5 ms·

Which is why French energy is the cheapest and least-carbon-intensive in Western Europe? Nuclear is cheap when not operated in a hostile regulatory environment

Which is why French energy is the cheapest and least-carbon-intensive in Western Europe? Nuclear is cheap when not operated in a hostile regulatory environment and built at scale, even while setting aside tens of billions for decommissioning and waste management.

_huayra_ 5y ago
Yeah it's too bad the world didn't go nuclear as France did. iirc they have a standardized way of making power plants off site and then assembling on-site, vs. the bespoke custom way they build them in the US (part of the bonkers cost overruns).
pydry 5y ago
It's cheap coz they built their nuclear plants ~50 years ago and front loaded the capital expenditure. They're sort of in a sweet spot right now financially but once their plants start aging out - which is soon - the costs will jump a lot if they try to extend their life or build brand new plants. The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never" This makes no sence, and if wealthy countries of this world actually got their head out of their collective asses and built a system like the french one, we would avoid climate change almost entirely - france emits 3 or 4 times less per persom than the US does
Tade0 5y ago
The plant in Belarus was arguably made in a very, ahem, friendly regulatory environment(finished in less than 6 years!) and it still was $11bln for a 2GW unit. But the most important thing is the opportunity cost - a typical nuclear power plant takes 7 years to complete. For this reason in terms of GWh delivered in China, wind overtook nuclear in 2012 or so and the gap has been widening ever since.
mschuster91 5y ago
French energy is cheap because their plants are old. The new Flamanville project is plagued by budget and time overruns.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  Fucking millenials can't build reactors
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    EPR development began in 1989, many of those called "millennials" weren't even born at that time.
    - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
      It was a joke
derriz 5y ago
France's most recent experience with expanding nuclear production, Flamanville 3, has turned out to be anything but cheap. Nearly 6 times over-budget and yet to provide a watt nearly 10 years after its initially projected completion date. Most recent cost estimates are for over 19B euro - $22B. This buys you a single 1.6GW reactor.[1] The same amount of money would buy 20GW of onshore wind. Even adjusting for capacity factors - about 70% for French nuclear, about 40% for well positioned modern turbines - the cost per MWh is about 7 times higher for nuclear. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

_huayra_ 5y ago

Yeah it's too bad the world didn't go nuclear as France did. iirc they have a standardized way of making power plants off site and then assembling on-site, vs. the bespoke custom way they build them in the US (part of the bonkers cost overruns).

pydry 5y ago

It's cheap coz they built their nuclear plants ~50 years ago and front loaded the capital expenditure. They're sort of in a sweet spot right now financially but once their plants start aging out - which is soon - the costs will jump a lot if they try to extend their life or build brand new plants. The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"The best time to go zero carbon with nuclear was 50 years ago. The second best time is never" This makes no sence, and if wealthy countries of this world actually got their head out of their collective asses and built a system like the french one, we would avoid climate change almost entirely - france emits 3 or 4 times less per persom than the US does

Tade0 5y ago

The plant in Belarus was arguably made in a very, ahem, friendly regulatory environment(finished in less than 6 years!) and it still was $11bln for a 2GW unit. But the most important thing is the opportunity cost - a typical nuclear power plant takes 7 years to complete. For this reason in terms of GWh delivered in China, wind overtook nuclear in 2012 or so and the gap has been widening ever since.

mschuster91 5y ago

French energy is cheap because their plants are old. The new Flamanville project is plagued by budget and time overruns.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Fucking millenials can't build reactors
- mschuster91 5y ago
  EPR development began in 1989, many of those called "millennials" weren't even born at that time.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    It was a joke

derriz 5y ago

France's most recent experience with expanding nuclear production, Flamanville 3, has turned out to be anything but cheap. Nearly 6 times over-budget and yet to provide a watt nearly 10 years after its initially projected completion date. Most recent cost estimates are for over 19B euro - $22B. This buys you a single 1.6GW reactor.[1] The same amount of money would buy 20GW of onshore wind. Even adjusting for capacity factors - about 70% for French nuclear, about 40% for well positioned modern turbines - the cost per MWh is about 7 times higher for nuclear. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...