4 ms·

Sometimes I think all of this strife and posturing is just to force people to get behind nuclear. It's truly absurd that, as just one example, California is si

Sometimes I think all of this strife and posturing is just to force people to get behind nuclear. It's truly absurd that, as just one example, California is simultaneously mandating electric-only vehicles and telling people that they're not allowed to charge them because there's not enough electricity.

pydry 4y ago
It absolutely is. 100% not for environmental reasons, but because civilian nuclear power supports a nuclear military (by e.g. sharing costs, skills, industrial ecosystem). In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests. France does. The Soviets built their other one. The military is the underlying driver for nuclear power everywhere. Recent environmentalism is just moral cover for the real goal. It's always < 3/4 the cost of a combined solar, wind and pumped storage run grid. The German green/anti nuclear coalition was a particular threat because it was (until the war) demonstrating a model that threatened to economically undermine civilian nuclear power globally.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like. > The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists. > In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. > [...] > This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”. > Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”. > [...] > At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”. > Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-... > Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me. > Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me. 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... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
- schnitzelstoat 4y ago
  It depends on the fuel cycle used. Not all plants are suitable for generating plutonium and weapons-grade uranium.
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    I would say it's more about the skilled workforce and industry allowing people to revolve between civilian and military project.
- doikor 4y ago
  > In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests. Areva made a bid so low that every other builder decide to not even bother leave their final bids. It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract (other then making sure Areva had enough insurances/financial backing to finish the project even if it goes over budged) TVO did have other builds interested (Sweden, America and Japan) but their reactors were only in the 1000MW range instead of 1600MW and cost a bit more. So obviously TVO took the best option. The best would have been for the government give TVO the permits to builds multiple reactors so they could have built 2x800MW or something like that which would have been easier/cheaper.
  - pydry 4y ago
    >It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all. The French state being willing to eat a loss on this plant that is large enough to build an equivalent-in-MW wind farm doesnt happen just by accident. The private sector alone would have abandoned plans for this plant long ago.
    - doikor 4y ago
      > I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all. If Areva did not make such a low bid they would have probably chosen another bid by another provider.
      - pydry 4y ago
        More likely theyd just have canceled it. The price they paid for 1.6GW was already very high without accounting for the French military's €5 bn gift and construction delays.
        doikor 4y ago
        We really don't know this. There were 4 other companies that took part in the bidding process and were in it quite seriously but dropped off when the government signaled it would only give permit for a single reactor (so no 2x800MW etc but instead just one huge one) and Areva put in their bid (and was loud/public about it) Fortum also wanted to build their own third reactor in Loviisa but was not given a permit. This not getting permit left Fortum with a lot of cash it really did not know what to do with so in their infinite wisdom they decided to buy Uniper. So I would say at that moment there was a lot of interest to build a reactor and it would most likely have been built without Arevas involment. Still even the original price was higher then expected. In the original paperwork to government to start the process of getting the permit the estimate was 1.7 to 2.5 billion euros.

pydry 4y ago

It absolutely is. 100% not for environmental reasons, but because civilian nuclear power supports a nuclear military (by e.g. sharing costs, skills, industrial ecosystem). In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests. France does. The Soviets built their other one. The military is the underlying driver for nuclear power everywhere. Recent environmentalism is just moral cover for the real goal. It's always < 3/4 the cost of a combined solar, wind and pumped storage run grid. The German green/anti nuclear coalition was a particular threat because it was (until the war) demonstrating a model that threatened to economically undermine civilian nuclear power globally.

Gwypaas 4y ago
In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like. > The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists. > In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”. > [...] > This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”. > Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”. > [...] > At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”. > Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-consumers-to-fund-nuclear-weapons-through-hinkley-point-c https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-... > Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me. > Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me. 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... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
schnitzelstoat 4y ago
It depends on the fuel cycle used. Not all plants are suitable for generating plutonium and weapons-grade uranium.
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  I would say it's more about the skilled workforce and industry allowing people to revolve between civilian and military project.
doikor 4y ago
> In Finland's case the French state (Areva) provided the indirect €5 billion subsidy to get this plant built. Finland wasnt going to shoulder the full costs itself. It has no military nuclear interests. Areva made a bid so low that every other builder decide to not even bother leave their final bids. It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract (other then making sure Areva had enough insurances/financial backing to finish the project even if it goes over budged) TVO did have other builds interested (Sweden, America and Japan) but their reactors were only in the 1000MW range instead of 1600MW and cost a bit more. So obviously TVO took the best option. The best would have been for the government give TVO the permits to builds multiple reactors so they could have built 2x800MW or something like that which would have been easier/cheaper.
- pydry 4y ago
  >It is not TVOs problem that Areva made a bad contract I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all. The French state being willing to eat a loss on this plant that is large enough to build an equivalent-in-MW wind farm doesnt happen just by accident. The private sector alone would have abandoned plans for this plant long ago.
  - doikor 4y ago
    > I didnt say it was. However, France (Areva) making a "bad contract" is why this plant exists at all. If Areva did not make such a low bid they would have probably chosen another bid by another provider.
    - pydry 4y ago
      More likely theyd just have canceled it. The price they paid for 1.6GW was already very high without accounting for the French military's €5 bn gift and construction delays.
      - doikor 4y ago
        We really don't know this. There were 4 other companies that took part in the bidding process and were in it quite seriously but dropped off when the government signaled it would only give permit for a single reactor (so no 2x800MW etc but instead just one huge one) and Areva put in their bid (and was loud/public about it) Fortum also wanted to build their own third reactor in Loviisa but was not given a permit. This not getting permit left Fortum with a lot of cash it really did not know what to do with so in their infinite wisdom they decided to buy Uniper. So I would say at that moment there was a lot of interest to build a reactor and it would most likely have been built without Arevas involment. Still even the original price was higher then expected. In the original paperwork to government to start the process of getting the permit the estimate was 1.7 to 2.5 billion euros.