6 ms·

The failure of EDF in France is not due to nuclear power inherent limitations, but to massive underinvestment from the French government. The Energiewende has c

by mrpopo 3y ago

The failure of EDF in France is not due to nuclear power inherent limitations, but to massive underinvestment from the French government. The Energiewende has cost the Germans more than 150 billion €, all that with lenient EU regulations. Whereas in France, the new EPR in Flamanville, for all it being talked about as a failed investment, has cost 1/10th of that. With 10x the money and economies of scale, we could have had a crazy nuclear capacity with very strict, modern standards. Whether France will build nuclear or renewables, the problem is they had to do it 10 years ago.

martin_a 3y ago
> we could have had a crazy nuclear capacity with very strict, modern standards. Would that help though, if drought periods hit Western Europe, like last year, and water levels in the rivers are as low as they were?
- Moldoteck 3y ago
  I'm sure, they can figure that out with something similar to irrigation channels and/or solar panels along river/channels to prevent evaporation. Would they do this? That's another question
- illiarian 3y ago
  0.18% of nuclear power generation was lost due to water levels and temperatures. Also nothing stops you from building nuclear plants in other locations
- Wilya 3y ago
  In France last summer, some plants had indeed to be shut down because of the drought but: * a minority of plants were involved, it was only an issue because it happened on top of other issues (planned maintenances delayed due to covid, corrosion issues) * the problem isn't actually the drought, it was the heat. The plants could keep operating, but they would have rejected water too hot, in breach of environmental regulations. Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that.
  - martin_a 3y ago
    > Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that. I think that's a no-go due to the salt in the water that will corrode pipes etc. Not an expert on that, though, obviously. All the other points don't sound too good either: Corrosion issues, let's fuck up nature with hot water, not very good at all.
    - mrpopo 3y ago
      It's possible to build nuclear plants by the sea, and it's actually commonly built. There are some in France, China, Korea, etc.
bayesian_horse 3y ago
Nuclear power has high upfront investments, always. And pretty much all nuclear projects are finished behind schedule and wayyy above budget. After a couple of decades of this, reasonable people may come to the conclusion that these investments and risks are quite "inherent". Your comparison is meaningless, because the 150 billion € investment is not comparable to a single nuclear plant. And realizing ten times the current building capacity for nuclear plants with the same (or stricter) regulation and standards? That is almost delusionally optimistic.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > And pretty much all nuclear projects are finished behind schedule and wayyy above budget. All projects do, including wind and solar. --- start quote --- Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, --- end quote --- https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... > And realizing ten times the current building capacity for nuclear plants How much do we need to overbuild wind and solar?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    [flagged]
  - bayesian_horse 3y ago
    Nuclear power projects are not just over-budget, they start off with a budget of a couple of billions, whereas individual solar or wind power projects are way smaller and therefor carry less of a risk. Nuclear power requires a huge financial backing from a single entity (even it is "fed" by multiple sources). Almost always, the risk is carried by society, the profit, if any is gobbled up by some corporation. There is no need to "overbuild" wind or solar. There has never been any illusion those sources will produce at 100% capacity all the time. There will eventually be energy storage to level out the peaks, but most countries still have years to build up to the point where this is necessary.
pydry 3y ago
The inherent limitations are largely cost. Large scale underinvestment plus the financial failure of EDF very much demonstrate that.
- evgpbfhnr 3y ago
  The financial failure of EDF are mainly due to european regulations that forced price caps, making france sell at loss price when others needed energy last year (before the mess with plants breaking down everywhere) Either way it's true that they let the situation degrade far too much while resting on aging infrastructure; it'll take a bit of time to get back on track whatever the direction is.
  - pydry 3y ago
    And those price caps are what kept French retail prices reasonable. Either somebody has to shoulder the high cost or maintenance must be neglected. In France's case, we had both. Meanwhile because cost cutting on maintenance backed up wholesale prices next winter are a blowout - far worse than Germany's: https://www.archyde.com/french-electricity-prices-soar-for-winter-2023-2024-import-predictions-and-nuclear-fleet-issues-drive-high-costs/ https://www.archyde.com/french-electricity-prices-soar-for-w...
mixermachine 3y ago
The running costs seem to be quite high too. The operator of Hinkley Point C in the UK for example receives a fixed "strike price" of 106.12£/MWh (currently) + inflation adjustment. 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... https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hinkley-point-c https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hinkley-point-c
- ZeroGravitas 3y ago
  And it seems likely that the French taxpayer (via EDF) will be taking a loss even at that price.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
locallost 3y ago
Let's say this number is correct: Flamanville has cost a 1/10 of that and has produced 0 kWh, and won't produce any at least 20 years since the project began. Germany produces around 250 TWh worth of electricity per year from renewables, and has done so to an increasing extent in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10. Flamanville Unit 3, I haven't found the estimated production, but judging from the other two units existing it should be in the ballpark of 10TWh per year. Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue. If we want to decarbonize quickly, I cannot imagine how it can make sense to invest a 1/10 for a 1/25 of the production, and then wait decades longer for it. If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure: even if finished it will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time during which it did not produce a single kWh and did not displace a single molecule of co2. Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route. It can't be the solution now.
- afiori 3y ago
  > Nuclear has failed to scale This reminds me of the joke "Fusion is 30 years away and always will be". The reason is that a panel of scientist predicted various timelines of viable fusion between 30 years and infinity years based on effective funding. Ever since the funding for nuclear research was significantly below the level of the infinity years[0]. I suspect nuclear fission followed a similar path in the last decades. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-future-of-fusion https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...
- illiarian 3y ago
  > Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue. It hasn't, and it's not a "well-documented issue". What's documented is decades of FUD, fear-mongering, underinvestment etc. > If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure Why not look at projects like Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant instead? > will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time Ho long will it take to overbuild renewables and all the required power storage for them? E.g. right now, during the day, Germany's renewables are generating: - wind: 20% of installed capacity - solar: 34% of installed capacity - pumped hydro storage: sucking up 8% of total power generation for recharging > Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route. Which route? E.g. France's carbon output from electricity generation is ~56g/kWh. Germany's is ~340g/kWh. Care to guess why?

