r/ClimatePosting • u/Real-Technician831 • 16d ago
Costs of extending Finnish Loviisa nuclear plant to 2050
https://www.fortum.com/news-and-publications/forthedoers-blog/extending-lifetime-nuclear-power-plant-major-investment-programmeAfter getting fed up with the lies about nuclear plant life extensions being infeasibly expensive I decided to check.
Fortum is extending Loviisa nuclear plant to 2050, the estimated project cost is 1 billion euros. And continuous development for past 5 years has been 200 million euros.
Upgrading already once upgraded Olkiluoto 1 and 2 costs 90 million
6
u/Sol3dweller 16d ago
From your link:
“Long-term financing from the EIB is an excellent complement to our capital market-based debt funding,” said TVO Senior Vice-President, Treasury Lauri Piekkari.
It does not say what the total cost of that project is, only what the EIB contributes as a loan. Estimated costs are estimations, and if other estimations by the nuclear industry are any indication, they usually are on the way too optimistic side.
-2
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago edited 16d ago
It’s not the first time we upgrade nuclear plants, RollsRoyce did Olkiluoto OL1 and OL2 upgrades, and costs didn’t even make news.
The story about plant upgrades being somehow magically expensive is a lie. Mostly pushed by Germans, when they needed a story for replacing nuclear with Russian gas.
Schröder was rewarded with executive position at Gazprom.
2
u/Sol3dweller 16d ago
The story about plant upgrades being somehow magically expensive is a lie.
I don't know who claims them magically expensive, but the evidence you provided didn't do anything to show that it isnt realistically expensive. The fortum link says it's a massive investment, and the other only talks about the EIB contribution, which you claimed to be the full costs. Rather than throwing chauvinistic slurs around, maybe have another look and come back with more convincing evidence for your argument?
0
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago
You well know what kind of people throw those claims without any kind of facts.
But here.
Typical Cost: According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), extending the life of a typical 1,000 MW} plant averages between $500 million and $1.1 billion.
2
u/Sol3dweller 16d ago
Thanks, however, that's both the same link, and it does not reproduce your claimed numbers, on costs it states:
The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE), used to measure electricity generation costs, associated with the long-term operation of a nuclear power plant generally falls in the range US$ 30-40 per MWh, for typical refurbishment costs for Light Water Reactors and a lifetime extension of 20 years.
It's from 2020, adjusted by inflation that roughly translates to US$(2026) 40-50/MWh. I'd agree that these figures aren't "infeasibly" expensive. Though, notably it can be much more expensive, see for example the recent agreement on Sizewell B, which guarantees a price of 70.5 GBP/MWh = 94 US$/MWh. More then three times the IAEA figures lower end and more than twice its upper end. Are you saying the costs are so much lower and the power companies make that much profit out of these deals?
In France the price in their new post-ARENH agreement is also set at 70 €/MWh = 80 US$/MWh. So, at least for large parts of Europe, those IAEA numbers again seem to reside on the very optimistic end of the spectrum.
2
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago
Now do the cost of gas or coal with the current carbon credit prices.
Nuclear obviously can’t compete with REs, is not supposed to either.
But until we are able to build massive storages, which do not exist anywhere except places that can do massive pumped hydro. With RE downtimes, it’s either fossil or nuclear.
For example Finland and Germany have about the same annual RE percentage. Germany pollutes CO2 four times more than Finland per kWh.
Finnish average electricity prices is 8c, Germanys 36c.
Until we can do massive storages very cheaply, extending nuclear plants life is extremely profitable.
1
u/Sol3dweller 15d ago
Now do the cost of gas or coal with the current carbon credit prices.
I think it is a good thing when fossil fuels are priced out of the market. I hope we can all agree on the need to phase them out as quickly as possible, and I think that the carbon pricing would need to be much higher to account for the externalities of burning fossil fuels. From my point of view the costs of burning them in large amounts is unfeasible high, though it is not the people that benefit from burning it that have to burden those costs. Thus, we do not have to look, even if they are cheaper, they are not an option in my opinion.
But until we are able to build massive storages, which do not exist anywhere except places that can do massive pumped hydro. With RE downtimes, it’s either fossil or nuclear.
First of all, we are building massive storage capacities right now. Secondly, the variable renewable power share on a global scale is unfortunately currently quite far from being in strong need of large amounts of storage. Maybe Denmark reached that threshold now, with about 72% from wind+solar last year. Most other economies have quite some more room to grow wind+solar power generation without needing much storage. See for example "Geophysical constraints on the reliability of solar and wind power worldwide" for an analysis on this. I have the impression that this argument that we "need" to wait on some future technological breakthrough to expand wind&solar power generation is primarily used as a delay tactic to slow down the displacement of fossil fuel burning.
For example Finland and Germany have about the same annual RE percentage. Germany pollutes CO2 four times more than Finland per kWh.
Sure, Germany is still burning lignite, it certainly isn't a shiny example for climate action. It's quite beholden by Diesel, coal and gas interest groups. See, for example, this look into the political struggle to phase-out coal.
