6 ms·

Sure, there's plenty of reasons not to build nuclear. Firstly, it's not cheap compared to modern solar and that trend is likely to continue. Secondly, it's not

Sure, there's plenty of reasons not to build nuclear. Firstly, it's not cheap compared to modern solar and that trend is likely to continue. Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. Thirdly, it takes a long time to bring on line, especially the more modern reactors have been prone to massive delays with an EPR reactor in Finland being over a decade late and Hinkley Point C in the UK, and Flamanville in France both being massively late, massively over budget and still unfinished. Fourthly, as we found last year, during heat waves rivers can run dry causing a shortage of water to cool the plants forcing them to go offline. I'm not saying there's no benefit to Nuclear, there definitely is, and it should be part of the mix, but it's not a replacement for a decent investment in Solar.

ptero 4y ago
Much of the nuclear delays are due to political ambivalence, not technical issues. Once there is a clear will to move, they can move very fast. Finland that you quote was marinating it's Olkiluoto reactor for many years. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and Olkiluoto got from "let's think about approvals for a few more years" to pumping out electricity in a flash.
pydry 4y ago
Not just not cheap. 5x more expensive. It doesnt really matter what kind of storage you have to pair with solar (batteries, pumped storage, windgas) it still delivers cheaper power.
illiarian 4y ago
> Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. Yes. Yes, you can. --- start quote --- Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors are designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany [ report from 2011 ] operate in load-following mode, i.e. they participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% Pr [rated power] per minute. --- end quote --- https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... > the more modern reactors have been prone to massive delays with an This is mostly a political issue. China and South Korea are bringing reactors online faster. > Fourthly, as we found last year, during heat waves rivers can run dry causing a shortage of water to cool the plants forcing them to go offline. Again, that was a combination of things, including politically-motivated underinvestment in maintenance of nuclear power plants
- pydry 4y ago
  You can technically run them in load following mode and some countries have but the cost is even more insane than using it as baseload. The vast majority of the cost of nuclear power (which is very, very, very expensive) is capex for building out the capacity. Building it and then leaving it idle is crazy. Cost of NPP with load following > NPP paired with storage > solar+wind paired with storage. (where storage could be batteries, pumped storage or windgas).
  - illiarian 4y ago
    > You can technically run them in load following mode The quote literally is: "Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode". Edit: the requirements are literally "For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute." > but the cost is even more insane than using it as baseload. And you have sources for that "insane cost"?
    - pydry 4y ago
      Wikipedia has sources: "While most nuclear power plants in operation as of early 2000's were already designed with strong load following capabilities, they might have not been used as such for purely economic reasons: nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs so lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs, so it is more effective to run them at full power most of the time.[10][11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant France using Nuclear Power for load following is more a signal that they'd misjudged and significantly overbuilt nuclear capacity, not that it's a good idea. EDF has overwhemling financial problems and went spectacularly bankrupt in large part because unlike with, say, solar and wind - that spare capacity is very, very, very expensive. tl;dr - as I said before, you technically can do it but it's absurdly expensive and just not worth it.
automatic6131 4y ago
>Firstly, it's not cheap compared to modern solar and that trend is likely to continue. But with solar you must include the cost of large scale energy storage, which makes it more expensive >Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. 1) that's what pumped hydro is for, 2) modern reactors can alter their output by as much as 5%/minute
voqv 4y ago
> Firstly, it's not cheap compared to modern solar and that trend is likely to continue. Only if you omit cost of energy storage infrastructure and grid upgrades necessary for VRE. > Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. Repeated often by nuclear critics even though there's evidence out there of German nuclear modulating load within 24 hours. > Fourthly, as we found last year, during heat waves rivers can run dry causing a shortage of water to cool the plants forcing them to go offline. French powerplants did not go offline last summer, a few of them that lack sufficient cooling tower infrastructure had to eject hotter than usual water into rivers.