by mrpopo 3y ago

martin_a 3y ago

> we could have had a crazy nuclear capacity with very strict, modern standards. Would that help though, if drought periods hit Western Europe, like last year, and water levels in the rivers are as low as they were?

Moldoteck 3y ago
I'm sure, they can figure that out with something similar to irrigation channels and/or solar panels along river/channels to prevent evaporation. Would they do this? That's another question
illiarian 3y ago
0.18% of nuclear power generation was lost due to water levels and temperatures. Also nothing stops you from building nuclear plants in other locations
Wilya 3y ago
In France last summer, some plants had indeed to be shut down because of the drought but: * a minority of plants were involved, it was only an issue because it happened on top of other issues (planned maintenances delayed due to covid, corrosion issues) * the problem isn't actually the drought, it was the heat. The plants could keep operating, but they would have rejected water too hot, in breach of environmental regulations. Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that.
- martin_a 3y ago
  > Besides, new plants can be built close to the sea instead of rivers to account for that. I think that's a no-go due to the salt in the water that will corrode pipes etc. Not an expert on that, though, obviously. All the other points don't sound too good either: Corrosion issues, let's fuck up nature with hot water, not very good at all.
  - mrpopo 3y ago
    It's possible to build nuclear plants by the sea, and it's actually commonly built. There are some in France, China, Korea, etc.

bayesian_horse 3y ago

Nuclear power has high upfront investments, always. And pretty much all nuclear projects are finished behind schedule and wayyy above budget. After a couple of decades of this, reasonable people may come to the conclusion that these investments and risks are quite "inherent". Your comparison is meaningless, because the 150 billion € investment is not comparable to a single nuclear plant. And realizing ten times the current building capacity for nuclear plants with the same (or stricter) regulation and standards? That is almost delusionally optimistic.

