The amounts 407 and 600 to 700 billion do not price the same thing. The first relates to the contractually stated price of two units at the 2023 price level; higher public estimates add further layers, especially financing and time. The price of electricity in euros per megawatt-hour is, moreover, a different indicator from the acquisition account of the construction.
What we know: The publicly announced base EPC price is 407 billion Kč in 2023 prices; first fuel is booked separately. The price of the works, financing and the unit price of electricity are distinct quantities.
What we do not know: Complete indexation formulae, the final koruna cost of financing and the future settlement of the contract for difference cannot be reliably calculated from public materials.
1. Three columns that pose as one price
Imagine a meeting on the “price of Dukovany”. The industry minister points to 407 billion in the contract with KHNP and says that the construction price has not changed. The finance minister points to the state loan and says that without the cost of money the account is incomplete. The head of EDU II notes that 407 billion is in 2023 reference prices. The director of ČEPS recalls that two units will not connect themselves to the grid. The fuel specialist has a separate contract for 15 billion. The journalist in the room has two numbers in the notebook: 400 and 700. He wants to know which is a lie.
At first glance this is a dispute about truth-telling. In fact each person describes a different object. The first speaks about the overnight EPC price. The second speaks about interest. The third speaks about indexation. The fourth speaks about regulated infrastructure outside the plant fence. The fifth speaks about fuel. The journalist compares headline with headline.
Individual actors may quote a correct figure and still run a misleading dispute if they do not name its accounting boundaries. The question “how much do Dukovany cost” must be split into the construction price without financing, the cost of money over time, and separately the unit price of the electricity produced.
The first important distinction therefore is not who lied. It is which object is being read just now. Otherwise we set an engine, a loan instalment and the price of a kilometre side by side and are surprised that each number wins in a different discipline.
Overnight is not a lie. It is an account without time. Seven hundred billion is not an admission of collapse. It is an account with time. Neither of them is LCOE.
— Jiný Kontext
2. What exactly the price of two units contains
When “the price of the power plant” appears in a headline, it is easy to get the impression that there is one invoice. The result, however, is produced in a chain of several layers. Each can raise the amount, lower it, or merely shift it onto another payer. Two figures about the same project therefore need not be a dispute. They may be two views of the same chain — and a third view, LCOE, is no longer a view of the same chain at all.
Five layers of the construction and fiscal account
- Overnight EPC price: reactor, turbine, construction works and the supplier’s technology in reference prices, as if the works stood overnight, without interest. At Dukovany this is a contract for 407 billion Kč in 2023 prices for two units.[3][4]
- Escalation and indexation: contractual formulae that move the overnight price over time according to inflation, currency and materials. The public text is partly blacked out; the precise formulae cannot be calculated from it.[4][5]
- Cost of money: interest and capital costs for the period while construction proceeds. In August 2026 Havlíček added this layer to the construction component and obtained the interval 600–700 billion. This is a minister’s estimate, not an audit by the Ministry of Finance.[6]
- Related items outside EPC: preparation, licences, first fuel loads, grid reinforcement. This layer is not broken down in Havlíček’s sum.
- Payer: who pays the account — EDU II, state debt, the ČEPS tariff, the fuel contract, the nuclear account. The same koruna may disappear from the headline because someone else pays it.
The base contract determines an important part of the costs, but it is not the only actor. The state may provide a low-interest loan that changes layer 3 without changing layer 1. ČEPS may reinforce 400 kV lines without that appearing on the KHNP invoice. Fuel may cost 15 billion in a special contract and vanish from the headline “price of the units”.[3][4]
LCOE does not belong on this list. It is not a sixth billion-item. It is a different object: the estimated price of one megawatt-hour, which only then combines capital, fuel, operation, the life of the unit and the discount. Mixing it with 407 or with 700 means adding kilograms and kilometres.
