkley Point C): € 124/MWh
– Russia: Offer to Eastern Europe (2017) 50 €/MWh

About Korea:
World Nuclear states that the price is 3,500 €/kW (electrical capacity)
This is almost twice what appears on the graph further down the page.
It can be assumed that the price was relatively lower both because funding was not a problem and because labor is cheap in the Emirates.
But this certainly does not lift the wheel when considering the big difference.
By comparison, it is claimed that China is on its way towards 1,500 €/kW
In spite of the obvious success, the Korean government (2017 July) wants to abandon Nuclear.
About Russia:
As far as this is understood, Russian policy is providing “total offer”, which includes everything, including supply of fuel throughout the life of the plant, which is expected to reach 100 years.
Russian ROSATOM currently builds 8 nuclear power plants in Russia and 33 in other countries.
About China: Chinese nuclear power can be built in 5-6 years, and many are built.
40 until now and 20 more are under construction.
This can be done in a poor country.
About EPR, which will be built, including two in England:
From the outset, the ambitious reactor (EPR) has been a disaster with requirements for safety against near-fictional events, high budget overruns and delays.
More further down.

But still: WHY?

The following is an attempt to summarize what I think are the main reasons.

  • In what we, a bit sketchy, call the West, nuclear power became the object of hate, with never-ending  unjustified claims and demands for ever more security.
    – – – You may remember how, long time ago, it was
    – – – demanded that a man should go with a red flag in front
    – – – of cars to warn the pedestrians.
  • Instead of putting in the heels and explain that what is known and already used, nuclear has an exceptional good safety-record
    Based on operational data.
  • Yes, so they gave in, saying something in the direction of:
    “Well, if it is so important, then we may do this as well”.

In my opinion, this is here you planted the seeds of future catastrophic high price.

  • Before long, the opponents “smelled blood” and continued with new, completely unreasonable demands.
  • In Europe, as opposed to e.g. Korea and to some extent also the US, we have a precautionary principle:
    In such a way that as soon as you can say that something
    might be dangerous
    then it will be prohibited until it is proven that it is not dangerous.
    Except noise from windturbines.
  • This sounds somehow reassuring but can also be used to make exorbitant demands, most about 100% security against purely fictional events.
  • At the same time it puts the burden of proof on the accused and requires “negative proof”, something that, strictly speaking, is impossible.
    Requirements for 100% security are also against the laws of logic.
    But it is often made when “just being” against.
  • Although it can not be said to be relevant to the safety of future European nuclear power, the accidents at Chernobyl and later Fukushima, were highlighted and used as “evidence” that nuclear power will always be dangerous.


France, along with Germany, wanted to show that they were the true leaders and developed the new reactor EPR.
It should be the future reactor – Generation III

Such a single reactor will provide about as much electricity as all the Danish wind turbines TOTAL.

It should be cheaper and better.
It should be able to use
– Burn – waste from previous reactors.

In this way it is hoped to solve one of the many
non-existent problems.
Finland, where they needed more nuclear power, should be what turned out to be a very expensive test case. Olkiluoto-3

  • Soon you see endless delays and allegations of poor work from various subcontractors.
  • Overruns and eventually costs for sharing the responsibilities.
  • Germany had long since pulled out and the French supplier regrets bitterly.
  • In Finland, you become tired of waiting.
    They break the political kollationen with the green and start negotiating with Russia.
    They can supply some of the “old and familiar” (Hanhikivi-1) and would like to get influence.
  • Then:
    As the first green Party in Europe, the Greens in Finland see the realities and are in favor of nuclear (2018)
  • Countries who have just freed themselves from Russian domination, will have to go to Russia to extend their energy supply.
  • Turkey, Bangladesh and several other countries also go to Russia to get help.