illiarian 3y ago
> And pretty much all nuclear projects are finished behind schedule and wayyy above budget. All projects do, including wind and solar. --- start quote --- Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average, --- end quote --- https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projects-have-less-delays-and-cost-overruns-says-ey/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2016/12/02/offshore-wind-projec... > And realizing ten times the current building capacity for nuclear plants How much do we need to overbuild wind and solar?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 3y ago
  [flagged]
- bayesian_horse 3y ago
  Nuclear power projects are not just over-budget, they start off with a budget of a couple of billions, whereas individual solar or wind power projects are way smaller and therefor carry less of a risk. Nuclear power requires a huge financial backing from a single entity (even it is "fed" by multiple sources). Almost always, the risk is carried by society, the profit, if any is gobbled up by some corporation. There is no need to "overbuild" wind or solar. There has never been any illusion those sources will produce at 100% capacity all the time. There will eventually be energy storage to level out the peaks, but most countries still have years to build up to the point where this is necessary.

pydry 3y ago

The inherent limitations are largely cost. Large scale underinvestment plus the financial failure of EDF very much demonstrate that.

evgpbfhnr 3y ago
The financial failure of EDF are mainly due to european regulations that forced price caps, making france sell at loss price when others needed energy last year (before the mess with plants breaking down everywhere) Either way it's true that they let the situation degrade far too much while resting on aging infrastructure; it'll take a bit of time to get back on track whatever the direction is.
- pydry 3y ago
  And those price caps are what kept French retail prices reasonable. Either somebody has to shoulder the high cost or maintenance must be neglected. In France's case, we had both. Meanwhile because cost cutting on maintenance backed up wholesale prices next winter are a blowout - far worse than Germany's: https://www.archyde.com/french-electricity-prices-soar-for-winter-2023-2024-import-predictions-and-nuclear-fleet-issues-drive-high-costs/ https://www.archyde.com/french-electricity-prices-soar-for-w...

mixermachine 3y ago

The running costs seem to be quite high too. The operator of Hinkley Point C in the UK for example receives a fixed "strike price" of 106.12£/MWh (currently) + inflation adjustment. 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... https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hinkley-point-c https://www.lowcarboncontracts.uk/cfds/hinkley-point-c

ZeroGravitas 3y ago
And it seems likely that the French taxpayer (via EDF) will be taking a loss even at that price.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

locallost 3y ago

Let's say this number is correct: Flamanville has cost a 1/10 of that and has produced 0 kWh, and won't produce any at least 20 years since the project began. Germany produces around 250 TWh worth of electricity per year from renewables, and has done so to an increasing extent in the last 20 years, especially in the last 10. Flamanville Unit 3, I haven't found the estimated production, but judging from the other two units existing it should be in the ballpark of 10TWh per year. Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue. If we want to decarbonize quickly, I cannot imagine how it can make sense to invest a 1/10 for a 1/25 of the production, and then wait decades longer for it. If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure: even if finished it will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time during which it did not produce a single kWh and did not displace a single molecule of co2. Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route. It can't be the solution now.

afiori 3y ago
> Nuclear has failed to scale This reminds me of the joke "Fusion is 30 years away and always will be". The reason is that a panel of scientist predicted various timelines of viable fusion between 30 years and infinity years based on effective funding. Ever since the funding for nuclear research was significantly below the level of the infinity years[0]. I suspect nuclear fission followed a similar path in the last decades. [0] https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-future-of-fusion https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-the-f...
illiarian 3y ago
> Nuclear has failed to scale, it's a well documented issue. It hasn't, and it's not a "well-documented issue". What's documented is decades of FUD, fear-mongering, underinvestment etc. > If decarbonization is the goal, projects like Flamanville are already a failure Why not look at projects like Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant instead? > will take decades and decades to make up for the construction time Ho long will it take to overbuild renewables and all the required power storage for them? E.g. right now, during the day, Germany's renewables are generating: - wind: 20% of installed capacity - solar: 34% of installed capacity - pumped hydro storage: sucking up 8% of total power generation for recharging > Germany was over 50% coal 20 years ago, it would still be at this level if it had gone that route. Which route? E.g. France's carbon output from electricity generation is ~56g/kWh. Germany's is ~340g/kWh. Care to guess why?