This is not a dispute about vocabulary. The cut of the layers determines where to turn at an apparent jump. The difference between 400 and 407 billion may be the difference between rounded communication and the precisely stated contract amount. The move from 407 to 600–700 billion may mean adding the cost of money. The amount “90 euros” already points to the unit price of electricity and the CfD mechanism. The sentence “the project has become more expensive” is therefore the start of scrutiny, not its end.
Illustrative diagram: Overnight, the cost of money and LCOE are not three names for the same thing. They are three objects: the price of the works without time, interest from time, the unit price of electricity.
3. The best account is the one whose substitution you recognise
One “correct” number is not enough until the price year, the items included and the unit are stated. Substituting the overnight price for financing can be repaired by adding a legend. Substituting both quantities for LCOE is more serious, because it mixes billions for construction with the euro for a megawatt-hour produced.
| Type of failure | What it looks like | How to test it | What limits the harm |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substitution of overnight and interest | 400 is read as 700, or the reverse | Write beside the number: EPC, or EPC + cost of money? | A mandatory legend with every amount |
| Substitution of billions and LCOE | 407 bn is “converted” into 90 EUR/MWh | Ask about the unit: Kč, or EUR/MWh? | Separate sentences, not one sum |
| Escalation without a formula | The invoice grows, the public sees only 407 | Is the clause readable, or blacked out? | An auditable index, not an impression from the register |
| A foreign payer in the headline | The grid or fuel is added to KHNP | Who pays the invoice? | A map of payers |
| Time | Delay is read as dearer concrete | Which column grew: the works, interest, or both? | Milestones, not a single headline |
This also changes the reader’s question. We do not ask only which number is lower. We ask which account will fail in a way that we catch in the debate. A newsroom may tolerate rounding 407 to 400, because it is the same overnight. It cannot tolerate interest becoming “the Koreans raised the price”. Analysts may accept the interval 600–700 as a political estimate. They cannot issue it as LCOE.
Beside feasibility, what matters for a project is whether the account can be traced, its layers separated and the impact of substitution quantified. A less flashy number with a clear legend is more useful for public scrutiny than an amount without a definition.
4. Overnight captures only the price without time
Overnight cost is needed because it replaces part of the impressions with an internationally intelligible metric. IEA and OECD-NEA define it as the price of the plant as if it were built “overnight”: without interest during construction and without escalation over time. Interest during construction is a separate item. To confuse the two figures is the same error as confusing the catalogue price of a flat with a mortgage instalment.[8][21]
The problem arises at the moment when one overnight score begins to represent the whole fiscal account, or conversely the whole price of electricity. It is a map of one object. It is not a verdict on how much the state will pay on bonds, nor on what a household will see on the bill.
Every overnight number contains hidden decisions. Prices of which year? How many units? Is fuel in it? Which currencies? Is it an offer, or a signed contract? The answer to any of these questions can change the comparison with EDF, with Poland or with a 2024 headline.
Five facts without which “the price of the power plant” is only an advertising number
- The exact object: overnight EPC, EPC after escalation, or EPC plus the cost of money.
- The price year and the currency.
- The number of units and whether it is an option or a commitment.
- Whether the number is a contract, an offer, or a minister’s estimate.
- What is expressly not in it: fuel, the grid, LCOE.
For buying and for reading, therefore, a small internal breakdown matters more than a foreign overall ranking of “the cheapest nuclear in Europe”. Thirty rows with the same object will say more than a thousand headlines from another layer. Public overnight helps select a supplier. The fiscal decision must be made by the cost of money. The bill component must be made by LCOE and CfD.
