5 ms·

While it's evident nuclear sentiment is not great in germany, from my point of view, I wouldn't characterize it as great in france either. Sadly, I think in thi

by doe88 4y ago

While it's evident nuclear sentiment is not great in germany, from my point of view, I wouldn't characterize it as great in france either. Sadly, I think in this domain (as in many) france lives with the infrastructure and build of its past and currently fails to invest for its future, it's more managing decline than anything else. I think as current nuclear plants become older and mismatch between current needs and true green energies production become more apparent, people still live in a bubble and don't see the urgency nor courage to really invest in new reactors and plants and prepare the future, for france and europe. My dream would be that france, with help of germany and other willing eu countries would build new reactors with an overcapacity for france alone such that it would then provide this energy to other ue countries. Nuclear energy is a chance and is not mutually exclusive with other energies. (of course i'm french)

kergonath 4y ago
> While it's evident nuclear sentiment is not great in germany, from my point of view, I wouldn't characterize as great in france either I think it is changing. Both the IPCC and the ERDF reports were unambiguous and politicians and technocrats who were paying attention noticed. Now, skyrocketing gas prices are a warning shot. A blackout or a brownout could completely change public opinion (not that si would welcome it, but at this point it seems inevitable; we almost had 3 last winter). > Sadly, I think in this domain (as in many) france lives with the infrastructure and build of its past and currently fails to invest for its future, it's more managing decline than anything else. That is very true, unfortunately. That’s why building a series of EPR would be a good thing long-term, as it would provide some justifications to train new engineers and a refreshed skilled workforce. > My dream would be that france, with help of germany and other eu countries would build new reactors with an overcapacity for france alone and would then provide this energy to other ue countries. This would make sense from a technical point of view (one large fleet in a single country is easier to manage and more efficient than the same number of reactors distributed across several states). But that’s very difficult from a political point of view. > Nuclear energy is a chance and is not mutually exclusive with other energies. This is something a lot of people do not seem to grasp. We need all the low-carbon energy we can produce, and we need it 20 years ago. There is no point bickering about the share of renewable and the share of nuclear. We need renewables where we can and nuclear where we must. In the end, what matters is that even a carbon-free electricity supply is just half the journey, and the easy half at that. It’s not something we will solve with a one-size-fits-all approach.
- doe88 4y ago
  > That’s why building a series of EPR would be a good thing long-term, as it would provide some justifications to train new engineers and a refreshed skilled workforce. Also very true. The most difficult is most likelihy to build the first one, reacquire the supply-chain, engineering, knowhow, then, you can build the next ones at scale, certainly with both an economy of time and money.
logifail 4y ago
> My dream would be that france, with help of germany and other eu countries would build new reactors with an overcapacity for france alone and would then provide this energy to other ue countries. Nuclear energy is a chance and is not mutually exclusive with other energies. I think this will stay a dream. Aren't "modern" nuclear plants such as the EPR all a) very late and b) massively over budget? The EPR project is basically a complete train-wreck.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Aren't "modern" nuclear plants such as the EPR all a) very late and b) massively over budget? The Finnish one was both due to epic project management failures, from bad suppliers with dodgy welds, to changing the reactor design as it was being built to accommodate future regulations. Flamanville is also late and over budget for much of the same reasons (shoddy project management and unreliable suppliers; this time the concrete was out of specs as well). These sort of issues get sorted naturally if yew build in series instead of one-of-a kind. The Chinese did not have any problem building two, and the British one is progressing more or less as planned. Also, the EPR is not really a modern design.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > These sort of issues get sorted naturally if yew build in series instead of one-of-a kind That would appear to rule out any possibility of rapid increasing nuclear generating capacity if we are going to be forced to build them one after another in order to work out how to do it well? > The Chinese did not have any problem building two ...that they've admitted to? > the British one is progressing more or less as planned 2022: "The nuclear power station being built at Hinkley Point will start operating a year later than planned and will cost an extra £3bn, EDF has said"[0] 2021: "British Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant Delayed With Higher Costs First reactor will start producing power in June 2026. Cost will be 500 million pounds more than previously planned"[1] 2019: "Costs Rise Again for U.K. Hinkley Point Nuclear Project. Utility increases bill for Hinkley units, flags possible delay. EDF also cuts estimated return from plant to as little as 7.6%"[2] My issue with it is more the spectacularly bad deal for the consumer that it represents. Originally the UK government insisted that "the private sector would shoulder both the development costs and risk", but then the financial crisis happened, and they ended up having to rework the deal to the benefit of EDF, who basically had them over a barrel.[3] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609 [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/edf-sees-delay-and-rising-bill-in-british-nuclear-plant-project#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/edf-sees-... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raises-cost-of-flagship-u-k-nuclear-project-warns-of-delay#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raise... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...