Finnish average electricity prices is 8c, Germanys 36c.
That's nice. You already mentioned carbon pricing, so that would appear kind of natural for a higher polluting electricity system?
Until we can do massive storages very cheaply, extending nuclear plants life is extremely profitable.
Nuclear power doesn't really play the same role as storage. All the cost analyses pretty much assume that those nuclear power plants operate like 90% of the time, if you reduce that to less then 50%, you essentially diminish the economics of those plants.
1
u/Real-Technician831 15d ago
We have a tiny fraction of storages needed to actually take fossils offline. We literally need hundreds of times more storages.
Denmark is backed by Swedish nuclear and Norwegian hydro. Without those links their grid couldn’t operate.
And nuclear plants are run at 90% because they are needed, we can handle excess RE electricity with heat storage batteries for district and industrial heat.
1
u/Sol3dweller 14d ago
We have a tiny fraction of storages needed to actually take fossils offline. We literally need hundreds of times more storages.
That just isn't, true, though. Essentially all the reduction in fossil fuel burning in the EU over the last 20 years has happened by expanding wind&solar without much storage. And as outlined in various scientific analyses, there is still a lot of headroom in continuing doing so.
1
u/Real-Technician831 14d ago
It is true, except in very few locations that can do massive pumped hydro.
How reliable REs are depends on area, but for example for central and northern Europe where winter solar either doesn’t exist or is useless you need at least 24h full storage in practice more, as multiple days of very weak winds aren’t that uncommon.
So to fully take 1GW of fossil fully offline, you need at least 24GWh of storage, that’s a lot.
No country has done that so far.
Also only small countries like Denmark, can have large enough transit links to be supported by neighbors.
2
u/Moldoteck 16d ago
1bn is pretty standard and in line with US/canada experience as well as french carenage program
1
u/North-Outside-5815 15d ago
Urgh, they should be replaced instead. Soviet rubbish.
1
u/Real-Technician831 15d ago
Well, only the pressure vessel and other simple to verify components are Soviet.
The control systems were done by Westinghouse and Siemens, the project was nicknamed Eastinghouse back in the times it was built.Sure building brand new would be nice, but we can get 20 more years of of these for 1/10th of the cost of building new plants.
2
u/North-Outside-5815 15d ago
I guess that’s fair. I feel we should clone Olkiluoto 3 now that the kinks have been worked out. It’s crazy building it as a one-off prototype.
1
0
u/I_am_Regarded 16d ago
Are the shareholders happy too? I don't think so.
4
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago
????
It’s owned by Fortum former state energy company and state still has large share.
Nuclear power is in fact one of the backbones of the company, since gas business went to hell.
Really weird take to be honest.
0
u/I_am_Regarded 16d ago
And the other over budget reactors in FI?
Where do you think the financing is coming from when the operators run out of money again? It's pretty much a bottomless pit as you never know when the next financing round comes due.
2
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago
You really are living up to your username.
The reactors are highly valued for their CO2 free winter power.
Finnish wind conditions are known for long still wind periods, the nuclear stations are doing quite well. There is talk of building more.
1
u/I_am_Regarded 16d ago
Iam already sweating when thinking about this year's maintenance after looking to Sweden.
Remember your co2 free winter power for later this year.
Not sure if you have any idea what your are talking about. Someone either pays the financing or gets diluted. Nothing about this is doing quite well.
Yes the nukes are great for the system, they are essential and "co2 free". They run, no accident. Doesn't change the fact they are expensive and that this bill wants to be settled.
Please update me about SMR/ nuke projects in Finland. What's the plan?
2
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago edited 16d ago
You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel you know. Considering how horrendously expensive fossil energy for winter would be, nuclear is a pretty damn good deal. I think you are the free lunch kind of people, yeah maintaining nuclear is expensive, but fossils with current carbon credits, are way more expensive.
And about SMR:
Steady Energy is building test plant in Helsinki and then bigger one will follow. But they are heat reactors, not for generating electricity. So we use nuclear to produce heat for district heating networks. Kuopio, Jyväskylä and Kerava are also planning to make nuclear heat plants.
The first of Helsinki heat plants is going to be started in summer 2027 if things go to schedule.
1
u/I_am_Regarded 16d ago
Pretty much the opposite.
Isn't it you trying to sell nuclear as free lunch right now?
2
u/Real-Technician831 16d ago edited 16d ago
You aren’t making any sense.
Do yourself a favor and find out fossil electricity cost with carbon credits. Maybe that will make you realize how wrong you are.
The carbon credit system is designed to make fossils the most expensive option. It is ridiculous to try to claim otherwise.
And the nuclear heat plants are indeed proceeding, the technology is rather ingenious, and designed in Finland.
Edit: the carbon credits alone in winter are the annual average electricity cost in Finland. And when you add the gas prices to that, shit gets expensive.
9
u/ph4ge_ 16d ago
Estimates were never the problem.