ptero 4y ago

Much of the nuclear delays are due to political ambivalence, not technical issues. Once there is a clear will to move, they can move very fast. Finland that you quote was marinating it's Olkiluoto reactor for many years. Then Russia invaded Ukraine and Olkiluoto got from "let's think about approvals for a few more years" to pumping out electricity in a flash.

pydry 4y ago

Not just not cheap. 5x more expensive. It doesnt really matter what kind of storage you have to pair with solar (batteries, pumped storage, windgas) it still delivers cheaper power.

illiarian 4y ago

> Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. Yes. Yes, you can. --- start quote --- Modern nuclear plans with light water reactors are designed to have strong manoeuvring capabilities. Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany [ report from 2011 ] operate in load-following mode, i.e. they participate in the primary and secondary frequency control, and some units follow a variable load programme with one or two large power changes per day. Most of the modern designs implement even higher manoeuvrability capabilities, with the possibility of planned and unplanned load-following in a wide power range and with ramps of 5% Pr [rated power] per minute. --- end quote --- https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12/technical_and_economic_aspects_of_load_following_with_nuclear_power_plants.pdf https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... > the more modern reactors have been prone to massive delays with an This is mostly a political issue. China and South Korea are bringing reactors online faster. > Fourthly, as we found last year, during heat waves rivers can run dry causing a shortage of water to cool the plants forcing them to go offline. Again, that was a combination of things, including politically-motivated underinvestment in maintenance of nuclear power plants

pydry 4y ago
You can technically run them in load following mode and some countries have but the cost is even more insane than using it as baseload. The vast majority of the cost of nuclear power (which is very, very, very expensive) is capex for building out the capacity. Building it and then leaving it idle is crazy. Cost of NPP with load following > NPP paired with storage > solar+wind paired with storage. (where storage could be batteries, pumped storage or windgas).
- illiarian 4y ago
  > You can technically run them in load following mode The quote literally is: "Nuclear power plants in France and in Germany operate in load-following mode". Edit: the requirements are literally "For example, according to the current version of the European Utilities Requirements (EUR) the NPP must at least be capable of daily load cycling operation between 50% and 100 % of its rated power Pr, with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% of Pr per minute." > but the cost is even more insane than using it as baseload. And you have sources for that "insane cost"?
  - pydry 4y ago
    Wikipedia has sources: "While most nuclear power plants in operation as of early 2000's were already designed with strong load following capabilities, they might have not been used as such for purely economic reasons: nuclear power generation is composed almost entirely of fixed and sunk costs so lowering the power output doesn't significantly reduce generating costs, so it is more effective to run them at full power most of the time.[10][11]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load-following_power_plant France using Nuclear Power for load following is more a signal that they'd misjudged and significantly overbuilt nuclear capacity, not that it's a good idea. EDF has overwhemling financial problems and went spectacularly bankrupt in large part because unlike with, say, solar and wind - that spare capacity is very, very, very expensive. tl;dr - as I said before, you technically can do it but it's absurdly expensive and just not worth it.

automatic6131 4y ago

>Firstly, it's not cheap compared to modern solar and that trend is likely to continue. But with solar you must include the cost of large scale energy storage, which makes it more expensive >Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. 1) that's what pumped hydro is for, 2) modern reactors can alter their output by as much as 5%/minute

voqv 4y ago

> Firstly, it's not cheap compared to modern solar and that trend is likely to continue. Only if you omit cost of energy storage infrastructure and grid upgrades necessary for VRE. > Secondly, it's not a responsive source of electricity - so you can't modulate the output easily. Repeated often by nuclear critics even though there's evidence out there of German nuclear modulating load within 24 hours. > Fourthly, as we found last year, during heat waves rivers can run dry causing a shortage of water to cool the plants forcing them to go offline. French powerplants did not go offline last summer, a few of them that lack sufficient cooling tower infrastructure had to eject hotter than usual water into rivers.