4 ms·

Sure. And as a result, the EU country with most nuclear plants had the most expensive energy production during last year.

by tpm 4y ago

robertlagrant 4y ago
Burning gas is certainly cheaper. Let's hope it doesn't run out, pollute the earth, or fund a war.
- tpm 4y ago
  That does not change the fact that nuclear plants are currently failing at providing sufficient baseload capacity in the one EU country that has the most of them.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Yes, that's true. You're misinterpreting that fact. That's the problem. France wants to extend the lifetime of fully depreciated reactors, and hasn't provisioned enough capacity to do all the maintenance required. That could happen with any generation method.
    - tpm 4y ago
      Yet it has happened with this generation method. In fact the problem has more causes: France has stopped investing in new nuclear plants, in part because they felt safe the old plants will continue to work as usual which they won't as we see, but also because their new EPR design is a complete failure. The Flamanville EPR plant was scheduled to go productive in 2012. It's 2023 and it still isn't. Olkiluoto, another EPR in Finland went briefly productive in 2022 but soon new faults were discovered. And don't even look at the cost overruns for these plants. So the current situation is EDF will be nationalized to avoid going bankrupt, and who knows when and if the stress corrosion issue with older reactors will be resolved. Let's just hope there will be enough water in the rivers and reservoirs for them to use, because the droughts are worsening. Meanwhile the EPR reactors are still not working and their construction company Areva was taken over by EDF to avoid going bankrupt. But I do not live in France, I live in Slovakia and we have another nuclear plant under construction, Mochovce 3. Mochovce 3 construction was restarted in 2008, to be finished in 2014. It's 2023 and any time now it should be finally going productive, after a 15 year construction and about 300% cost overruns. And the energy company may have to be saved by the state as a result. And these are not exceptions, it's the same for Hinkley Point C in the UK and probably other new plants at least in Europe as well. So it's very strange when someone writes about stable and cheap nuclear energy production and somehow never mentions current huge issues with it.
      - robertlagrant 4y ago
        They're definitely expensive and difficult to build. But they are excellent base load providers, which was the point.
        tpm 4y ago
        And the point is wrong if you have to wait 15 years and go bankrupt for excellent baseload (and whether the whole baseload thing makes sense at all is also a very good question) that may or may not work depending on water availability. Especially if you have alternatives, and it looks like we could build a lot of renewables and storage combined with say green hydrogen or ammonia. With lower risk and gradually. And not spend the next 100 years and countless billions decommisioning them.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        What you're saying seems to confuse three things: - the econonmic situation right now - a possible future where storage is better - the general case that's being stated, which is that nuclear is currently the best base load tech, unless you like burning gas. I'm only talking about the latter.
        tpm 4y ago
        But then it looks like it is the best base load tech, until someone actually tries to build it. Then it becomes a huge commitment and a burden for >100 years (20y planning, permissions, building + 60y lifetime + ???y decommissioning and waste management). What if storage (or hydrogen/ammonia storage and peakers) is already good enough, but we are not building it because we are blinded by the empty promises of nuclear utopia? I guess we will see in a few years as the first efforts of this type go online.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        I can't understand the mindset that says nuclear has been some sort of overwhelming force in power generation. It's been the most tentatively adopted generation tech in history; we've ignored the guaranteed radiation of coal mining while we've had endless worry about nuclear power. We've pumped a huge amount of money and time into talking about and researching and building renewables, with a much smaller promise of return. Which is fine, but it seems very surprising to speculate that popular nuclear has overshadowed poor unpopular renewables.

Sure. And as a result, the EU country with most nuclear plants had the most expensive energy production during last year.

by tpm 4y ago

Sure. And as a result, the EU country with most nuclear plants had the most expensive energy production during last year.

robertlagrant 4y ago

Burning gas is certainly cheaper. Let's hope it doesn't run out, pollute the earth, or fund a war.

tpm 4y ago
That does not change the fact that nuclear plants are currently failing at providing sufficient baseload capacity in the one EU country that has the most of them.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Yes, that's true. You're misinterpreting that fact. That's the problem. France wants to extend the lifetime of fully depreciated reactors, and hasn't provisioned enough capacity to do all the maintenance required. That could happen with any generation method.
  - tpm 4y ago
    Yet it has happened with this generation method. In fact the problem has more causes: France has stopped investing in new nuclear plants, in part because they felt safe the old plants will continue to work as usual which they won't as we see, but also because their new EPR design is a complete failure. The Flamanville EPR plant was scheduled to go productive in 2012. It's 2023 and it still isn't. Olkiluoto, another EPR in Finland went briefly productive in 2022 but soon new faults were discovered. And don't even look at the cost overruns for these plants. So the current situation is EDF will be nationalized to avoid going bankrupt, and who knows when and if the stress corrosion issue with older reactors will be resolved. Let's just hope there will be enough water in the rivers and reservoirs for them to use, because the droughts are worsening. Meanwhile the EPR reactors are still not working and their construction company Areva was taken over by EDF to avoid going bankrupt. But I do not live in France, I live in Slovakia and we have another nuclear plant under construction, Mochovce 3. Mochovce 3 construction was restarted in 2008, to be finished in 2014. It's 2023 and any time now it should be finally going productive, after a 15 year construction and about 300% cost overruns. And the energy company may have to be saved by the state as a result. And these are not exceptions, it's the same for Hinkley Point C in the UK and probably other new plants at least in Europe as well. So it's very strange when someone writes about stable and cheap nuclear energy production and somehow never mentions current huge issues with it.
    - robertlagrant 4y ago
      They're definitely expensive and difficult to build. But they are excellent base load providers, which was the point.
      - tpm 4y ago
        And the point is wrong if you have to wait 15 years and go bankrupt for excellent baseload (and whether the whole baseload thing makes sense at all is also a very good question) that may or may not work depending on water availability. Especially if you have alternatives, and it looks like we could build a lot of renewables and storage combined with say green hydrogen or ammonia. With lower risk and gradually. And not spend the next 100 years and countless billions decommisioning them.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        What you're saying seems to confuse three things: - the econonmic situation right now - a possible future where storage is better - the general case that's being stated, which is that nuclear is currently the best base load tech, unless you like burning gas. I'm only talking about the latter.
        tpm 4y ago
        But then it looks like it is the best base load tech, until someone actually tries to build it. Then it becomes a huge commitment and a burden for >100 years (20y planning, permissions, building + 60y lifetime + ???y decommissioning and waste management). What if storage (or hydrogen/ammonia storage and peakers) is already good enough, but we are not building it because we are blinded by the empty promises of nuclear utopia? I guess we will see in a few years as the first efforts of this type go online.
        robertlagrant 4y ago
        I can't understand the mindset that says nuclear has been some sort of overwhelming force in power generation. It's been the most tentatively adopted generation tech in history; we've ignored the guaranteed radiation of coal mining while we've had endless worry about nuclear power. We've pumped a huge amount of money and time into talking about and researching and building renewables, with a much smaller promise of return. Which is fine, but it seems very surprising to speculate that popular nuclear has overshadowed poor unpopular renewables.