5. Compare columns, not headlines
The table assigns each public amount a concrete object: an offer, EPC, fuel, financing or the unit price of electricity. For each row it states the substitution that needs to be caught when reading.
| Message | Main object | What to verify | Typical reason for use |
|---|---|---|---|
| “200 billion per unit” (July 2024) | Overnight offer with two units | Price year, number of units, whether without interest | Comparison of bidders |
| “407 billion” (contract 2025) | Overnight EPC, 2023 prices, two units | Escalation, currency, blacking-out | Contractual anchor |
| “15 billion fuel” | A separate fuel contract | That it is not in 407 | First loads, not LCOE |
| “600–700 billion” (August 2026) | Construction component + cost of money | Author: a minister’s estimate, not an audit | Fiscal sum |
| “Under 90 EUR/MWh” | A political target for the unit price | 2024 prices, relation to CfD, not to EPC | The bill, not the construction |
The rows are not a verdict on truth-telling. The same speaker may use three objects during one conference. The map is meant to prevent a different error: that 407 becomes 700 and 700 becomes 90 euros in one sentence.
How to read the diagram: The position of a number in a headline does not express which object it measures. The diagram separates the overnight price, financing and LCOE.
6. Two hundred billion per unit was overnight
On 17 July 2024 the government of the Czech Republic confirmed the Korean company KHNP as the preferred supplier for the construction of two units at the Dukovany site, with an option for a further two units at Temelín. In the last phase the bids of KHNP and EDF stood against each other. Westinghouse had been eliminated earlier.[1][19]
Government communication then set side by side three things that are not the same:
- An offered price of around 200 billion koruna for one unit if two units were built at the same time — an overnight comparison of bidders.
- A state financing model: interest-free repayable financial assistance during construction, after commissioning interest at 1 % above the cost of state debt, at least 2 %.
- A guarantee of electricity offtake, which belongs to LCOE and CfD, not to overnight.[1][7]
Into the media space came the sum 2 × 200 = 400 billion Kč. At the same press conference representatives described that credit financing would run separately. The headline took the first sentence. It postponed the second. The third — offtake — returned as “90 euros”, which is again a different object.
That is not necessarily fraud. It is a selective optic. The figure of 200 billion per unit was intelligible and comparable with the competitor. The cost of money depends on the length of construction and the drawdown profile. LCOE depends still on production and the discount. Anyone who wants a single number in 2024 gets overnight. Anyone who wants fiscal reality must wait for the column that was not then published as an audit.
On 30 April 2024 the European Commission approved the state-aid package SA.58207: an offtake contract, repayable financial assistance and investment protection. The notification originally concerned one unit of up to 1 200 MW. The political decision on two units came later. Here too it holds that the legal envelope, the overnight contract and LCOE are not the same.[7][22]
7. The contract holds 407 billion. It does not state the final invoice
On 4 June 2025, hours after the Supreme Administrative Court lifted the preliminary measure of the Regional Court in Brno, Elektrárna Dukovany II and KHNP signed the main EPC contract. The signature was electronic.[2][3][17]
The publicly known parameters are narrow and yet decisive:
- The base contract price of construction of two units: 407 billion koruna in 2023 reference prices.
- The contract for first deliveries of nuclear fuel: 15 billion koruna, separately.
- The difference against the previously communicated roughly 400 billion was explained by the investor among other things by the currency mix — part of the costs in koruna, part in euros.[3][4][5]
Public communication describes 407 billion as an overnight price. The contract in the register is partly blacked out: passages on price, completion time and subcontracts. According to EDU II this is security and intellectual property. According to a reader of the account it means that precise indexation formulae cannot be calculated from the public text. The final invoice therefore need not stay at 407 billion. That is still not the interest on the state loan and not LCOE.[4][5]
The contract at the same time gives the state as majority owner of EDU II control over subcontractors. The political pledge speaks of roughly 60 % participation of Czech firms. That is industrial policy. It is not an overnight item, it is not an interest item and it is not LCOE.[2][18]
8. Escalation is not interest
Escalation moves layer 1 over time. The cost of money adds layer 3. Anyone who adds both into one “jump of 300 billion” mixes two mechanisms. Anyone who conversely claims that 407 billion is the final amount the state will ever pay conceals both — and LCOE on top.
