7 ms·

Placing some bets on nuclear make sense (France gets 80% of electric generation from nuclear) but counting on nuclear is risky because nobody can make nuclear p

Placing some bets on nuclear make sense (France gets 80% of electric generation from nuclear) but counting on nuclear is risky because nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. America should probably keep trying on a small scale and if they can figure it, then ramp up. The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those.

jhayward 7y ago
France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet, and the remaining fleet will need to be retired within a few decades. With one exception (Flammanville, 11 years over schedule and 400% over budget) no new plants are planned.
- littlestymaar 7y ago
  > France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet No we aren't. The only plant expected to close soon is Fessenheim, but every others are planned to work for at least twenty more years. EDF just started «le grand carénage»[1] which is a big investment plan to make the plants work 10 more years, up to 60. (Which is in twenty years) Source: my wife works at Dampierre en Burly's plant, which is one of the oldest running plant in France, and is part of this program (starting next year there). A law («loi TECV») was voted in this direction a few years ago, stating that 35% of the reactors should be closed by 2025, but none of the four leading political parties in France have any will to respect it (including the current government, which is here to stay until 2022…). This law was 100% communication and nobody really believed it when it was passed. [1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage (in French only though)
  - jhayward 7y ago
    I'm aware of the refit effort, as well as safety improvements required and under-funded decommissioning costs, which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing. My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France? As to the 35% target, this is the first time I've read anyone state categorically that none of the plants will be shut down. It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen. Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed?
    - littlestymaar 7y ago
      > which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing. Between 50 and 100 billions, yes. Which is between 1 and 2 billions per reactor. > My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. As I told you, even the oldest reactor are planned to be part of the plan,and it even started this year on the second oldest plant (Bugey). The oldest one being Fessenheim, which is the only one that will be closed. > Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France EDF has no money issue at the moment (because nobody's is counting the decommissioning, which is a different problem…). They earned 15 billion euros last year, so even if the enhancement plan were to cost 100 billions, it would be paid after 6 years, which is way profitable for something allowing you to run 20 more years. > It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen. Unfortunately It happens all the time: evrytime you see a law saying “<something> must be done in 10 years”, it's usually bullshit because the government passing the law won't be in charge at this point, so the next government will just cancel the law… > Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed? Do you really think EDF would spend 4 to 8 billions in Bugey if the plant was getting shut down 3 years after the end of the works ?
The_rationalist 7y ago
"nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore." Wrong, China and South Korea does,some private enterprises too. Unlike most technologies nuclear power plant building cost has increased over time (5 times) Mostly among other things (e.g lack of standardization except France), the huge current cost is because of irrational, overengeenered safety specifications. America could trivially build cheap power plants like in 70s and it would still make statistically less deaths than wind or solar and be the most cost effective energy source on earth. Even taking into account modern occidental power plants, they are still mostly competitive with fossil and destroy other clean energy sources. Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...
- makomk 7y ago
  Ah yes, the good old seventies, when nuclear plant construction workers could get away with stuff like using a candle to find air leaks in the highly flammable insulation within an already-live nuclear plant: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureremembering-the-browns-ferry-fire-40-years-on-4578707/ https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureremembering-the-... Let's not go back there. That could've turned out a lot worse than it did.
  - Knufen 7y ago
    An absurd strawman, the guy you are responding to said building a plant whereas you are talking about finding leaks.
    - makomk 7y ago
      It's not a strawman, this was how the US built nuclear plants in the 70s. The folks looking for leaks were construction workers building Unit 3 of the nuclear plant, using a candle to test the newly-installed seal on the reactor building for leaks. Units 1 and 2 were already live. The fire spread through the cable ducts into the wiring for the in-use reactors, taking out both redundant sets of control and monitoring systems. (Which is of course a design flaw too and lead to much tighter regulations.) There's a reason we don't build nuclear power plants like in the seventies.
willis936 7y ago
One thing to note about America’s “small scale nuclear” is that it produces more energy than France’s “large scale nuclear”.
- gaul 7y ago
  I was surprised to learn that America makes 805.3 TWh[1] but France only 519.4 TWh[2] of nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
belorn 7y ago
Talking about cost efficiency in power production is impossible as long as the default option is that we will burn fossil fuel when the power grid request more power than is being produced by other sources. The most cost efficient way today is to use renewable sources like wind and solar when they produce, and natural gas when they don't. Gas powered generators can on demand easily be turned on or off, and pipe lines makes the import/export very cost effective so it can reach the target market quickly with minimal costs. The combination also allow for partial build up and short time between investment and revenue, while nuclear plants have all the cost up front and take long time to build. It should not be a major surprise that many new natural gas power plants is currently being built in the US, and in the rest of the world. If I read the articles/numbers correctly it is the most common type of new power plants being built, with the second most common being wind in areas where wind expect to be profitable. The good news is that natural gas is also replacing coal and oil. The bad news is that they are replacing nuclear. Natural gas is about half as dirty as coal, but half as dirty as coal does not sound that great of a replacement for nuclear.
