3 ms·
>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective. Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. E
by revax 6y ago
>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective.
Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. Everything in a nuclear power plant can be replaced apart from the reactor vessel and the containment building.
- bjourne 6y agoBecause many of them were built before TMI and Chernobyl, in the 70's using designs from the 60's. It's similar to how maintenance on a car from the 70's probably isn't worth it. Nuclear isn't working very well in France either. The reactor in Flamanville had an initial projected cost of 3.5 billion euros which has now ballooned to 12.4 billion euros and the project is over a decade late. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-idUSKBN24A1Q5 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-idUSKBN24A... The French are also preparing to transition away from nuclear as more plants are being decommissioned.
- dispat0r 6y agoYou're arguing in bad faith. Yes the new reactors are expensive and late but also a new class EPR. There is also no plan from France to transation away from nuclear.
- bjourne 6y agoOk, so the delays and cost overruns at Flamanville were caused by a new reactor type (and this wasn't factored into the original budget estimates I presume?). What were the cause for the delays and cost overruns at Hinkley Point, Olkiluoto, and Vogtle? France aims to reduce nuclear's share of its electricity output from 75% to 50% by 2035. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-edf-idUSKBN1ZK0RL https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-edf-idUSKBN1ZK0RL We will see what happens, but given the record-low electricity prices and the Flamanville fiasco, France's nuclear phaseout may go even quicker.