Record costs, record time: Europe's most expensive 'Flamanville 3' nuclear power plant finally goes online after 17 years – symbol image/creative image: xpert.digital
New nuclear power plant in France after 17 years of construction on the network – opportunities, risks and perspectives
“The Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant in France went online after a long delay on December 21, 2024.” With this announcement, the French energy authorities made headlines at the end of the year. In fact, it is a major project that is in focus for many reasons: extremely high construction costs, a very long planning and implementation period, comprehensive safety requirements and, last but not least, the debate about the future of energy supply in Europe. The next months and years will show how this new reactor can hold its own in the overall context of security of supply, economic efficiency and climate protection. One thing is certain: Flamanville 3 is a symbol of the challenges of generating electricity through nuclear power in Europe and is therefore a central component in the discussion about the future energy mix.
"With an output of 1650 MW, Flamanville 3 is the most powerful nuclear reactor in France" – so many observers referred to it when the reactor for the first time puts electricity into the French network. In the beginning he only produces 100 megawatts – a fraction of what it should ultimately achieve – but it is already noticeable that a piece of history will be written with this project. After 17 years of construction, one of the world's most modern nuclear power plants is now in operation. But what does this commissioning mean specifically for the energy industry, climate protection, economy and the future role of nuclear energy?
A look at the costs and timeline
The construction costs for Flamanville 3 amount to 13.2 billion euros. Originally the sums were expected to be significantly lower, but the cost explosion has continued to escalate over the years. “The power plant therefore costs 8,250 euros per kilowatt of installed power.” This comparison becomes even more meaningful when you compare the costs of renewable energies. Modern open-field photovoltaic systems currently cost less than 600 euros per kilowatt of installed power (or 600 euros per kilowatt peak). Although these figures should always be viewed with caution because photovoltaics only provide electricity when there is sunlight, the pure investment amount is undoubtedly significantly lower.
A construction period of 17 years, which was originally planned significantly shorter, can be explained by a number of factors: approval procedures, high security standards, technical difficulties in building the reactor pressure container, delivery difficulties in components and political discussions that constantly explore the progress. "The reactor was connected to the national power grid for the first time that day" – this message came rather late for many observers because the commissioning was originally planned for 2012. The fact that it ultimately became in 2024 underlines the complexity and the effort of such major projects.
The technical side: European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR)
Flamanville 3 is a third-generation reactor, a so-called European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR). This model is intended to provide both higher performance and improved safety standards compared to older reactors. “It is the first new reactor in France in 25 years,” which further underlines its great symbolic power. The EPR is characterized by state-of-the-art technologies, such as thicker reactor pressure vessels and an improved safety system, which is intended to make it much more difficult for radioactive substances to escape in the event of a core meltdown.
In theory, EPRs are expected to provide more efficient fuel use and longer operating life. At the same time, the operating costs (OPEX) for personnel, fuel, disposal and maintenance are around 4 cents per kilowatt hour. Proponents of nuclear power argue that these costs are justified by reliable energy production. Critics, however, point out that the comparison with renewable energies, whose operating costs are relatively low for photovoltaics, for example, calls into question the economic viability of nuclear power.
Economic efficiency and competition from renewable energies
"You could build PV systems with over 22 gigawatts of power for the cost of the Flamanville reactor." This statement underlines the dimension of the construction costs. Although photovoltaic systems have a high -sun -dependent yield, the price advantage in the purchase is evident. In addition, the operating costs for solar systems are also low, since only maintenance and cleaning are incurred. "In photovoltaics, the operating costs are approximately 1.5 % of the investment amount per year" – fuel does not have to be bought, which is always necessary for nuclear power plants due to uranium use.
However, it is also true that photovoltaics alone cannot guarantee a permanent power supply. Dark lulls, i.e. periods without sun and wind, represent a major challenge when integrating renewable energies. Nevertheless, the example of many countries shows that a clever combination of various renewable sources, storage technologies (batteries, Power-to-X), load management and more intelligent Infrastructure can enable a stable and largely carbon-free power supply. “Of course, photovoltaics alone cannot ensure 100% electricity supply, but in combination with other renewable energies, storage and intelligent infrastructure, this is possible.”
Safety and disposal
A controversial issue regarding nuclear power is the disposal of radioactive waste. “If you take into account the ongoing subsidies and the costs associated with the ongoing problem of nuclear waste, nuclear power plants currently make no economic sense.” This sentence reflects the opinion of many critics who argue that the final storage of highly radioactive waste is not within a clearly calculable cost framework. A large part of the financial and technical challenges for nuclear power plant operators is shaped by the safe storage of nuclear waste for an indefinite future.
Proponents, on the other hand, emphasize that the actual amounts of highly radioactive waste are relatively low and that there are responsible storage concepts for the garbage that has arisen. Here, too, the assessments differ widely, and the question of the final storage is still unsolved. – contrast to France – many countries have decided to exit nuclear power and are now faced with the task of organizing dismantling and final storage. France, on the other hand, continues to invest in the nuclear industry and hopes to cover its own energy requirements independently and at the same time.
Climate protection goals and time factor
“More importantly, it doesn’t help us achieve our climate goals because the construction times in Europe are far too long.” Anyone who follows the current climate policy debates will notice that the time factor plays a central role in the decarbonization of electricity generation. While wind and solar farms can be planned and built within a few months or a few years, new nuclear power plants often take a decade or longer. Especially in Europe, where strict safety standards and complex approval procedures apply, delays such as those in the Flamanville 3 case can quickly lead to massive increases in costs and significant shifts in the schedule.
