5 ms·

Which is actually not true at all. Modern nuclear plants can be operated in load-following mode and reduce and increase their output by 10% and more within minu

Which is actually not true at all. Modern nuclear plants can be operated in load-following mode and reduce and increase their output by 10% and more within minutes.

Gwypaas 6y ago
The main issue is that the largest cost of a nuclear power plant is the capital investment to build it and staff to run it, which is fixed. In comparison fuel costs seem to hover at about 25%. Therefore you need to run your plant at about full power all day to have a chance to recoup the investment. With renewable, although intermittent, sources vastly undercutting nuclear energy on price many hours of the day this becomes an almost impossible calculation. Based on this nuclear is an uniquely bad pairing together with renewables, and it will only get worse. Say you can make massive profits on average one hour per day, but that means all other methods of energy generation or storage can make the same, and still undercut you. This isn't even factoring in that it is impossible to get insurance for a nuclear power plant.
pfdietz 6y ago
The issue is not primarily technical, it's economic. Operate a nuclear plant at lower capacity factor and the economics becomes even more hopeless.
- travisoneill1 6y ago
  If the economics are impossible, how is it that France currently runs 70% of its grid on nuclear and has electricity costs substantially lower than the EU average?
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    We don't know how much those reactors cost to build then (it was mixed with the military nuclear program and the paperwork I understand does not exist to disentangle the spending). They are cheap now because they are not being charged for the cost of their construction. We do know that France cannot afford to replace them now; new reactors would be far out of the running economically.
    - travisoneill1 6y ago
      So economically viable if the government subsidizes the construction. I would be happy for my tax money to go to a project that gets 70% of electricity generation off of carbon.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Subsidy doesn't change what the technology costs, it just changes how that cost is paid. Subsidy can make sense, but not because shuffling euros around under walnut shells makes the cost disappear. The argument for subsidies is generally that it helps technologies move down experience curves. This improvement is a positive externality that a pure market would not necessarily reward. Unfortunately, nuclear (and nuclear in France) has been showing NEGATIVE experience effects.
    - hokkos 6y ago
      That is not true the Cour des Comptes has extensive documentation for its cost, also nuclear LTO should be preferred, but replacement is economically possible.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Really? https://presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ADEME_%C3%A9tude_mix-electrique.pdf https://presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ADEME_%C3...

Which is actually not true at all. Modern nuclear plants can be operated in load-following mode and reduce and increase their output by 10% and more within minutes.

Gwypaas 6y ago

The main issue is that the largest cost of a nuclear power plant is the capital investment to build it and staff to run it, which is fixed. In comparison fuel costs seem to hover at about 25%. Therefore you need to run your plant at about full power all day to have a chance to recoup the investment. With renewable, although intermittent, sources vastly undercutting nuclear energy on price many hours of the day this becomes an almost impossible calculation. Based on this nuclear is an uniquely bad pairing together with renewables, and it will only get worse. Say you can make massive profits on average one hour per day, but that means all other methods of energy generation or storage can make the same, and still undercut you. This isn't even factoring in that it is impossible to get insurance for a nuclear power plant.

pfdietz 6y ago

The issue is not primarily technical, it's economic. Operate a nuclear plant at lower capacity factor and the economics becomes even more hopeless.

travisoneill1 6y ago
If the economics are impossible, how is it that France currently runs 70% of its grid on nuclear and has electricity costs substantially lower than the EU average?
- pfdietz 6y ago
  We don't know how much those reactors cost to build then (it was mixed with the military nuclear program and the paperwork I understand does not exist to disentangle the spending). They are cheap now because they are not being charged for the cost of their construction. We do know that France cannot afford to replace them now; new reactors would be far out of the running economically.
  - travisoneill1 6y ago
    So economically viable if the government subsidizes the construction. I would be happy for my tax money to go to a project that gets 70% of electricity generation off of carbon.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Subsidy doesn't change what the technology costs, it just changes how that cost is paid. Subsidy can make sense, but not because shuffling euros around under walnut shells makes the cost disappear. The argument for subsidies is generally that it helps technologies move down experience curves. This improvement is a positive externality that a pure market would not necessarily reward. Unfortunately, nuclear (and nuclear in France) has been showing NEGATIVE experience effects.
  - hokkos 6y ago
    That is not true the Cour des Comptes has extensive documentation for its cost, also nuclear LTO should be preferred, but replacement is economically possible.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Really? https://presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ADEME_%C3%A9tude_mix-electrique.pdf https://presse.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ADEME_%C3...