Indexation is contractual. Interest is financial. The first depends on the basket of prices and currencies in the contract. The second depends on the rate of state assistance, the length of construction and the drawdown profile. A complete public model of both components as of 31 August 2026 is missing. It does not follow that escalation is zero. It follows that it cannot be calculated from a headline.
Act No. 367/2021 Coll. sets the domestic envelope of a low-carbon source and the state’s relation to the investor. It too does not calculate escalation, interest or LCOE. It says who may guarantee what.[14]
9. The cost of money: what Havlíček added to the construction component
Karel Havlíček told Novinky in August 2026: “When we look at how much the new nuclear units at Dukovany will cost, it will be twice two hundred billion koruna, and with that, with the cost of money, we are at six to seven hundred billion koruna for two large units.”[6]
The sentence is precise in what it adds: the construction component and the cost of money. It is not a new item in the contract with KHNP. It is not proof that EPC jumped by hundreds of billions. It is not LCOE. It is a political sum of two objects, of which the first was in the headline in 2024 and the second in brackets.
The publicly described model counts on low-interest repayable financial assistance: 0 % during construction, after commissioning 1 % above the state’s interest, at least 2 %. That is a decision about who bears the price of time. It is not a gift or a discount from EPC. How much interest piles up in koruna depends on the rate, the length of construction, the drawdown profile and the precise contractual definition. A complete public audit of this column as of 31 August 2026 is not in the cited materials. The interval 600–700 billion is a minister’s estimate, not financial statements.[1][6][7]
IEA and OECD-NEA show that capital costs can form tens of percent of LCOE. That is a sentence about the composition of the megawatt-hour price. It is not a sentence that interest is half of the EPC contract. To confuse a share in LCOE with adding hundreds of billions to 407 is precisely the substitution of objects this text resists.[8][10]
What needs to be separated
The first separation concerns vocabulary. “Cost overrun” makes sense when the same column grows over time. It does not make sense when overnight is for the first time joined by what was never in it from the start. The second concerns the author. Havlíček’s interval is not an SAO report. The third concerns scope. It says “with the cost of money”. It does not say “including the grid and fuel”. It does not say “90 euros”.
10. What someone else pays is not a KHNP price rise
The full balance of the project reaches beyond the plant fence. Some items are paid by the investor. Others by the regulated grid operator. Others by the fuel contract. Others by a levy on the megawatt-hour produced. Adding them into one headline is possible. It is not the same as a price rise of the contract with KHNP and it is not LCOE.
| Item | Publicly stated amount | Payer | Relation to 407 and to 600–700 |
|---|---|---|---|
| EPC, two units | 407 bn Kč, 2023 prices | EDU II / state loan | Overnight anchor[3] |
| First fuel | 15 bn Kč | EDU II, separate contract | Outside 407; not broken down in 600–700[4] |
| Preparation, land, licences | A public single sum is missing from the cited materials | Investor | Outside EPC; the amount cannot be determined here |
| Transmission reinforcement | An item of ČEPS’s ten-year plan, not a KHNP item | System tariff | Outside both headlines[11] |
| Deep geological repository | A long-term SÚRAO estimate, collected by a levy per MWh | Nuclear account | A different time, a different payer[16] |
Anyone who adds these rows to 600–700 billion gets a higher sum of different payers. Anyone who issues them as proof that “the Koreans raised the price” makes an accounting error. Anyone who erases them because “they are not in the contract” undervalues the tariff footprint. The correct sentence is narrow: a column of foreign payers exists, it is not the content of Havlíček’s interval and it is not LCOE.