by doe88 4y ago

kergonath 4y ago

> While it's evident nuclear sentiment is not great in germany, from my point of view, I wouldn't characterize as great in france either I think it is changing. Both the IPCC and the ERDF reports were unambiguous and politicians and technocrats who were paying attention noticed. Now, skyrocketing gas prices are a warning shot. A blackout or a brownout could completely change public opinion (not that si would welcome it, but at this point it seems inevitable; we almost had 3 last winter). > Sadly, I think in this domain (as in many) france lives with the infrastructure and build of its past and currently fails to invest for its future, it's more managing decline than anything else. That is very true, unfortunately. That’s why building a series of EPR would be a good thing long-term, as it would provide some justifications to train new engineers and a refreshed skilled workforce. > My dream would be that france, with help of germany and other eu countries would build new reactors with an overcapacity for france alone and would then provide this energy to other ue countries. This would make sense from a technical point of view (one large fleet in a single country is easier to manage and more efficient than the same number of reactors distributed across several states). But that’s very difficult from a political point of view. > Nuclear energy is a chance and is not mutually exclusive with other energies. This is something a lot of people do not seem to grasp. We need all the low-carbon energy we can produce, and we need it 20 years ago. There is no point bickering about the share of renewable and the share of nuclear. We need renewables where we can and nuclear where we must. In the end, what matters is that even a carbon-free electricity supply is just half the journey, and the easy half at that. It’s not something we will solve with a one-size-fits-all approach.

doe88 4y ago
> That’s why building a series of EPR would be a good thing long-term, as it would provide some justifications to train new engineers and a refreshed skilled workforce. Also very true. The most difficult is most likelihy to build the first one, reacquire the supply-chain, engineering, knowhow, then, you can build the next ones at scale, certainly with both an economy of time and money.

logifail 4y ago

> My dream would be that france, with help of germany and other eu countries would build new reactors with an overcapacity for france alone and would then provide this energy to other ue countries. Nuclear energy is a chance and is not mutually exclusive with other energies. I think this will stay a dream. Aren't "modern" nuclear plants such as the EPR all a) very late and b) massively over budget? The EPR project is basically a complete train-wreck.

kergonath 4y ago
> Aren't "modern" nuclear plants such as the EPR all a) very late and b) massively over budget? The Finnish one was both due to epic project management failures, from bad suppliers with dodgy welds, to changing the reactor design as it was being built to accommodate future regulations. Flamanville is also late and over budget for much of the same reasons (shoddy project management and unreliable suppliers; this time the concrete was out of specs as well). These sort of issues get sorted naturally if yew build in series instead of one-of-a kind. The Chinese did not have any problem building two, and the British one is progressing more or less as planned. Also, the EPR is not really a modern design.
- logifail 4y ago
  > These sort of issues get sorted naturally if yew build in series instead of one-of-a kind That would appear to rule out any possibility of rapid increasing nuclear generating capacity if we are going to be forced to build them one after another in order to work out how to do it well? > The Chinese did not have any problem building two ...that they've admitted to? > the British one is progressing more or less as planned 2022: "The nuclear power station being built at Hinkley Point will start operating a year later than planned and will cost an extra £3bn, EDF has said"[0] 2021: "British Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant Delayed With Higher Costs First reactor will start producing power in June 2026. Cost will be 500 million pounds more than previously planned"[1] 2019: "Costs Rise Again for U.K. Hinkley Point Nuclear Project. Utility increases bill for Hinkley units, flags possible delay. EDF also cuts estimated return from plant to as little as 7.6%"[2] My issue with it is more the spectacularly bad deal for the consumer that it represents. Originally the UK government insisted that "the private sector would shoulder both the development costs and risk", but then the financial crisis happened, and they ended up having to rework the deal to the benefit of EDF, who basically had them over a barrel.[3] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-somerset-61519609 [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/edf-sees-delay-and-rising-bill-in-british-nuclear-plant-project#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-27/edf-sees-... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raises-cost-of-flagship-u-k-nuclear-project-warns-of-delay#xj4y7vzkg https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/edf-raise... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c-dreadful-deal-behind-worlds-most-expensive-power-plant https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...