5 ms·

I believe the Flamanville EPR is considered as some sort of prototype. It was planned to be years in the making and difficulties were expected. However, they w

I believe the Flamanville EPR is considered as some sort of prototype. It was planned to be years in the making and difficulties were expected. However, they were not expecting this much. The reasons that they are pushing are: 1. Lack of proper trained personnel 2. More constraints imposed during the projects due to Fukushima 3. First design of that kind And as you said, the last nuclear reactor to be finished in France was 20 years ago[0]. The people who worked on that last plant were probably the one who worked on plants during the 70s, 80s and 90s and retired right after. It fits with reason 1. [0]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_France#/media/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fra...

conradfr 5y ago
It can get complicated [1] ... Honestly I don't know if we can really build nuclear plants anymore, at least for a reasonable cost in a timely fashion. [1] https://www.franceculture.fr/economie/scandale-de-la-forge-du-creusot-areva-et-edf-alertees-des-2005 https://www.franceculture.fr/economie/scandale-de-la-forge-d...
philipkglass 5y ago
I believe the Flamanville EPR is considered as some sort of prototype. It was planned to be years in the making and difficulties were expected. It was scheduled to take 54 months to build when construction started in 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20110613091002/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2048041 https://web.archive.org/web/20110613091002/http://www.neimag... The last reactors to enter commercial operation in France, the 2 units at Civaux Nuclear Power Plant, took 13 and 11 years from construction start in 1988/1991 to commercial operation in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant I wonder if EDF succumbed to hubris in thinking that they could build a new reactor design twice as fast as the last-completed reactors, or if they published optimistic numbers because they thought that there was more institutional tolerance for constant slippage than for estimating unhappily large numbers right at the start.
- Maakuth 5y ago
  I would bet on hubris here. In parallel with the Flamanville unit, they've been building EPR in Olkiluoto, Finland. There's a number of issues that have been shared by both of the projects, of course with some issues specific to each one. They agreed to deliver the Finnish plant on turnkey basis and are facing billions in losses because the quoted price is something like 1/3 of the final cost.
- natmaka 5y ago
  > the 2 units at Civaux Nuclear Power Plant, took 13 and 11 years from construction start in 1988/1991 to commercial operation in 2002: At the time France was simultaneously building many reactors, see: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%C3%A9aires_en_France#/media/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%... Some say that Flamanville-3 is a failure because it should be built along with many other reactors. This seems ridiculous to me, as if the problems (lack of adequate applied skill, bad project management... there is a complete official report about the causes, written by M. Folz) would be alleviated by parallelizing projects (it would instead worsen their effects and add delays). > if they published optimistic numbers because they thought that there was more institutional tolerance In France institutional tolerance for the nuclear industry is at its max. Start in 2007, to be delivered in 2012, nothing delivered in 2021 and 5.6 times over-budget... and no-one even talks about calling it off. Even better: M. Macron wants to start new projects!
  - toyg 5y ago
    > In France institutional tolerance for the nuclear industry is at its max. At this point, it's more of a jobs-program than an energy-program - like a lot of US defence spending.
    - natmaka 5y ago
      Indeed. In France the nuclear sector (plants, fuel, research...) has about 220000 jobs.
    - 5y ago
natmaka 5y ago
> Flamanville EPR is considered as some sort of prototype No, it officially is a "tête de série" (meaning among the firsts of a series). It cannot be a prototype because this very model, the EPR, was sold to Finland and the corresponding project (Olkiluoto-3) started 2 years before Flamanville's. > the one who worked on plants during the 70s, 80s and 90s and retired right after In such huge heavy industry projects occupying tens of thoosands persons there is a constant stream of newcomers. Moreover this industry must maintain existing (exploited) reactors, and a non-neglectable portion of skills needed when building are also needed during maintenance. Also: many critical specialties, especially outside the nuclear isle, are qualifications built upon a non nuclear-specific trade (concrete, welding...): a "standard" professional can be trained in nuclear-specific skills in months. In any case the industry (which isn't exactly a low-cost lo-margin one...) has to manage human resources, and to find ways to maintain critical and very specific skills.

conradfr 5y ago

It can get complicated [1] ... Honestly I don't know if we can really build nuclear plants anymore, at least for a reasonable cost in a timely fashion. [1] https://www.franceculture.fr/economie/scandale-de-la-forge-du-creusot-areva-et-edf-alertees-des-2005 https://www.franceculture.fr/economie/scandale-de-la-forge-d...

philipkglass 5y ago

I believe the Flamanville EPR is considered as some sort of prototype. It was planned to be years in the making and difficulties were expected. It was scheduled to take 54 months to build when construction started in 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20110613091002/http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectionCode=132&storyCode=2048041 https://web.archive.org/web/20110613091002/http://www.neimag... The last reactors to enter commercial operation in France, the 2 units at Civaux Nuclear Power Plant, took 13 and 11 years from construction start in 1988/1991 to commercial operation in 2002: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant I wonder if EDF succumbed to hubris in thinking that they could build a new reactor design twice as fast as the last-completed reactors, or if they published optimistic numbers because they thought that there was more institutional tolerance for constant slippage than for estimating unhappily large numbers right at the start.

Maakuth 5y ago
I would bet on hubris here. In parallel with the Flamanville unit, they've been building EPR in Olkiluoto, Finland. There's a number of issues that have been shared by both of the projects, of course with some issues specific to each one. They agreed to deliver the Finnish plant on turnkey basis and are facing billions in losses because the quoted price is something like 1/3 of the final cost.
natmaka 5y ago
> the 2 units at Civaux Nuclear Power Plant, took 13 and 11 years from construction start in 1988/1991 to commercial operation in 2002: At the time France was simultaneously building many reactors, see: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%C3%A9aires_en_France#/media/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%... Some say that Flamanville-3 is a failure because it should be built along with many other reactors. This seems ridiculous to me, as if the problems (lack of adequate applied skill, bad project management... there is a complete official report about the causes, written by M. Folz) would be alleviated by parallelizing projects (it would instead worsen their effects and add delays). > if they published optimistic numbers because they thought that there was more institutional tolerance In France institutional tolerance for the nuclear industry is at its max. Start in 2007, to be delivered in 2012, nothing delivered in 2021 and 5.6 times over-budget... and no-one even talks about calling it off. Even better: M. Macron wants to start new projects!
- toyg 5y ago
  > In France institutional tolerance for the nuclear industry is at its max. At this point, it's more of a jobs-program than an energy-program - like a lot of US defence spending.
  - natmaka 5y ago
    Indeed. In France the nuclear sector (plants, fuel, research...) has about 220000 jobs.
  - 5y ago

natmaka 5y ago

> Flamanville EPR is considered as some sort of prototype No, it officially is a "tête de série" (meaning among the firsts of a series). It cannot be a prototype because this very model, the EPR, was sold to Finland and the corresponding project (Olkiluoto-3) started 2 years before Flamanville's. > the one who worked on plants during the 70s, 80s and 90s and retired right after In such huge heavy industry projects occupying tens of thoosands persons there is a constant stream of newcomers. Moreover this industry must maintain existing (exploited) reactors, and a non-neglectable portion of skills needed when building are also needed during maintenance. Also: many critical specialties, especially outside the nuclear isle, are qualifications built upon a non nuclear-specific trade (concrete, welding...): a "standard" professional can be trained in nuclear-specific skills in months. In any case the industry (which isn't exactly a low-cost lo-margin one...) has to manage human resources, and to find ways to maintain critical and very specific skills.