littlestymaar 7y ago
> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. Russia and China disagree with you. The French and American troubles with building new nuclear plants is more linked to the demise of the state-driven industry in those countries than to some inherent difficulties with nuclear itself.
- purple_ducks 7y ago
  They don't have to answer to their citizens if things go awry. Plenty of opportunity for cost cutting.
  - makomk 7y ago
    Yeah, it's worth remembering that Russia still operates RBMK nuclear reactors and plans to do so for as long as they can keep them working. The safety levels of their nuclear power program do not exactly match Western standards to put it lightly.
    - CaptainMarvel 7y ago
      Context: The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw which resulted in Chernobyl. Source: the recent TV show of the same name.
      - The_rationalist 7y ago
        "The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement.
        Jedd 7y ago
        > "The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement. This is incorrect. The serious design flaw was that the 'stop the reactor reacting' button rapidly accelerated the reaction briefly, but long enough to cause a massive spike. There were also human errors on the operations side.
glogla 7y ago
USA builds small nuclear reactors, on time and with reasonable budget ... but then use to power warships instead of cities.
- manicdee 7y ago
  Is that “reasonable” for someone building a warship similarly “reasonable” for someone competing with wind and solar?
  - The_rationalist 7y ago
    Wind and solar are not at all cost competitive with nuclear, the question shouldn't even be asked..
  - glogla 7y ago
    Thats a good question, which is hard to answer without knowing cost of storage and grid upgrades because of intermittency.
bassman9000 7y ago
nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore You have to account for the externalities of the only cheaper thing out there (fossil fuels). And then there's this https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#12588c11709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Unless you're lucky to live next to hydro, or unless you do like China and steamroll over your citizens building massive hydro, there's nothing cheaper, overall, than nuclear.
nickik 7y ago
> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. That is simply factually untrue. You can get cost effective nuclear plants from China or South Korea right now. The core problem with nuclear has always been that if every reactor is a bespoke thing, it will be expensive. Mass production helps with nuclear as with everything else, that has been true whenever we saw a large expansion of nuclear power. Trying GenIV reactors on a 'small' scale is simply not possible. > The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those. Then go to South Korea and order 50 reactors, give them access to US labor and let them build it.
- bjourne 7y ago
  South Korea is not doing so great either: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613325/how-greed-and-corruption-blew-up-south-koreas-nuclear-industry/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613325/how-greed-and-corr...
  - nickik 7y ago
    People always hack around at large industries like this. The reality is that they have carbon-free energy deployed faster then pretty much any other nation and it still kills less people then other forms of power.
ajross 7y ago
> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore Nobody ever could! Nuclear power generation, from its infancy, has been outrageously subsidized, both directly (i.e. DoE grants, government funding of waste disposal) and indirectly (industrial-scale refining of fuel as a side effect of the weapons industry). Once those sources dried up it just plain stopped making sense. At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense, and it can't, especially when compared to its green (and largely unsubsidized!) competitors. People who really want this to happen need to solve the technical problems and then come back with a plan. To riff on the title: it's not "anti nuclear" to be anti-pro-nuclear. Make it work first before shouting about it on the internet.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  >At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense Why? Why does such a critical piece of civilization NEED to make money on a free market? Why is it absurd to expect governments to help fund power generation like they are expected to fund other infrastructure (and healthcare, in most of the developed world)?
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Because the point of a subsidy is to benefit the public, not particular industries. If others can stand on their own, why would you waste public money on subsidizing a less efficient one?
    - unethical_ban 7y ago
      The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S. I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.
      - icebraining 7y ago
        > The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S. Sure, that doesn't go against what I said. > I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear. Neither can minicomputers compete with the reliability of mainframes, yet we've seen how that went. Reliability can be worked around with engineering. It'll be a messy mix of power sources, storage technologies and distribution networks, but it'll be cheap. Nuclear will keep existing - at the margins.
gingabriska 7y ago
Why not just dedicate a few resilient islands or even one super island where all nuclear power plant will exist and then electricity will sent to all countries in the world through sea water. Sea water is already conductive and we used it as global electricity transfer

jhayward 7y ago

France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet, and the remaining fleet will need to be retired within a few decades. With one exception (Flammanville, 11 years over schedule and 400% over budget) no new plants are planned.

