I would suggest we look at overall stats instead of isolated examples.

Time to construct a nuclear plant takes on average 7.5 years, a number that hasn't really budged in the last 50 years.

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi...

And since financing (i.e. interest) is the primary cost of nuclear (~50%), time is money.

Hinkley and Flamanville are examples of the EPR, a brand new reactor type that is both at the start of its learning curve, always problematic, and also apparently a design that is particularly difficult to build. And both Europe and the US haven't really built any nuclear plants for quite a long time, so the know-how to build them is just not there. Oh, and the regulators sometimes change regulations after parts of the plants have been built so they have to tear down what they have built and start again.

These are obviously all solvable problems, and mostly solvable by just building more. The problem is that we didn't build enough. Just build more.

Construction time is misleading. It takes a few days to a couple of weeks to build a wind turbine, but at least in Germany a wind turbine construction project takes more than five years.

So what better estimate would you suggest? What nuclear power plants where built in the last decade or so, for how much do they sell their power? How big will their decomissioning costs be per MWh?

> Construction time is misleading.

Please support your claim.

We were talking about cost, and cost is directly proportional to construction time because financing (interest) is the primary cost of nuclear power plant construction.

It’sa lot harder to find investors for a project that takes 20+ years from planning to first income than for a project that takes seven and a half years.

I’m still waiting for better cost estimates than what Lazard gives.

Simple:

Take the Vogtle-3 time, divide by average time to construct a nuclear reactor.

Apply factor to Lazard "estimate".

If it is so simple, can you do that math for us?

Even going by that ridiculously oversimplified calculation, and taking best-case numbers 0.75*$141 (10 years from first concrete poured to grid connection vs your 7.5 years average) is still barely competitive with worst-case Wind+Storage and more expensive than solar as Lazard estimates. And those are proven numbers from real projects not some pie in the sky guesstimates.

Your numbers don't add up.

Vogtle was only delayed by 25%, 2.5 years? I thought it was such a disaster and this proved nuclear doesn't work?

Now it's all good?

This says the delay was 7 years:

https://apnews.com/article/georgia-nuclear-power-plant-vogtl...

Oh, and the plant will still be cost effective, apparently, even with those delays.

Oh, and the solar numbers include sufficient batter storage? I saw something about 4h for half the capacity on some of the graphs. Most didn't explain at all.

As I said above, where you didn't believe me, construction times are misleading. First concrete poured was 2013. If you don't like the numbers, please suggest a better cost estimate. As it is, nuclear seems to be expensive.

"LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years"

https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE...

Mean project cost over-runs: Nuclear power 120% Oil and gas 34% Mining 27% Fossil thermal power 16% Wind 13% Energy transmission 8% Solar 1%

https://www.enr.com/articles/55774-oxford-professors-latest-...