3 ms·

France only has nuclear plants because they were built a long time ago. Except the EPR in Flamanville, there is no other projects to build nuclear plants. And t

by polote 5y ago

France only has nuclear plants because they were built a long time ago. Except the EPR in Flamanville, there is no other projects to build nuclear plants. And they closed one, one year ago (The ones announced by Macron, are just politic tactic to gain votes in the next election, and are not real yet). France is far from being rational on this topic

epistasis 5y ago
I disagree, France is being completely rational here. There is a better mix of power that is possible now than in the 1970s, because of technology advancements. A lot has happened in the past 50 years.
mnd999 5y ago
And IETR.
cinntaile 5y ago
Their goal is 50% nuclear by 2035. From an economical point of view that's probably better than trying to keep todays levels, since they have to replace some old plants with newer ones and then the economics no longer make sense. Hence Macrons political move towards SMRs.
stefan_ 5y ago
It's a demonstration of rationality? No one builds new nuclear power plants because they can not compete on price. Hinkley Point C will produce power at $145/MWh. That is crazy. At that kind of price point, you are better off building an interconnect to Norway and straight up importing hydro power. Think about the kind of lifetime and investment that comes with nuclear. You start a new plant project today. It might produce power in 15 years, for some 30+ years to make it economical. Who the fuck wants to bet $20B+ on solar not supplanting our entire power generation within some 45 years? Because that is what you are saying: build new nuclear, because even half a century from now, we won't have the storage technology to make solar and wind work. That's the bet.
- summm 5y ago
  Hinckley Point does not need to be economic by far. It is more about nuclear weapons. UK as a country needs a new reactor to keep its nuclear arsenal. They made that clever deal to let the energy market subsidize the military.
- RealityVoid 5y ago
  Yes, because current cost is not set in stone and with mass production cost goes down. With removing redundant regulation, cost goes down. With inherently safe reactor designs cost goes down. I bet that if coal plants hand to offset the environmental externalities, it would be way more expensive. Setting the price from that plant is like saying that reusable rockets could not be competitive because the space shuttle was more expensive than the non-reusable alternatives. And, even if I am wrong and really, nuclear is more expensive, so what? Compared to the alternative of having our societies collapsing because of climate change, a 3x on the price of energy would be money _very_ well spent. Also, if nuclear really is that non performant, it would be _awesome_ for renewables. They would actually be attractive economically and we would see more of them, not less. Kill hidrocarbons all together. Leave the free market so sort out the alternative if you really care about cost.
  - rich_sasha 5y ago
    Nuclear is the one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money. Renewables, storage etc, these are not quite solved problems. But we could just throw money at nuclear and get it done. The world was once building reactors like there’s no tomorrow, surely we could restart that. Yeah it’s expensive but so is sea level rise and dealing with hurricanes. And safety? Pollution from burning coal kills so many people every year, I’m slowly beginning to think nuclear safety is a bit if a non issue, even it a plant blows up every now and then.
    - RealityVoid 5y ago
      Oh, I am on board with you here! One thing I will object to though - the claim that "one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money" - mostly because money is a proxy for human effort and physical resources. "Just money" is not really a thing, at least how I see it. An human effort is a great thing to spent and physical resources as well, but there is a cutoff point where "just money" doesn't cut it, because the underlying resource that money is supposed to buy is simply not enough of around. But that is not the case with nuclear energy. So sorry for the deviation.

by polote 5y ago

epistasis 5y ago

I disagree, France is being completely rational here. There is a better mix of power that is possible now than in the 1970s, because of technology advancements. A lot has happened in the past 50 years.

mnd999 5y ago

And IETR.

cinntaile 5y ago

Their goal is 50% nuclear by 2035. From an economical point of view that's probably better than trying to keep todays levels, since they have to replace some old plants with newer ones and then the economics no longer make sense. Hence Macrons political move towards SMRs.

stefan_ 5y ago

It's a demonstration of rationality? No one builds new nuclear power plants because they can not compete on price. Hinkley Point C will produce power at $145/MWh. That is crazy. At that kind of price point, you are better off building an interconnect to Norway and straight up importing hydro power. Think about the kind of lifetime and investment that comes with nuclear. You start a new plant project today. It might produce power in 15 years, for some 30+ years to make it economical. Who the fuck wants to bet $20B+ on solar not supplanting our entire power generation within some 45 years? Because that is what you are saying: build new nuclear, because even half a century from now, we won't have the storage technology to make solar and wind work. That's the bet.

summm 5y ago
Hinckley Point does not need to be economic by far. It is more about nuclear weapons. UK as a country needs a new reactor to keep its nuclear arsenal. They made that clever deal to let the energy market subsidize the military.
RealityVoid 5y ago
Yes, because current cost is not set in stone and with mass production cost goes down. With removing redundant regulation, cost goes down. With inherently safe reactor designs cost goes down. I bet that if coal plants hand to offset the environmental externalities, it would be way more expensive. Setting the price from that plant is like saying that reusable rockets could not be competitive because the space shuttle was more expensive than the non-reusable alternatives. And, even if I am wrong and really, nuclear is more expensive, so what? Compared to the alternative of having our societies collapsing because of climate change, a 3x on the price of energy would be money _very_ well spent. Also, if nuclear really is that non performant, it would be _awesome_ for renewables. They would actually be attractive economically and we would see more of them, not less. Kill hidrocarbons all together. Leave the free market so sort out the alternative if you really care about cost.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Nuclear is the one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money. Renewables, storage etc, these are not quite solved problems. But we could just throw money at nuclear and get it done. The world was once building reactors like there’s no tomorrow, surely we could restart that. Yeah it’s expensive but so is sea level rise and dealing with hurricanes. And safety? Pollution from burning coal kills so many people every year, I’m slowly beginning to think nuclear safety is a bit if a non issue, even it a plant blows up every now and then.
  - RealityVoid 5y ago
    Oh, I am on board with you here! One thing I will object to though - the claim that "one way to solve carbon emissions with nothing but money" - mostly because money is a proxy for human effort and physical resources. "Just money" is not really a thing, at least how I see it. An human effort is a great thing to spent and physical resources as well, but there is a cutoff point where "just money" doesn't cut it, because the underlying resource that money is supposed to buy is simply not enough of around. But that is not the case with nuclear energy. So sorry for the deviation.