littlestymaar 7y ago
> France is in the process of phasing out 35% of their nuclear fleet No we aren't. The only plant expected to close soon is Fessenheim, but every others are planned to work for at least twenty more years. EDF just started «le grand carénage»[1] which is a big investment plan to make the plants work 10 more years, up to 60. (Which is in twenty years) Source: my wife works at Dampierre en Burly's plant, which is one of the oldest running plant in France, and is part of this program (starting next year there). A law («loi TECV») was voted in this direction a few years ago, stating that 35% of the reactors should be closed by 2025, but none of the four leading political parties in France have any will to respect it (including the current government, which is here to stay until 2022…). This law was 100% communication and nobody really believed it when it was passed. [1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage (in French only though)
- jhayward 7y ago
  I'm aware of the refit effort, as well as safety improvements required and under-funded decommissioning costs, which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing. My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France? As to the 35% target, this is the first time I've read anyone state categorically that none of the plants will be shut down. It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen. Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed?
  - littlestymaar 7y ago
    > which as I understand it requires on the order of 100 billion euros in new financing. Between 50 and 100 billions, yes. Which is between 1 and 2 billions per reactor. > My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. As I told you, even the oldest reactor are planned to be part of the plan,and it even started this year on the second oldest plant (Bugey). The oldest one being Fessenheim, which is the only one that will be closed. > Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France EDF has no money issue at the moment (because nobody's is counting the decommissioning, which is a different problem…). They earned 15 billion euros last year, so even if the enhancement plan were to cost 100 billions, it would be paid after 6 years, which is way profitable for something allowing you to run 20 more years. > It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen. Unfortunately It happens all the time: evrytime you see a law saying “<something> must be done in 10 years”, it's usually bullshit because the government passing the law won't be in charge at this point, so the next government will just cancel the law… > Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed? Do you really think EDF would spend 4 to 8 billions in Bugey if the plant was getting shut down 3 years after the end of the works ?

The_rationalist 7y ago

"nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore." Wrong, China and South Korea does,some private enterprises too. Unlike most technologies nuclear power plant building cost has increased over time (5 times) Mostly among other things (e.g lack of standardization except France), the huge current cost is because of irrational, overengeenered safety specifications. America could trivially build cheap power plants like in 70s and it would still make statistically less deaths than wind or solar and be the most cost effective energy source on earth. Even taking into account modern occidental power plants, they are still mostly competitive with fossil and destroy other clean energy sources. Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspects/economics-of-nuclear-power.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...

makomk 7y ago
Ah yes, the good old seventies, when nuclear plant construction workers could get away with stuff like using a candle to find air leaks in the highly flammable insulation within an already-live nuclear plant: https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureremembering-the-browns-ferry-fire-40-years-on-4578707/ https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featureremembering-the-... Let's not go back there. That could've turned out a lot worse than it did.
- Knufen 7y ago
  An absurd strawman, the guy you are responding to said building a plant whereas you are talking about finding leaks.
  - makomk 7y ago
    It's not a strawman, this was how the US built nuclear plants in the 70s. The folks looking for leaks were construction workers building Unit 3 of the nuclear plant, using a candle to test the newly-installed seal on the reactor building for leaks. Units 1 and 2 were already live. The fire spread through the cable ducts into the wiring for the in-use reactors, taking out both redundant sets of control and monitoring systems. (Which is of course a design flaw too and lead to much tighter regulations.) There's a reason we don't build nuclear power plants like in the seventies.

willis936 7y ago

One thing to note about America’s “small scale nuclear” is that it produces more energy than France’s “large scale nuclear”.

gaul 7y ago
I was surprised to learn that America makes 805.3 TWh[1] but France only 519.4 TWh[2] of nuclear energy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

belorn 7y ago

Talking about cost efficiency in power production is impossible as long as the default option is that we will burn fossil fuel when the power grid request more power than is being produced by other sources. The most cost efficient way today is to use renewable sources like wind and solar when they produce, and natural gas when they don't. Gas powered generators can on demand easily be turned on or off, and pipe lines makes the import/export very cost effective so it can reach the target market quickly with minimal costs. The combination also allow for partial build up and short time between investment and revenue, while nuclear plants have all the cost up front and take long time to build. It should not be a major surprise that many new natural gas power plants is currently being built in the US, and in the rest of the world. If I read the articles/numbers correctly it is the most common type of new power plants being built, with the second most common being wind in areas where wind expect to be profitable. The good news is that natural gas is also replacing coal and oil. The bad news is that they are replacing nuclear. Natural gas is about half as dirty as coal, but half as dirty as coal does not sound that great of a replacement for nuclear.

