4 ms·

France has been into nuclear for a long time but hasn't actually built a single new reactor in over 2 decades. The newest reactor running at the moment they hav

by doikor 4y ago

France has been into nuclear for a long time but hasn't actually built a single new reactor in over 2 decades. The newest reactor running at the moment they have went online in 2002. (Yes I know they have the fancy new EPR reactor under construction in Flamanville but that is not ready yet) If France had kept the rate up of getting a new reactor up and running every 1 to 3 years like they did during the peak I don't think they would have this issue now. Also both France and Germany are at this moment heavily being propped up by Swedish nuclear power (and hydro).

pydry 4y ago
Yeah, but they looked at the cost and decided not to do that. Just like germany looked at the cost of maintaining/building plants and also thought "well f**k this it isnt worth it". Even now France are spending a fortune on new reactors and it still will not be enough to make up for the ones that will age out. They're officially hoping wind and solar will make up the difference. Im pretty sure the green lobby in Germany is due an apology from the nuke fans. This all-in on nuclear approach wouldnt have worked any better for Germany than it did for France it would just have soaked up cash.
- doikor 4y ago
  In France the nuclear is state owned (EDF owns all nuclear plants and the government owns 85% of it) and how it is actually priced is just weird/can not really be compared directly. For actual costs what you should look at are actual commercial operations like what Sweden or Finland has. > They're officially hoping wind and solar will make up the difference. You better if you don't build anything else. If I was only building X I for sure would hope that would be the solution. Hoping that the solution would be Y would be kind of self defeating. edit: Looking into this more looks like most Swedish nuclear plants are also owned by the state (though Vattenfall). Is Finland the only country with actual privately owned nuclear power plants in EU?
  - pydry 4y ago
    Finland has two plants. One is Soviet in origin and one is financially struggling. Nuclear power simply cant exist without lavish subsidies.
    - doikor 4y ago
      > one is financially struggling. Which one? Even Olkiluoto (OL3 with its decade+ delays included) is doing just fine financially. > Nuclear power simply cant exist without lavish subsidies. Point me to these subsidies in Finland. It is the wind and solar that is getting lavish subsidies here (well used to they are now finally going away slowly bringing actual market economy back into the picutre) edit: > One is Soviet in origin How does this matter? VVER-440 is actually a solid design and has been in use for decades without any issues in Finland (and many other countries). These days all the parts and upgrades are sourced from the west. Also a western standard safety vessel and all other safety features were upgraded when it was built as we Finns did not really trust Soviet safety design (as in it was never turned on with standard Soviet safety systems installed as is)
      - pydry 4y ago
        >Which one? Even Olkiluoto (OL3 with its decade+ delays included) is doing just fine financially. Areva (the French state) took a 5.5 billion euro loss building Olkiluotu. >How does this matter? Pretty much all nuclear power is an offshoot of the military, but the Soviet Union's civilian nuclear power industry was a little more obviously an offshoot of its military. With Vattenfall the same is true but is less obvious. Sweden essentially took out an option on having nuclear weapons while still adhering to the terms of the NPT.
        doikor 4y ago
        > Areva (the French state) took a 5.5 billion euro loss building Olkiluotu. That is Arevas problem not the buyer/operator of the reactor (TVO). If you sell something at fixed cost then you sell something at fixed cost. Sometimes contracts go bad (and TVO has come to the help of Areva to the tune of extra ~2.5 billion euros) It was Areva who bid really low to win the contract. So low that Atomstroyexport, Siemens, Westinghouse, Framatome and GE never bothered to put their final bid in (Areva was the only one to put a bid on in the final round). If you intentionally underbid then be ready to eat some losses. And TVO made sure during the bidding process that there were enough insurances to ensure that the project would be finished even if it went overbudged/got delayed. Basically TVO made a really good deal. If I made solar panels and sold a project to build a solar park at 100 million and it ended up costing 200 million to build due to MY (the builder/contractor) fuck ups how actually is it the fault of the buyer? You eat the loss as the builder and try to learn something from it. > Pretty much all nuclear power is an offshoot of the military, but the Soviet Union's civilian nuclear power industry was a little more obviously an offshoot of its military. And microchips are an offshoot of military weapon projects (getting small/light enough computers to fit fighter planes). Just because something started with military use/funding/backing does not mean we should not use it.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
> France has been into nuclear for a long time but hasn't actually built a single new reactor in over 2 decades. The newest reactor running at the moment they have went online in 2002. > (Yes I know they have the fancy new EPR reactor under construction in Flamanville but that is not ready yet) Wikipedia says: In December 2007, construction of the unit itself began. This was expected to last 54 months, with commissioning planned for 2012 They've been building that specific reactor for nearly 2 decades, so it's not for lack of trying and rather puts a different spin on their lack of nuclear at the moment.
- doikor 4y ago
  France used to build like 2 or 3 reactors at the same time which helps with managing risks like these. If they were instead building some known/built before reactor at the same time the risk would not be so great. As with solar or wind you don't just build one single wind mill or panel but instead multiple (and hopefully at multiple different sites/projects) to minimize the risk of one of the projects going bad. (this is pretty basic risk management stuff) Basically it all boils down to the "France is not really building much nuclear anymore" category. If you are only going to get one reactor to build every decade or two you want to make sure it is the biggest most advanced one you can get a permit for to maximize production but at the same time you maximize the risks.