11. LCOE is not a construction account
For a household it is not the investment amount in billions itself that decides, but the unit price of wholesale electricity. LCOE — Levelized Cost of Electricity — spreads capital, fuel, operation, maintenance and the cost of capital over expected production during the life of the unit. The unit is EUR/MWh or Kč/MWh. It is not a billion in EPC. It is not Havlíček’s interval.[8][10]
That is why a cheaper overnight construction with expensive capital can come out worse in LCOE than a dearer construction with a state loan. And that is why the same 407 billion can mean a different bill according to whether the unit runs for 60 or 80 years and whether it starts in 2036 or four years later. That is not a dispute about 400 versus 700. It is a third object.
The government declared the target that electricity from the new units would not exceed 90 EUR/MWh in 2024 prices. The prime minister repeated it at the signing of the contracts on 4 June 2025. That is a political ceiling on the unit price. It is not overnight. It is not 600–700. It is not a market prediction. It is not LCOE calculated by an independent auditor from open contract data.[2][7]
IEA/NEA in Projected Costs of Generating Electricity show that the ranking of technologies turns with the discount rate. At 3 % nuclear looks different than at 7 % and 10 %. MIT in The Future of Nuclear Energy in a Carbon-Constrained World adds another axis: not only price, but also the system’s ability to carry night and winter load. Neither study claims that Czech 90 EUR is guaranteed. Both claim that capital and time decide in LCOE more than a slogan about concrete — which is again a sentence about a megawatt-hour, not about 407 billion.[8][9]
Lazard’s LCOE is a map of the market. It is not a judgment on Dukovany. It works with other regions, other WACC and other assumptions about construction. It is an audit of one methodology of one firm, not proof that Czech overnight has no value. It does show, however, that even a precise euro may precisely measure a different question.[10]
How not to mix LCOE with billions
Ask about the unit. If the answer is in billions, it is not LCOE. If it is in euros per megawatt-hour, it is not EPC. If someone “converts” 407 billion into 90 euros by one division without production, life and discount, he has not calculated LCOE. He has composed two maps into one number.
12. How CfD allocates price risk
The contract-for-difference mechanism is not a discount on construction. In a simplified example, at a reference market price of 110 EUR/MWh and a strike of 90 the support recipient would pay the difference to the contractual counterparty; at a reference price of 60 the difference would be topped up the other way. Actual settlement depends on the definition of the reference price, the settlement period, indexation and the precise wording of the contract. The figures are an illustration of the principle, not a calculation of the Czech tariff or a future household invoice.[7][10]
In decision SA.58207 the European Commission assessed offtake, the state loan and protection against a change of policy. It approved it as compatible with the internal market. Approval is not a stamp of advantageousness. It is a legal condition. The strike in the notification and the political target “under 90 EUR” may differ in definition, inflation clause and in whether they applied to one unit or to two.[7][22]
For the reader two sentences follow. First: 407 and 600–700 do not automatically determine the price on the bill. Second: CfD redistributes risk between the producer and the contractual counterparty. A higher or lower reference price may change the direction of the balancing payment, but the impact on the state budget, the tariff and the retail price is, without a final contract and regulation, neither direct nor quantified in advance.
13. Flamanville: three objects, three jumps
When assessing risks it is necessary to take into account the history of large nuclear constructions in the West. Not in order to make Dukovany into Flamanville in advance. In order that it be visible which object ran away abroad.
