3 ms·

There's no good ecological, economical or safety-related reason to reduce nuclear to 50%, especially if it is intended to be replaced by Solar and Wind There

by _ph_ 7y ago

There's no good ecological, economical or safety-related reason to reduce nuclear to 50%, especially if it is intended to be replaced by Solar and Wind There is a very simple and fundamental reason to "reduce nuclear": France has a fleet (roughly 60) of aging nuclear power plants. Many of them already reached their planned life time and are kept working by extending their life time. But nuclear reactors definitely age, so this extension can keep them operating only so long before it becomes a real safety hazard. But France isn't building enough new reactors to keep the numbers up. Currently they have one or two in construction, with construction times over 10 years, the numbers game is obvious. They don't "want" to reduce the nuclear production, they have to. At the same time, France has ideal conditions for renewables. A very sunny south, lots of wind on the west and north coasts. Add to that a big supply of water power, this should cover most storage needs. The European electrical grid already plays a large role in the energy balance - France is usually selling surplus nuclear energy across Europe - and could do so even more with renewables.

kazagistar 7y ago
The rate of nuclear reactor production being low isn't a force we of nature, its a choice. They choose to produce reactors slowly, and hence they choose to transition away from nuclear and to renewable and imported coal in whatever ratios.
- _ph_ 7y ago
  But the choice how many new reactors are getting built happens for a reason: in France it is clearly the price, not political resistance. If a nation like France, which runs to 75% on nuclear, doesn't build new reactors, who else would be doing it? And of course, their currently sole attempt to build a new reactor confirms this: late and way over budget. The new reactor in Flammaville already costs 12 billion, but it isn't operating yet. And that is only the building costs. Do the math what this means for the renewal of the whole fleet of French reactors.
  - simias 7y ago
    It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. As we build fewer reactors we lose economies of scales, we lose sub-contractors, we lose the knowledge to build these reactors efficiently and without incurring huge financial penalties due to delays and sub-standard deliveries by contractors. This in turn is used to justify building fewer reactors which creates this feedback loop. You can always expect the first type of a new reactor (like this EPR design we've been working on) is going to face challenges, missed deadlines and cost inflation. If in the long run you plan to build a hundred of those it doesn't matter as much as if you only have 4-ish reactors in the pipeline.
    - _ph_ 7y ago
      Right. But what are the realistic prospects of the next EPR designs getting considerably cheaper? I am very excited about any new design which has a good chance to be cheaper, but so far the track record hasn't been very good. And of course, we haven't talked about the nuclear waste.
      - pfdietz 7y ago
        The prospects are poor. Cost improvement comes from iteration and learning, and demand for new reactors is low. Even when they are built, the time span is so long that learning is balanced by forgetting.
    - cycomanic 7y ago
      You will never get economies of scale with nuclear. There is just not enough of them being build and wouldn't be even if we'd go full nuclear. You need to build to local conditions etc.. Also for those of you who say it's a problem of too much regulation. That's a hilarious proposition: yes sure let's remove regulatory control over technology which could yield large areas of densely inhabited aras no go zones for 100s of years (even if it's 10s it would be unacceptable). It's not like it has been shown over and over again that if you remove regulatory control companies will start taking shortcuts to maximize profits
rakoo 7y ago
> Many of them already reached their planned life time That's a misunderstanding of how nuclear plants are built. They don't have a "planned life time"; they have a "safe window" of 10 years, and it is reexamined every 10 years. The age of a reactor doesn't have an incidence on whether it should be stopped or not, only this decennial visit can say if it is safe to continue or not, and if it isn't, what needs to be done to make it safe again. The organ in charge of that (ASN, Agence de Sûreté Nationale) is an independent entity and has the know-how to do their work diligently. If they say it's safe, it's safe. > At the same time, France has ideal conditions for renewables. A very sunny south, lots of wind on the west and north coasts. Add to that a big supply of water power, this should cover most storage needs For every kW of installed intermittent energy you need a kW of gas to still have electricity when the intermittent doesn't run. Propping up intermittent is propping up gas and that's the sadness of it. Also, pretty much all developed countries in the world are at capacity in terms of hydro. We can't build more dams at large scales, unless there's a magic way of creating mountains.

by _ph_ 7y ago

kazagistar 7y ago

The rate of nuclear reactor production being low isn't a force we of nature, its a choice. They choose to produce reactors slowly, and hence they choose to transition away from nuclear and to renewable and imported coal in whatever ratios.

_ph_ 7y ago
But the choice how many new reactors are getting built happens for a reason: in France it is clearly the price, not political resistance. If a nation like France, which runs to 75% on nuclear, doesn't build new reactors, who else would be doing it? And of course, their currently sole attempt to build a new reactor confirms this: late and way over budget. The new reactor in Flammaville already costs 12 billion, but it isn't operating yet. And that is only the building costs. Do the math what this means for the renewal of the whole fleet of French reactors.
- simias 7y ago
  It's sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy though. As we build fewer reactors we lose economies of scales, we lose sub-contractors, we lose the knowledge to build these reactors efficiently and without incurring huge financial penalties due to delays and sub-standard deliveries by contractors. This in turn is used to justify building fewer reactors which creates this feedback loop. You can always expect the first type of a new reactor (like this EPR design we've been working on) is going to face challenges, missed deadlines and cost inflation. If in the long run you plan to build a hundred of those it doesn't matter as much as if you only have 4-ish reactors in the pipeline.
  - _ph_ 7y ago
    Right. But what are the realistic prospects of the next EPR designs getting considerably cheaper? I am very excited about any new design which has a good chance to be cheaper, but so far the track record hasn't been very good. And of course, we haven't talked about the nuclear waste.
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      The prospects are poor. Cost improvement comes from iteration and learning, and demand for new reactors is low. Even when they are built, the time span is so long that learning is balanced by forgetting.
  - cycomanic 7y ago
    You will never get economies of scale with nuclear. There is just not enough of them being build and wouldn't be even if we'd go full nuclear. You need to build to local conditions etc.. Also for those of you who say it's a problem of too much regulation. That's a hilarious proposition: yes sure let's remove regulatory control over technology which could yield large areas of densely inhabited aras no go zones for 100s of years (even if it's 10s it would be unacceptable). It's not like it has been shown over and over again that if you remove regulatory control companies will start taking shortcuts to maximize profits

rakoo 7y ago

> Many of them already reached their planned life time That's a misunderstanding of how nuclear plants are built. They don't have a "planned life time"; they have a "safe window" of 10 years, and it is reexamined every 10 years. The age of a reactor doesn't have an incidence on whether it should be stopped or not, only this decennial visit can say if it is safe to continue or not, and if it isn't, what needs to be done to make it safe again. The organ in charge of that (ASN, Agence de Sûreté Nationale) is an independent entity and has the know-how to do their work diligently. If they say it's safe, it's safe. > At the same time, France has ideal conditions for renewables. A very sunny south, lots of wind on the west and north coasts. Add to that a big supply of water power, this should cover most storage needs For every kW of installed intermittent energy you need a kW of gas to still have electricity when the intermittent doesn't run. Propping up intermittent is propping up gas and that's the sadness of it. Also, pretty much all developed countries in the world are at capacity in terms of hydro. We can't build more dams at large scales, unless there's a magic way of creating mountains.