3 ms·

Worse, it's a total gamble on whether or not we'll even be able to BUILD a given reactor. Reactor construction projects have an absolutely gobsmacking rate of

Worse, it's a total gamble on whether or not we'll even be able to BUILD a given reactor. Reactor construction projects have an absolutely gobsmacking rate of delays and massive cost overruns, and many end up getting canceled. Flamanville in France is fully 3x its original cost estimate. If it manages to hit its current planned opening date in 2022, then that will be after 15 YEARS of construction. Out of the recent wave of reactor construction in Europe and the US, most are have hit massive delays and cost overruns. At this point it's hard to conclude that the nuclear industry is remotely competent to deliver on any single promise.

drannex 6y ago
The above is not true with the actual data showing that the mean time is 7.5 years for production¹ as I wrote (and sourced) in another comment in the thread. France is also the world leader in nuclear power and is investing even more resources towards it (France today produced an excess of power and exported 12GW of power to other countries²). They have the lowest carbon emissions, and lowest electricity costs. ¹ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... ² https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  France subsidizes EDF (who runs France's nuclear generation fleet) and owns ~85% of the utility. These facilities are not cost competitive without state sponsored subsidies (whereas renewables are the cheapest generation technology without subsidies). France is exporting nuclear power with aging reactors they could not afford to replace with new reactors today, and these reactors run at a lower capacity factor due to their load following configuration. Nuclear proponents keep advocating for an overly expensive technology that, in recent decades, never arrives on time or within budget. This is unnecessary with Europe's solar, wind, and hydro potential. Even more expensive offshore wind is cheaper than the cheapest nuclear generator. https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building-new-nuclear-plants-in-france-uneconomical-environment-agency-idUSL8N1YF5HC https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building... (Building new nuclear plants in France uneconomical -environment agency) https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison 2020, slide 3)
- CogentHedgehog 6y ago
  The World Nuclear Industry Status Report[1] "estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years." The data on ElectricityMap is dubious at best -- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's simply due to not updating with more recent figures for some countries. 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    ElectricityMap's data is accurate, and (in the case of France) sourced from https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr [1] (I am a volunteer contributor to the platform). [1] https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/master/DATA_SOURCES.md https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/maste...
    - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
      BS. Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility. The datasets are extremely fragmentary and have huge yawning gaps with no data available, which should be the first red flag for anybody citing it. I have literally only seen ElectricityMap cited by nuclear energy shills -- as has been demonstrated in the comments here. Edit: I won't deny it might have value for trends over time within a given country, but the country-to-country carbon emissions comparisons simply don't fit with official figures.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Google uses them for scheduling workloads based on electrical carbon intensity [1] [2]. Can you source a citation demonstrating "Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility."? If not, please don't libel them in public with unsubstantiated claims. People shilling for nuclear is an entirely distinct issue, regardless of the data sources they're using to make their claims. [1] https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-google/ https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-g... [2] https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-centers-work-harder-sun-shines-wind-blows https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-center...

drannex 6y ago

The above is not true with the actual data showing that the mean time is 7.5 years for production¹ as I wrote (and sourced) in another comment in the thread. France is also the world leader in nuclear power and is investing even more resources towards it (France today produced an excess of power and exported 12GW of power to other countries²). They have the lowest carbon emissions, and lowest electricity costs. ¹ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ http://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucle... ² https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/

toomuchtodo 6y ago
France subsidizes EDF (who runs France's nuclear generation fleet) and owns ~85% of the utility. These facilities are not cost competitive without state sponsored subsidies (whereas renewables are the cheapest generation technology without subsidies). France is exporting nuclear power with aging reactors they could not afford to replace with new reactors today, and these reactors run at a lower capacity factor due to their load following configuration. Nuclear proponents keep advocating for an overly expensive technology that, in recent decades, never arrives on time or within budget. This is unnecessary with Europe's solar, wind, and hydro potential. Even more expensive offshore wind is cheaper than the cheapest nuclear generator. https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building-new-nuclear-plants-in-france-uneconomical-environment-agency-idUSL8N1YF5HC https://www.reuters.com/article/france-nuclearpower/building... (Building new nuclear plants in France uneconomical -environment agency) https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-140.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/451419/lazards-levelized-cost-o... (Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy Comparison 2020, slide 3)
CogentHedgehog 6y ago
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report[1] "estimates that since 2009 the average construction time for reactors worldwide was just under 10 years, well above the estimate given by industry body the World Nuclear Association (WNA) of between 5 and 8.5 years." The data on ElectricityMap is dubious at best -- I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it's simply due to not updating with more recent figures for some countries. 1: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSK...
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  ElectricityMap's data is accurate, and (in the case of France) sourced from https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr https://opendata.reseaux-energies.fr [1] (I am a volunteer contributor to the platform). [1] https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/master/DATA_SOURCES.md https://github.com/tmrowco/electricitymap-contrib/blob/maste...
  - CogentHedgehog 6y ago
    BS. Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility. The datasets are extremely fragmentary and have huge yawning gaps with no data available, which should be the first red flag for anybody citing it. I have literally only seen ElectricityMap cited by nuclear energy shills -- as has been demonstrated in the comments here. Edit: I won't deny it might have value for trends over time within a given country, but the country-to-country carbon emissions comparisons simply don't fit with official figures.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Google uses them for scheduling workloads based on electrical carbon intensity [1] [2]. Can you source a citation demonstrating "Nobody who is involved with the energy sector thinks ElectricityMap has any credibility."? If not, please don't libel them in public with unsubstantiated claims. People shilling for nuclear is an entirely distinct issue, regardless of the data sources they're using to make their claims. [1] https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-google/ https://www.tmrow.com/blog/announcing-our-partnership-with-g... [2] https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-centers-work-harder-sun-shines-wind-blows https://blog.google/inside-google/infrastructure/data-center...