  • England began to understand that something had to be done.
    Aparently they were afraid of the usual criticism and did not dare anything, but to go forward with two new reactors:
    EPR also from Areva.
    They will hopefully meet all safety requirements – both real and fictional.
  • Perhaps for fear of being treated like in Germany the supplier required a very high guaranteed price for the electricity to be supplied.
  • Although the price (124 €/MWh) is prohibitively high, it is still less than what is paid for other non-polluting energy.
  • Along with Austria, Greenpeace adopts a case before the European Court and promises to do everything for it to be as expensive and delaied as possible.
  • Due to EU obligations to private capital, China comes into the picture as an investor.

While we wait, so the improper discussion goes on.


  • The disastrous delays in Finland is used as proof that nuclear power (always) will require an inordinate amount of construction time.
  • It is sidestepped that in China and Korea comply with schedules – Five years or less.
  • The long negotiation process before you could begin actual work on the UK EPR is counted as “construction” so that everyone can understand how the time for building will eventually be disastrously long.
  • In the meantime China finish their first EPR reactor after nine years. (From first concrete to first power).
    In China nine years is a long time.

China will take over
While we in the West sit and bite our nails the market is taken over by Russia, Korea and China.
Maybe because they have been able to say to Greenpeace and others something like the following:
“Will you please be quiet when you do not know what you’re talking about.”
As senior engineer Kampman said to the “famous” architect Arne Jakobsen.

I sat in the drawing-office and can attest that everything went up in a mess as Kampman died.


  • There are many indications that this very ambitious design (EPR) was not actually worked out before you started. (Critical Path)
  • Apart from a popular demand, there are not many reasons for the many extra / redundant safety measures.
  • At this stage it is difficult to find technical reasons for the desire to utilize existing waste instead of leaving it until one has better knowledge or have a real need to use it.

But no matter what, you have been able to plan a more regular production in Russia, China and Korea.


If the aim is to make it difficult and expensive, then demolishing after use will be a good item.
The hopeles discussions after the German clousure can be compared to the costs in France.

From the big world

nuclear-costs-against-date-of-construction-start It is seen that Russia and China are missing.
Maybe because in a “state economy”, you can not or will not give information about prices.

A very detailed assessment on Alternative Energy/Nuclear Power
explains the large cost-fluctuations between 1975 and 1985
These are reactors that were under construction at the same time as the hysteria after the accident on the Three Mile Island. (1975)

Some countries like the U.S., Canada, Japan and W Germany responded to the Three Mile Island accident by imposing regulations that pushed construction costs through the roof, while France, S Korea and India did not.

Click at the little square to see how the hysteria influenced the developments in USA but not in France.

zz Kina.png

From the same source, this chart shows that poor countries like Russia, and especially China, have both the resources and the willingness to move forward.

The above about the price development after the accident at Tree Mile Island is confirmed by Vikipedia, which among other things writes:
Large and rapid increases in costs occurred in the 1970s, especially in the United States.
There was no new construction of nuclear reactors between 1979 and 2012 in the United States.

Some loose details

  • The usual rule of thumb for nuclear power is that about two thirds of the generation cost is accounted for by fixed costs: Construction and finansiering.
  • To avoid that an un-planned closure will spread as a domino effect through the network, each device should not have a capacity of more than 10% of what is further online.
  • The average construction period for new reactors starting up in 2015 was 73 months, compared to 127 months of 2014.
  • In Japan and France, construction costs and delays are considerably reduced because of streamlined licensing and certification procedures.
  • Russia has accumulated a large export.
    Probably because they are cheap.
  • From Wikipedia is quoted as follows:
    The price of new plants in China is falling rapidly, approaching
    $ 1500/kW
  • In June 2008 it is estimated that the cost of installing new nuclear capacity in the U.S. might possibly exceed $ 7000/kW in final cost.
    A little more than four times what you can get by with in China.

