4 ms·

> because renewables do produce some electricity. like >50% this year... > CANDU "Diese wurde jedoch von Indien gebrochen; das Land baute mit CANDU-Know-how

by lispm 3y ago

> because renewables do produce some electricity. like >50% this year... > CANDU "Diese wurde jedoch von Indien gebrochen; das Land baute mit CANDU-Know-how und -Technologie sein Kernwaffen-Arsenal auf." Wonderful. > no matter how much you want to focus on just the most extreme outliers France is an outlier? OKAAYYYY... > do you really believe that something about the universe changed in the last 50 years that somehow has made it impossible to build nuclear power plants when we used to do it just fine? Well, the reactors developed 50 years ago were designed with completely different technology, which is no longer in use and very very different safety standards. You can see France struggling with the steel... Additionally in 2022 up to half of their fleet was down for corrosion inspections... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-flamanville/edf-must-replace-flamanville-reactor-cover-by-2024-regulator-idUSKBN19J2NF/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-edf-flamanville/edf-must-... That will be cheap...

mpweiher 3y ago
> France is an outlier? OKAAYYYY... The EPR is an outlier. Once again: the average time to construct a nuclear power plant is around 7.5 years. Now you can focus all your attention on plants that take longer than those, and you can falsely believe that those outliers are the norm. But that does not change the fact that they are not. The average was, is, and continues to be 7.5 years. The median is actually a bit lower. https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucl... > Additionally in 2022 up to half of their fleet was down for corrosion inspections... Planned and scheduled corrosion inspections. They have regular inspections, seems like a Good Thing™ to me, which they delayed during COVID. So they scheduled them for the summer of 2022. They always schedule them for the summer because that's when electricity demand in France is lowest. These days, in addition to demand being lowest, supply is large because summer is when all that over-provisioned PV delivers most...just when other demand is lowest. So a good time to schedule such routine maintenance and inspections. Because nuclear power can be scheduled. Unlike wind and solar. Which just happen whenever Mother Nature feels like it. Big difference.
- lispm 3y ago
  > which they delayed during COVID so they could not stick to their typical schedule > the average time to construct a nuclear power plant is around 7.5 years That's dumb. "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Check how long it takes to build an airport. 50 years ago and now. You can build faster in China (guess why, you can also build coal powerplants very fast in China, even though the air quality is already shit), but not in Europe and the US. None of the EPRs in Europe are built in-time and/or budget. Exactly the opposite, even though the constructing company sits in France and is state owned.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > could not stick to their typical schedule They chose not to stick to their typical schedule, prioritizing COVID instead. > [average construction time of 7.5 years] That's dumb. Only in the universe of reality-denial. In the Real World™ it is accurate. > "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Yes. Unlike you, I don't have to look only at the most extreme outliers to make my case. Because my case doesn't need distortion. > Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Yes, they last a long time. Which is good. Alas, since they built so many so quickly and they then didn't expand further and didn't need to replace the existing ones because they last a long time, they didn't keep the expertise of building alive very well. That was bad. Anyway, if you think that this means construction was only fast in the old days, you would, once a agin, be incorrect. The reactors finished in 2022 were finished in...drumrolll..around 7.5 years. And in fact most of the outliers are in the past. > None of the EPRs ... And once again, you focus on the currently most problematic design, which also happens to be brand new, so at the beginning of its learning curve... > ...in Europe ... ...built in the region that has built hardly any plants or reactors in the last two-three decades. Single examples. However, hop over to Statistia and you will find, again, that the plants finished in 2022 were finished in around 7.5 years. Just like the ones before. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... And again, those numbers are consistent: "Overall, this picture suggests that nuclear plants don’t take a really long time to build (with a few exceptions). Most are built in 8 to 10 years. Many are built much faster." https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... Are we getting slower? "The data suggests that the world is not getting slower. Times vary a bit from decade to decade but average times are not slower than in the 1970s or 1980s." So no, your singular examples notwithstanding we are not getting slower. Data. Facts. Have a nice day.

by lispm 3y ago

mpweiher 3y ago

> France is an outlier? OKAAYYYY... The EPR is an outlier. Once again: the average time to construct a nuclear power plant is around 7.5 years. Now you can focus all your attention on plants that take longer than those, and you can falsely believe that those outliers are the norm. But that does not change the fact that they are not. The average was, is, and continues to be 7.5 years. The median is actually a bit lower. https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nuclear-power-plant/ https://euanmearns.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-build-a-nucl... > Additionally in 2022 up to half of their fleet was down for corrosion inspections... Planned and scheduled corrosion inspections. They have regular inspections, seems like a Good Thing™ to me, which they delayed during COVID. So they scheduled them for the summer of 2022. They always schedule them for the summer because that's when electricity demand in France is lowest. These days, in addition to demand being lowest, supply is large because summer is when all that over-provisioned PV delivers most...just when other demand is lowest. So a good time to schedule such routine maintenance and inspections. Because nuclear power can be scheduled. Unlike wind and solar. Which just happen whenever Mother Nature feels like it. Big difference.

lispm 3y ago
> which they delayed during COVID so they could not stick to their typical schedule > the average time to construct a nuclear power plant is around 7.5 years That's dumb. "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Check how long it takes to build an airport. 50 years ago and now. You can build faster in China (guess why, you can also build coal powerplants very fast in China, even though the air quality is already shit), but not in Europe and the US. None of the EPRs in Europe are built in-time and/or budget. Exactly the opposite, even though the constructing company sits in France and is state owned.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > could not stick to their typical schedule They chose not to stick to their typical schedule, prioritizing COVID instead. > [average construction time of 7.5 years] That's dumb. Only in the universe of reality-denial. In the Real World™ it is accurate. > "The average time taken to build 441 reactors operational today was 7.5 years." Yes. Unlike you, I don't have to look only at the most extreme outliers to make my case. Because my case doesn't need distortion. > Most of the reactors operational today are decades old. Yes, they last a long time. Which is good. Alas, since they built so many so quickly and they then didn't expand further and didn't need to replace the existing ones because they last a long time, they didn't keep the expertise of building alive very well. That was bad. Anyway, if you think that this means construction was only fast in the old days, you would, once a agin, be incorrect. The reactors finished in 2022 were finished in...drumrolll..around 7.5 years. And in fact most of the outliers are in the past. > None of the EPRs ... And once again, you focus on the currently most problematic design, which also happens to be brand new, so at the beginning of its learning curve... > ...in Europe ... ...built in the region that has built hardly any plants or reactors in the last two-three decades. Single examples. However, hop over to Statistia and you will find, again, that the plants finished in 2022 were finished in around 7.5 years. Just like the ones before. https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... And again, those numbers are consistent: "Overall, this picture suggests that nuclear plants don’t take a really long time to build (with a few exceptions). Most are built in 8 to 10 years. Many are built much faster." https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... Are we getting slower? "The data suggests that the world is not getting slower. Times vary a bit from decade to decade but average times are not slower than in the 1970s or 1980s." So no, your singular examples notwithstanding we are not getting slower. Data. Facts. Have a nice day.