If you look at the desired reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the time that goes by in large -scale projects such as new nuclear power plant between planning and commissioning is a decisive factor. Climate protection goals by 2030 or 2040 require rapid emission reductions – any delay in the expansion of low -emission technologies, be it due to nuclear power or renewable energies, carries the risk of failing to fail. One reason why many governments rather use established, quickly installable solutions such as solar and wind power instead of building new nuclear power plants.
Flamanville 3 as a symbol: pride or memorial?
Many supporters of nuclear power see Flamanville 3 as a symbol of the dawn of a new era of nuclear power. “The reactor was connected to the national power grid for the first time that day and initially generated 100 megawatts of electricity.” In the future, it will be 1,650 megawatts, which will provide significant potential for base load electricity. Supporters of this approach argue that only such capacity can reliably deliver enough electricity to ensure a stable grid, especially at times when demand fluctuates.
Opponents, on the other hand, see the project as more of a deterrent warning. For them, the massively exceeded costs, the years of delays and the structural challenges in building such high-tech plants are clear indicators that nuclear power in Europe is difficult to reconcile with political and economic realities. “Of course, photovoltaics alone cannot ensure a 100% power supply,” but combinations of renewable energies and storage systems could achieve the goal faster and cheaper in many cases.
Suitable for:
Between hope and skepticism
The fact that Flamanville 3 is finally coming online after 17 years of construction will reignite the debate about the future of nuclear power. Although the project is far from complete, as further test phases, switching on and off and optimizations are pending, the symbolic effect remains: France shows that it continues to rely on nuclear power and sees it as an important pillar for domestic electricity supply.
However, the question arises to what extent this model is still relevant for other countries in Europe or elsewhere. Some countries are building new nuclear power plants or sticking to existing ones, others like Germany have recently decided to phase them out for good. New reactor projects are planned in the UK, but are also facing huge costs and delays. In Eastern Europe there is also some discussion about new nuclear plants in order to become more independent of fossil fuels.
“Despite the official commissioning, further tests and optimizations still need to be carried out before the reactor reaches its full performance.” This note makes it clear that the challenge does not end with grid synchronization. Especially in the start-up phase of a new nuclear power plant, technical problems can arise that can cost even more time and money.
In the longer term, the question remains how Flamanville 3 fits into the overall European electricity market and whether the investments will ever be recouped. At the same time, the timing of the final commissioning is a powerful demonstration of technological competence for France itself: “The total costs amounted to 13.2 billion euros, about four times as much as originally planned.” That's no reason to be proud, but it shows that France can, despite all odds, complete a high-tech project of this magnitude.
The role of renewable energy and smart grids
Regardless of the debate about nuclear power, wind and solar are on the rise. More and more countries are relying on the expansion of renewable energies because the costs for solar and wind energy have been falling for years and can be installed very quickly in many places. Energy storage, be it in the form of lithium-ion batteries, pumped storage power plants or Power-to-X solutions, is becoming increasingly important. A smart grid could compensate for fluctuations in the production of renewable energy by better matching electricity production and consumption.
Suitable for:
If it is possible to implement such concepts efficiently, fluctuating energy sources such as sun and wind can be integrated into an economically sustainable and ecologically sensible overall mix. – to the vision of some energy experts – nuclear power plants could cushion these fluctuations and provide a constant basic load. "With the nuclear power plant, there are still high operating costs for personnel, fuel, disposal, etc.", which is a serious cost factor in direct comparison with wind and sun. Nevertheless, some states could rate the advantages of constant electricity generation higher than the disadvantages.
Nuclear power debate reignited: What the Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant means for Europe
The Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant will go online on December 21, 2024 after a construction period of 17 years. “With an output of 1,650 megawatts,” it is not just a power plant, but a symbol of the ongoing controversy over nuclear power in Europe. The criticism is sparked by the immense costs and delays, which make it clear that nuclear energy projects in Europe are exposed to enormous financial and administrative risk. On the other hand, for many supporters, nuclear power is a central pillar of baseload supply and a way to produce large amounts of low-CO₂ electricity.
In terms of profitability, comparison to renewable energies such as photovoltaics is often in favor of the latter, especially if you look at the time factor in realization. New PV systems or wind power projects can be set up within a short time, while building a nuclear power plant often takes a decade or longer – time that is tight in the context of the climate crisis. Even the unresolved question of the final storage of highly radioactive waste continues to throw shadows on nuclear power.
Last but not least, Flamanville 3 shows us that the debate about nuclear energy is not only a technical debate, but also a political and social one. For countries with a strong nuclear sector, it is a sign of sticking to proven technology and trust in innovative security concepts. Critics, on the other hand, see every new reactor as a risk and a misguided investment. How well Flamanville 3 will prove itself in the long term and whether the enormous costs can one day be justified remains to be seen. The fact is, however, that today's energy landscape is in flux due to the rapid expansion of renewable energies and the development of new storage technologies. In this dynamic environment, it remains questionable to what extent a large-scale project like Flamanville 3 will influence the energy world in the future.
With its commissioning, France's new nuclear hope comes into the spotlight. Whether this lighthouse project will prove to be evidence of the need for nuclear power plants or a deterrent example of construction time extensions and cost overruns will be decided in the coming years. However, one conclusion is already emerging: “At Flamanville 3, supporters and opponents of nuclear energy clash in a concrete case study,” which is likely to further fuel the discussion about energy supply, climate protection and economic viability in Europe.
Suitable for: