Is the operation cost of the reactor over such a long duration not significant?
Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage?
Yes. Also because maintenance costs are probably somewhat similar-- offshore turbines are still mechanical systems in a very unpleasant environment, after all.
> Also why are you comparing 8gw to 3.2gw? Is it due to peek output? if so won't this be solved by grid level storage?
Yes-- the turbines give you 8GW, but only 40% of the time. Reactor gives you its ~3GW basically all the time. This difference would NOT be erased by storage-- you would need the storage on top of the windpower, but it is not trivial to tell how much storage you really need (electrical grid connectivity can also somewhat compensate, or large consumers that only turn on when energy is cheap...).
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/20/giant-windf...
What are the reasons behind believing prices will reduce further?
> I'm guessing Nuclear won't see the same level of changes
Parsons says the second reactor is being built 20% more quickly than the first one.
Parsons says he expects that Sizewell will be built between 20% and 30% faster than the second Hinkley reactor.
Economies of scale and room for technological/process innovation. The fact that solar reduced so significantly and battery costs too. This article seems a bit cherry picked about a specific project and not a global trend in costs. Offshore will naturally take time to become competitive since it requires complex installation and processes, but those seem like solvable problems for an admittedly laymen as myself.
This applies when going from 1 to 2 to 4 reactors.
See https://www.oecd-nea.org/mdep/events/conf-2023/presentations... page 27 for the Chinese approach to HPR1000 (Hualong One) innovation.
Plus the linked article mentioned improvements to manufacturing outside the constraints of the containment.