3 ms·

> This is partly explained by simply no value being assigned to base load in many systems. And importantly nuclear often not getting the credit for being green.

> This is partly explained by simply no value being assigned to base load in many systems. And importantly nuclear often not getting the credit for being green. Also nuclear plants being able to run for 60-100 years while all these wind plants will need to be replaced long before that. The way the 'markets' are structured just isn't to the advantage of nuclear. Nuclear power plants have typical design lifetimes of 40 years. France nuclear power plants are suffering from increasing maintenance costs and outages because they are getting so old and they are nowhere close to 60-100 years. If you mean that markets favor cheaper solutions and that this is not good for nuclear you are correct. > Nuclear was and is often excluded from renewable subsidies. France just had to pay 500M Euro because they missed their 'renewables' target, all while being green. The same thing in the US when they favored solar. There are lots of example. Nuclear has received more subsidies than solar and wind combined (see my citations in a different post).

panick21_ 4y ago
France has done an absolutely terrible job upgrading their nuclear plants and have delayed maintenance because of government decisions. France did well at nuclear plant building in the 70/80 but in the last 20-30 years their track record has not been so good. There are lots of nuclear plants older then 40 years. Benznau in Switzerland has been operating since 1972 and will continue to do so for quite a while. There are a number of PWR plants that are currently being re-certified for 80 years. And many, many more could be. And that is not the end, likely they could be re-certified for even long live. I don't see your evidnece: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Too_much_money_for_dirty_energy.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Too_much... This is a bad graph, measure from 1974 makes little sense, solar and wind were not really relevant for most of that. It makes absolute sense to support nuclear if your alternative is coal. And I also question how in measures like this, the value of base-power is measured. Because if you think of it as a level of society, and not spot price electricity, things look quite different.

panick21_ 4y ago

France has done an absolutely terrible job upgrading their nuclear plants and have delayed maintenance because of government decisions. France did well at nuclear plant building in the 70/80 but in the last 20-30 years their track record has not been so good. There are lots of nuclear plants older then 40 years. Benznau in Switzerland has been operating since 1972 and will continue to do so for quite a while. There are a number of PWR plants that are currently being re-certified for 80 years. And many, many more could be. And that is not the end, likely they could be re-certified for even long live. I don't see your evidnece: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Too_much_money_for_dirty_energy.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Too_much... This is a bad graph, measure from 1974 makes little sense, solar and wind were not really relevant for most of that. It makes absolute sense to support nuclear if your alternative is coal. And I also question how in measures like this, the value of base-power is measured. Because if you think of it as a level of society, and not spot price electricity, things look quite different.