Flamanville 3 in France began with an estimate of 3.3 billion EUR in 2007 and a planned start in 2012. EDF states a construction cost of 13.2 billion EUR in 2015 prices, without financing. The French court of audit in January 2025 arrived at 23.7 billion EUR including interest in 2023 prices. The delay is of the order of thirteen years. Cour des Comptes expressly adds construction cost, inflation and intercalary interest. That is the same distinction of overnight and the cost of money. It is not LCOE. It is a report of one court of audit on one reactor, not a prediction for Dukovany.[12]
Vogtle 3 and 4 in the USA began around 14 billion USD with a 2017 date. The final account in an Associated Press estimate moves around 35 billion USD, including settlement after the departure of Westinghouse. Two units, delay of the order of years, the account on the bills of customers in Georgia. Again a capital account, not an LCOE table.[13]
In the same interview Havlíček mentioned Flamanville as a warning. There too “cost overrun” is composed of concrete, time and interest. Anyone who makes from that a single lesson “nuclear always costs seven times more” merges three objects and on top of that another country, another technology and another licensing regime.[6][12]
KHNP’s experience from Barakah in the United Arab Emirates is a relevant input into an estimate of the schedule, not proof of a date for Dukovany. The European licensing environment, EUR standards and Czech SÚJB oversight form a different regime. A supplier’s reputation may affect a risk estimate; it cannot replace Czech milestones, permits or ongoing construction control.[15][17]
Before comparison with Dukovany
Write down for a foreign project the same as for the Czech one: overnight, interest, the LCOE unit, the price year. If a source adds everything into one “total cost”, you are not comparing Dukovany. You are comparing a foreign sum with a Czech headline.
14. Where to verify the individual accounts
Before publication of the contract a reader had to check whether 400 billion was not merely an offer. With the contract he checks something more complicated: whether 407 is overnight, whether escalation is readable, whether 600–700 adds interest or a new EPC, and whether 90 euros is already about something else. A headline is navigation to an account. It is not an automatic account.
One report can combine three true numbers into a false conclusion. The first is 407 in 2023 prices. The second is 700 with interest. The third is 90 euros in 2024 prices. Each works. The synthesis “it has become more expensive to 90 euros” is methodologically wrong. At other times a source uses a quality secondary text even though the register of contracts is available. Or it quotes a press conference that in the meantime spoke about a different object.
A four-step check of a number
- Existence: the amount is in a named document, not only in a headline.
- Object: overnight, escalation, cost of money, or LCOE.
- Support: a concrete passage supports a concrete sentence.
- Scope: the number of units, the price year, the payer and what is missing from the number fit.
Before a headline about price a table of amounts, their accounting meaning and the limits of the sources should arise. An unavailable or blacked-out basis cannot be replaced by a round estimate in a press statement.
15. The price of steel is the price of a raw material, not the price of a megawatt-hour
The market uses several price languages at once. The supplier speaks overnight. The minister speaks about the cost of money. The prime minister speaks about euros per megawatt-hour. ČEPS speaks about the tariff. A direct comparison without knowledge of the object therefore misleads.
Cheaper overnight may be fiscally expensive if construction lasts five years longer and interest flows. Dearer overnight may be cheaper in LCOE if the unit starts on time and CfD holds. A cheap headline sum may be expensive if the grid has disappeared from it. An expensive interval of 600–700 may be more honest if it admits interest — and still says nothing about the bill.
The real price of an accepted megawatt
Overnight EPC + escalation + cost of money + foreign payers, and separately LCOE from production, life and discount.
The result is cheap only when the unit runs and the unit price passes scrutiny. Into the costs also belongs fluctuation of the date. If commissioning shifts, the average cost of money is not the price of one year. If contract data are blacked out, the impossibility of an audit is also a cost.
It is therefore useful to measure the price of an accepted megawatt on the grid, not the price of a press conference. Accepted means that the unit produces, interest has stopped piling onto construction and CfD is calculated from actual production. This metric may reverse a ranking that looked unambiguous from the overnight price list. It is still not the same as 407, nor the same as 700.
16. What to read for which question
Scrutiny of a cost claim begins by determining the account, the price year and the unit. The table shows the first document that makes sense to open for each type of question.