littlestymaar 7y ago

> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. Russia and China disagree with you. The French and American troubles with building new nuclear plants is more linked to the demise of the state-driven industry in those countries than to some inherent difficulties with nuclear itself.

purple_ducks 7y ago
They don't have to answer to their citizens if things go awry. Plenty of opportunity for cost cutting.
- makomk 7y ago
  Yeah, it's worth remembering that Russia still operates RBMK nuclear reactors and plans to do so for as long as they can keep them working. The safety levels of their nuclear power program do not exactly match Western standards to put it lightly.
  - CaptainMarvel 7y ago
    Context: The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw which resulted in Chernobyl. Source: the recent TV show of the same name.
    - The_rationalist 7y ago
      "The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement.
      - Jedd 7y ago
        > "The RBMK reactor had a serious flaw" The serious flaw was multiple consecutive human errors which could today be prevented by software checklist enforcement. This is incorrect. The serious design flaw was that the 'stop the reactor reacting' button rapidly accelerated the reaction briefly, but long enough to cause a massive spike. There were also human errors on the operations side.

glogla 7y ago

USA builds small nuclear reactors, on time and with reasonable budget ... but then use to power warships instead of cities.

manicdee 7y ago
Is that “reasonable” for someone building a warship similarly “reasonable” for someone competing with wind and solar?
- The_rationalist 7y ago
  Wind and solar are not at all cost competitive with nuclear, the question shouldn't even be asked..
- glogla 7y ago
  Thats a good question, which is hard to answer without knowing cost of storage and grid upgrades because of intermittency.

bassman9000 7y ago

nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore You have to account for the externalities of the only cheaper thing out there (fossil fuels). And then there's this https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#12588c11709b https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d... Unless you're lucky to live next to hydro, or unless you do like China and steamroll over your citizens building massive hydro, there's nothing cheaper, overall, than nuclear.

nickik 7y ago

> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore. That is simply factually untrue. You can get cost effective nuclear plants from China or South Korea right now. The core problem with nuclear has always been that if every reactor is a bespoke thing, it will be expensive. Mass production helps with nuclear as with everything else, that has been true whenever we saw a large expansion of nuclear power. Trying GenIV reactors on a 'small' scale is simply not possible. > The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those. Then go to South Korea and order 50 reactors, give them access to US labor and let them build it.

bjourne 7y ago
South Korea is not doing so great either: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613325/how-greed-and-corruption-blew-up-south-koreas-nuclear-industry/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613325/how-greed-and-corr...
- nickik 7y ago
  People always hack around at large industries like this. The reality is that they have carbon-free energy deployed faster then pretty much any other nation and it still kills less people then other forms of power.

ajross 7y ago

> nobody can make nuclear plants cost efficiently anymore Nobody ever could! Nuclear power generation, from its infancy, has been outrageously subsidized, both directly (i.e. DoE grants, government funding of waste disposal) and indirectly (industrial-scale refining of fuel as a side effect of the weapons industry). Once those sources dried up it just plain stopped making sense. At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense, and it can't, especially when compared to its green (and largely unsubsidized!) competitors. People who really want this to happen need to solve the technical problems and then come back with a plan. To riff on the title: it's not "anti nuclear" to be anti-pro-nuclear. Make it work first before shouting about it on the internet.

unethical_ban 7y ago
>At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense Why? Why does such a critical piece of civilization NEED to make money on a free market? Why is it absurd to expect governments to help fund power generation like they are expected to fund other infrastructure (and healthcare, in most of the developed world)?
- icebraining 7y ago
  Because the point of a subsidy is to benefit the public, not particular industries. If others can stand on their own, why would you waste public money on subsidizing a less efficient one?
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S. I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      > The point of government is to serve the public interest. There is a lot of current public-private power generation in the U.S. Sure, that doesn't go against what I said. > I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear. Neither can minicomputers compete with the reliability of mainframes, yet we've seen how that went. Reliability can be worked around with engineering. It'll be a messy mix of power sources, storage technologies and distribution networks, but it'll be cheap. Nuclear will keep existing - at the margins.

gingabriska 7y ago

Why not just dedicate a few resilient islands or even one super island where all nuclear power plant will exist and then electricity will sent to all countries in the world through sea water. Sea water is already conductive and we used it as global electricity transfer