From another post, also in Wikipedia, is quoted as follows:
The AP1000 is a pressurized water reactor with two cooling loops, planned two produce a net power output of 1117 MW
A design aim was to be less expensive to build than other Generation III Designs.
Using existing technology, and needing less components than competing designs that have three or four cooling loops.
black[The EPR has four cooling loops.]
The design decreases the number of components, including pipes, wires, and valves.
Standardization and type-licensing will also help reducing the time and cost of construction.

Because of its simplified design compared to a Westinghouse PWR generation II, the AP1000 has:
—– • 50% Fewer safety-related valves
—– • 35% Fewer pumps
—– • 80% less safety-related piping
—– • 85% less control cable
—– • 45% less seismic building volume
—– • 80% less concrete and reinforcement
The AP1000 design is considerably more compact in land usage than most existing PWRs. [Pressurized Water Reactors]
According to NRC, [U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission]
the plants will be orders of magnitude safer than plants in the last study.
The AP1000 will have a maximum core damage frequency of
5 × 10 ^ -7 per plant per year.
Of course, there has been criticism based on alleged safety concerns.
We are waiting for reality / prices.

The highly successful Korean reactor APR 1400 has, like the AP1000, two independent cooling systems and a calculated Core Damage Frequency less than 10 ^ -5 / year
Corresponding to a return period of 100,000 years
This is less than the very expensive EPR to be built in the UK, also less than the above-mentioned AP1000
For the record I repeat that a core meltdown will, in all probability / experience, not result in injuries.

Maybe that’s why

From The Energy Collective I quote as follows:
The current policy, which aims to appease public concern rather than educate / explain the radiation has caused that plans for new nuclear power plants has been stifled by unwarranted law-given obstacles and escalating costs, resulting in non-competitive energy prices and increased emissions of CO2.
The natural reaction has been to improve the physical security of reactors further.
Unfortunately, attempts are desperately to applying the wrong solution and thereby drive costs up.
Absolutely no reason.
This is the story of Hinkley C, maybe, that is designed to be safe beyond the limits of what is buildable, economic / objectively necessary.

My conclusion

In conclusion to the above, I would argue that nuclear power has been tricked / forced into a costly security level, far exceeding what is reasonable and what you see / require from other sources of energy.

To avoid misunderstanding, I emphasize that noise damage from wind turbines naturally shoul be included in an assessment of the damage.
In turn, the potential damage from radiation has been wildly exaggerated.


Before calling for and implementing corresponding costly extra safety of other energy sources, the recurring demands for more security at nuclear power can best be described as redundant or rather:
Conscious Devastating.


It is beyond doubt that these demands for costly redundant safety has contributed to the looming climate catastrophe.

In my opinion, the problem occurred after a rampant and skillful propaganda where everything just smelling of nuclear or radioactive contamination is done to be a major risk.
See http://wp.me/p1RKWc-mu

What then?

It is easy to be wise after the event. But we must urgently do something to pull the chestnuts out of the fire.
We – what is superficial called the West – We must recognize that the expensive and advanced EPR reactor was a mistake with hopelessly many obsolete and very expensive security measures.
——– If you, my unknown reader, are reluctant to accept the term
——– REDUNDANT SAFETY I ask you to go to another page:
——– (Unnecessary) Safety of Nuclear Power.

Western nuclear is in Deep Troubles.


We – England and others – have to bite the bullet and negotiate with Korea, Russia or China and get help to move on.
For the same money you need to pay the two planned EPR reactors, one can get familiar and proven reactors – with a capacity three times as much.

These “Generation II+ reactors”, that have been exported from Korea, will have a security that far surpasses what you see at other energy sources.
The only serious potential accidents will be in connection with a core meltdown.
Return period for this serious accident is calculated to be 100,000 years.
Far more than the 15,000 years that has been experienced with existing reactors.
Despite all talks, the many existing reactors are running fine.
Even such a core meltdown will in all likelihood / experience not be associated with release of radioactive material and will hardly cause injuries.

What the hell are we waiting for ?

Yes we are waiting for the public to understand that we have been mislead by “The Green”.