| Question | First object | Decisive test | Unacceptable shortcut |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who won the tender? | Overnight offer / EPC | The same number of units, price year | Mix KHNP with EDF without options |
| Has the contract become more expensive? | The same overnight over time | 407 → a new EPC, not 400 → 700 | Add interest and shout fraud |
| How much will it cost the state? | Cost of money + guarantees | An MoF or SAO model, not a quotation | Take 600–700 as an audit |
| What will be on the bill? | LCOE + CfD | Unit EUR/MWh, strike, date | Divide 407 billion without production |
| How much does the grid cost? | ČEPS plan | A separate payer | Add it to KHNP |
| Will 2036 be met? | Schedule and licences | SÚJB milestones, not reputation from Barakah | “The Koreans can do it, so they will make it” |
For Czech use a separate language test is necessary. English “cost of nuclear” in an IEA report is not the same as “the price of Dukovany” in a press release. “Interest-free assistance during construction” is not a zero cost of capital. The test set should contain the price year, the number of units, overnight versus interest versus LCOE — and the sentence “the source is insufficient” if the contract is blacked out.
Some debates need several numbers at once. That is not a failure. It is the same decision as using a different indicator for GDP and a different one for debt in koruna. The condition is that people know where the authority of the object arises.
17. A short test that says more than a duel of headlines
The choice of a number to quote can be made without a six-month tender and without an impulse. A short, disciplined procedure is enough. Its aim is not to prove that a candidate for a headline can do something impressive. The aim is to find a substitution of objects.
Seven steps from impression to sentence
- Write down the object: overnight, escalation, cost of money, foreign payer, or LCOE.
- Write down the unit: bn Kč, or EUR/MWh.
- Write down the price year and the number of units.
- Write down the author: contract, government, minister, IEA, court of audit.
- Write down what is not in the number.
- Compare only the same object over time.
- Separate CfD from EPC. If a sentence contains both, they are two sentences.
Three tests of a public number
The first is lexical: does the speaker say overnight, financing, or LCOE? The second is temporal: in prices of which year? The third is of scope: two units, or also the option, the grid and fuel? A number that does not pass these three questions is not a lie. It is a map without a legend.
The conditions must be comparable. If one text may add interest and another may not, we are testing finished narratives — which may be right, but we must name it. If we want to test overnight, we must conversely exclude interest and LCOE.
The pilot should also have an elimination condition. For example: a single sentence that turns 407 into 90 euros without production. High intelligibility must not override a substitution whose impact the debate cannot bear.
The last output is not the name of a winner between 400 and 700. It is a rule: which number for what, which not, what must remain in the legend and when the decision is opened again. Contracts, rates and dates change. Without a revision date even a good overnight gradually turns into a superstition.
18. Time as a separate cost item
The first generation of communication sold the price of a unit. The next sold suppliers. Today’s dispute sells something larger: the right to a single number. Whoever controls the headline controls the impression of whether it is salvation or a tunnel.
The contest is therefore not only for the best overnight. The contest is over which object will be taken as the “real price”. The more comfortable the shortcut that arises, the higher the price of the error. The journalist stops distinguishing EPC and interest. The minister stops distinguishing an estimate and an audit. The reader stops distinguishing billions and euros per megawatt-hour.
That does not mean that communicating 400 billion was forbidden. Overnight is a legitimate metric. It means that it should be read consciously. The public needs a portable legend: what the number contains, in which prices, who calculated it and when it will be opened again.
Time in this project is a cost variable just as material is. Longer construction may raise financing and change LCOE. KHNP’s experience is an input into an assessment of the schedule, not proof of a future result; licensing, court disputes and grid connection may affect the schedule, but their direction and extent cannot be precisely quantified today. The headlines “400”, “700” and “90 euros” themselves do not resolve this uncertainty.
The best number is therefore not the one that never angers. We do not have such a number for a fifteen-year construction. Nor is it the number with the lowest title, the shortest interval or the largest number of zeros. It is a number whose object corresponds to the question posed and whose limits are visible, comparable and economically bearable.
At the moment when we ask only “how much does it cost”, we are choosing a headline. At the moment when we read the contract, the loan and the unit price separately, we are choosing a structure of responsibility. And then the question is no longer: “Which number is the truth?”
The key is to distinguish overnight, the cost of money and LCOE — and with each number to state who will bear the price of time.
— Jiný Kontext