by doikor 4y ago

pydry 4y ago

Yeah, but they looked at the cost and decided not to do that. Just like germany looked at the cost of maintaining/building plants and also thought "well f**k this it isnt worth it". Even now France are spending a fortune on new reactors and it still will not be enough to make up for the ones that will age out. They're officially hoping wind and solar will make up the difference. Im pretty sure the green lobby in Germany is due an apology from the nuke fans. This all-in on nuclear approach wouldnt have worked any better for Germany than it did for France it would just have soaked up cash.

doikor 4y ago
In France the nuclear is state owned (EDF owns all nuclear plants and the government owns 85% of it) and how it is actually priced is just weird/can not really be compared directly. For actual costs what you should look at are actual commercial operations like what Sweden or Finland has. > They're officially hoping wind and solar will make up the difference. You better if you don't build anything else. If I was only building X I for sure would hope that would be the solution. Hoping that the solution would be Y would be kind of self defeating. edit: Looking into this more looks like most Swedish nuclear plants are also owned by the state (though Vattenfall). Is Finland the only country with actual privately owned nuclear power plants in EU?
- pydry 4y ago
  Finland has two plants. One is Soviet in origin and one is financially struggling. Nuclear power simply cant exist without lavish subsidies.
  - doikor 4y ago
    > one is financially struggling. Which one? Even Olkiluoto (OL3 with its decade+ delays included) is doing just fine financially. > Nuclear power simply cant exist without lavish subsidies. Point me to these subsidies in Finland. It is the wind and solar that is getting lavish subsidies here (well used to they are now finally going away slowly bringing actual market economy back into the picutre) edit: > One is Soviet in origin How does this matter? VVER-440 is actually a solid design and has been in use for decades without any issues in Finland (and many other countries). These days all the parts and upgrades are sourced from the west. Also a western standard safety vessel and all other safety features were upgraded when it was built as we Finns did not really trust Soviet safety design (as in it was never turned on with standard Soviet safety systems installed as is)
    - pydry 4y ago
      >Which one? Even Olkiluoto (OL3 with its decade+ delays included) is doing just fine financially. Areva (the French state) took a 5.5 billion euro loss building Olkiluotu. >How does this matter? Pretty much all nuclear power is an offshoot of the military, but the Soviet Union's civilian nuclear power industry was a little more obviously an offshoot of its military. With Vattenfall the same is true but is less obvious. Sweden essentially took out an option on having nuclear weapons while still adhering to the terms of the NPT.
      - doikor 4y ago
        > Areva (the French state) took a 5.5 billion euro loss building Olkiluotu. That is Arevas problem not the buyer/operator of the reactor (TVO). If you sell something at fixed cost then you sell something at fixed cost. Sometimes contracts go bad (and TVO has come to the help of Areva to the tune of extra ~2.5 billion euros) It was Areva who bid really low to win the contract. So low that Atomstroyexport, Siemens, Westinghouse, Framatome and GE never bothered to put their final bid in (Areva was the only one to put a bid on in the final round). If you intentionally underbid then be ready to eat some losses. And TVO made sure during the bidding process that there were enough insurances to ensure that the project would be finished even if it went overbudged/got delayed. Basically TVO made a really good deal. If I made solar panels and sold a project to build a solar park at 100 million and it ended up costing 200 million to build due to MY (the builder/contractor) fuck ups how actually is it the fault of the buyer? You eat the loss as the builder and try to learn something from it. > Pretty much all nuclear power is an offshoot of the military, but the Soviet Union's civilian nuclear power industry was a little more obviously an offshoot of its military. And microchips are an offshoot of military weapon projects (getting small/light enough computers to fit fighter planes). Just because something started with military use/funding/backing does not mean we should not use it.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

> France has been into nuclear for a long time but hasn't actually built a single new reactor in over 2 decades. The newest reactor running at the moment they have went online in 2002. > (Yes I know they have the fancy new EPR reactor under construction in Flamanville but that is not ready yet) Wikipedia says: In December 2007, construction of the unit itself began. This was expected to last 54 months, with commissioning planned for 2012 They've been building that specific reactor for nearly 2 decades, so it's not for lack of trying and rather puts a different spin on their lack of nuclear at the moment.

doikor 4y ago
France used to build like 2 or 3 reactors at the same time which helps with managing risks like these. If they were instead building some known/built before reactor at the same time the risk would not be so great. As with solar or wind you don't just build one single wind mill or panel but instead multiple (and hopefully at multiple different sites/projects) to minimize the risk of one of the projects going bad. (this is pretty basic risk management stuff) Basically it all boils down to the "France is not really building much nuclear anymore" category. If you are only going to get one reactor to build every decade or two you want to make sure it is the biggest most advanced one you can get a permit for to maximize production but at the same time you maximize the risks.