27 ms·

Is this that surprising given that the largest Nuclear power company (Areva) is based in France and was owned by the state?

kergonath 5y ago
It’s not Areva anymore. It’s been split into (mostly) Orano, Technicatome, and Framatome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva
jessriedel 5y ago
Yes. It's not surprising that the largest nuclear power company is based in France because France has the largest share of power from nuclear of any country (>70%). However, like most Western countries, France's nuclear reactor building has largely stalled and they have been coasting on past accomplishments. If they succeed at building more reactors, it will be unusual (and imo good).
- kergonath 5y ago
  Areva also had a terrible track record in terms of project management. We’ll see if their successors are better.
- orra 5y ago
  Furthermore, it's not clear they are doing a fantastic job building Hinkley Point in the UK. First, in the decade or decade and a half they're taking to build it, you could build so much renewable capacity. Second, Hinkley Point only went ahead when it was guaranteed an outrageously high strike price, for the electricity it will output.
  - sideshowb 5y ago
    I'm wondering if that strike price looks quite so outrageously high now UK electricity costs have risen by 50% in the last year or so
    - kergonath 5y ago
      The wholesale price is currently around £200/MWh, whilst the guaranteed price for electricity from Hinkley Point C is around £110/MWh. So no, it is not outrageously high.
      - orra 5y ago
        No, was outrageously high, as highlighted at the time of approval by the National Audit Office. As I said, renewables are cheaper and faster to build: offshore wind a few years ago was given guaranteed strike prices of only £40/MWh. Current electricity spot prices are volatile because gas is expensive, not because nuclear is cheap. Besides, the government doesn't guarantee outrageous gas prices for thirty years.
        sideshowb 5y ago
        Wow this thread was full of questionable comparisons eh... Compare Hinkley's strike price to £40/MWh and don't mention the storage cost! Compare Hinkley's strike price to £365/MWh and don't mention that's a spike not a long term average! Take your pick :-)
    - tialaramex 5y ago
      Far more than 50%. A year ago it was normal for suppliers to pay about £50 per MWh (consumers of course end up paying a little more, this is a for-profit business in most cases) and today you're being charged maybe £200 per MWh. In one peak period yesterday it went to £365 per MWh and I'd expect the same today. Unlike in Texas, UK consumer electricity firms have to apply the price cap, so while you can get electricity for £0 in the middle of the night sometimes (though not so much recently) that full £365 wasn't passed on to you, but of course the financial strain of such offerings under current situations means these firms go bankrupt, and sooner or later the government will end up having to fix it. Everything paying Contract for Difference subsidies would be above water now, not just the nuclear plant, the most expensive older wind farms are actually net profitable for the government via its wholly owned energy subsidy company. If your wind farm is guaranteed £150 per MWh, and electricity sells for £365 per MWh, you're paying the government £215 per MWh of the income from selling wind power - if you put up a newer, cheaper farm and only secured £80 per MWh, that's £285 per MWh you're giving the government, and your investors are probably re-assessing their appetite for risk accordingly, if they'd just said "Fuck it, we'll build it without a subsidy" that £285 per MWh is profit.
- Manuel_D 5y ago
  The fact that nuclear plants last so long is a sort of unfortunate benefit. Nuclear plant production is cheaper when multiple plants of the same design are built together in serial production. But the longevity of nuclear plants mean that the need to build new ones is spaced out over decades. That said, it's still the only non-intermittent clean energy source that isn't geographically dependent like hydro and geothermal. Plans to decarbonize civilization invariably involve either nuclear power, or a magnificent yet-to-be-invented breakthrough in energy storage.
  - anonporridge 5y ago
    Possibly a good case for developing micro or mobile nuclear plants. A more continuous development of plants and less costly decommissioning could keep the stream of expertise and advancement flowing.

kergonath 5y ago

It’s not Areva anymore. It’s been split into (mostly) Orano, Technicatome, and Framatome. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva

jessriedel 5y ago

Yes. It's not surprising that the largest nuclear power company is based in France because France has the largest share of power from nuclear of any country (>70%). However, like most Western countries, France's nuclear reactor building has largely stalled and they have been coasting on past accomplishments. If they succeed at building more reactors, it will be unusual (and imo good).

kergonath 5y ago
Areva also had a terrible track record in terms of project management. We’ll see if their successors are better.
orra 5y ago
Furthermore, it's not clear they are doing a fantastic job building Hinkley Point in the UK. First, in the decade or decade and a half they're taking to build it, you could build so much renewable capacity. Second, Hinkley Point only went ahead when it was guaranteed an outrageously high strike price, for the electricity it will output.
- sideshowb 5y ago
  I'm wondering if that strike price looks quite so outrageously high now UK electricity costs have risen by 50% in the last year or so
  - kergonath 5y ago
    The wholesale price is currently around £200/MWh, whilst the guaranteed price for electricity from Hinkley Point C is around £110/MWh. So no, it is not outrageously high.
    - orra 5y ago
      No, was outrageously high, as highlighted at the time of approval by the National Audit Office. As I said, renewables are cheaper and faster to build: offshore wind a few years ago was given guaranteed strike prices of only £40/MWh. Current electricity spot prices are volatile because gas is expensive, not because nuclear is cheap. Besides, the government doesn't guarantee outrageous gas prices for thirty years.
      - sideshowb 5y ago
        Wow this thread was full of questionable comparisons eh... Compare Hinkley's strike price to £40/MWh and don't mention the storage cost! Compare Hinkley's strike price to £365/MWh and don't mention that's a spike not a long term average! Take your pick :-)
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Far more than 50%. A year ago it was normal for suppliers to pay about £50 per MWh (consumers of course end up paying a little more, this is a for-profit business in most cases) and today you're being charged maybe £200 per MWh. In one peak period yesterday it went to £365 per MWh and I'd expect the same today. Unlike in Texas, UK consumer electricity firms have to apply the price cap, so while you can get electricity for £0 in the middle of the night sometimes (though not so much recently) that full £365 wasn't passed on to you, but of course the financial strain of such offerings under current situations means these firms go bankrupt, and sooner or later the government will end up having to fix it. Everything paying Contract for Difference subsidies would be above water now, not just the nuclear plant, the most expensive older wind farms are actually net profitable for the government via its wholly owned energy subsidy company. If your wind farm is guaranteed £150 per MWh, and electricity sells for £365 per MWh, you're paying the government £215 per MWh of the income from selling wind power - if you put up a newer, cheaper farm and only secured £80 per MWh, that's £285 per MWh you're giving the government, and your investors are probably re-assessing their appetite for risk accordingly, if they'd just said "Fuck it, we'll build it without a subsidy" that £285 per MWh is profit.
Manuel_D 5y ago
The fact that nuclear plants last so long is a sort of unfortunate benefit. Nuclear plant production is cheaper when multiple plants of the same design are built together in serial production. But the longevity of nuclear plants mean that the need to build new ones is spaced out over decades. That said, it's still the only non-intermittent clean energy source that isn't geographically dependent like hydro and geothermal. Plans to decarbonize civilization invariably involve either nuclear power, or a magnificent yet-to-be-invented breakthrough in energy storage.
- anonporridge 5y ago
  Possibly a good case for developing micro or mobile nuclear plants. A more continuous development of plants and less costly decommissioning could keep the stream of expertise and advancement flowing.