4 ms·

Nukes are expensive and take forever to build. This ship sailed 40 years ago.

by TradingPlaces 3y ago

nikhilsimha 3y ago
France?
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Coasting on old nuclear. They’ve been importing renewables from Germany due to reduced capacity factor. The fleet is a money pit. https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/embattled-edf-stuck-with-30bn-bill-from-ailing-nuclear-fleet-as-utility-makes-massive-loss/2-1-1406062 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/embattled-edf... https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-prized-nuclear-sector-stalled-in-europe-s-hour-of-need https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-pri...
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Old news, a one time occurrence in 2022 when they scheduled a lot of inspections and maintenance they had put off in the COVID years. At that point the long underinvestment caught up with them. In 2023, they were net exporting again, like they were in the last 20+ years or so. But you are right that they had been coasting and were exploiting their nuclear plants without reinvesting. That has now changed.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- pedrocr 3y ago
  According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_France#Nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran... the last time France put a new nuclear reactor online was over 20 years ago. There was probably a window where we could have powered our grids with nuclear and done well with that versus the alternatives. A bunch of factors, including lobbying by fossil fuel interests, meant that didn't happen. These days that same lobbying and other factors are fighting against solar+wind+hydro but hopefully this time it's unstoppable. The fact that solar and wind are distributed and don't have extreme tail risks helps a lot. Nuclear was too easy to stop because of the extremely complex projects and very unlikely but very high magnitude risks.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    France was on the renewables train until last year. They've since changed course and are reinvesting massively into nuclear. Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-nuclear-renaissance-to-end-the-france-s-reliance-on-fossil-fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n... This is not just talk France's Assemblée Nationale adopts 'nuclear acceleration' bill on first reading https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/21/france-s-assemblee-nationale-adopts-nuclear-acceleration-bill-on-first-reading_6020219_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/21/france-s... 402 votes in favor, 130 against. 75% approval. So broad consensus. p.s.: Doesn't mean they are stopping renewables entirely. Still doing some off-shore wind that can be brought online relatively quickly.
- Krasnol 3y ago
  ...renationalized EDF because it's so unprofitable, can't build a single reactor on time and on budget and has to subsidize every Watt sold with taxpayer money, so people don't go on the street and burn Cities down.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Or China, which built an AP1000 in nine years [1], about as long as it takes us to NEPA a transmission line [2]. Given about half of that was waiting for a reactor-coolant pump, it can likely be done in 5. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanced-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanc... [2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-clean-energy-storage-grid-enhancing-technology-dlr-distributed-resources/651567/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-clean-energy-s...
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    Withdrawn
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > impossible to draw any conclusion from a successful big project abroad Wait, we can draw conclusions from France building a different reactor (but only its latest ones, which were most expensive) but not from China building an AP1000?
      - flashback2199 3y ago
        Withdrawn
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > China's economy is a black box We can independently verify the plant was built. And we can confirm what Westinghouse was paid. We can’t see other costs incurred, which is why I’m solely citing them for time, not cost.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
mpweiher 3y ago
Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... France nuclearized its entire grid in 20 years, from the early 70s to the early 90s. They've been producing largely CO2 free, cheap electricity ever since. Germany has been trying to achieve low carbon electricity for 20 years so far while at the same tine getting out of nuclear (yes, it doesn't make sense). We're supposedly half way done, have the 2nd most expensive electricity in the EU and also the 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. The government went to such extremes to hide the costs of the energy crisis on off-budget vehicles that the constitutional court had to step in. Cost: "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE... Sailed: 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 (yes, that's quite a ways away), including the US, Japan, Ukraine, France, Canada, Poland, South Korea etc. India, China and Russia did not sign, but are also expanding. Apart from representing 5 of the G7, the vast majority of world GDP and also the majority of the population, the list importantly also includes a number of countries that until as recently as two years ago were getting out of nuclear, either significantly or entirely. Poland currently has no nuclear plants and has just ordered 24 small reactors to be installed at 6 sites. etc.
- ViewTrick1002 3y ago
  > Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, cancelled 1985. Restarted 2007. Finished 2016. - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. - Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028. - Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023 - Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements - NuScale SMR Cancelled before they even started building. 7.5 years is simply a laughable prospect in 2023. > "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 A 60 year payback time + 15 years construction is 75 years. That is like Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the height of the second world war making investments that only pans out in 2023. In the real world, where you spend your own money, that is called insanity. The risk is huge, and extending the amortization cost like that is simply bad math. You should understand the Time Value of Money and suggesting such amortization times are simply nonsensical. Understanding the Time Value of Money: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp But this is typical nukebro accounting. Finding the lowest possible number in the face of reality and then with the blindfold on repeating it hoping that we can subsidize nuclear enough to make it happen one more time. Just skip seeing the subsidies.

Nukes are expensive and take forever to build. This ship sailed 40 years ago.

nikhilsimha 3y ago

France?

toomuchtodo 3y ago
Coasting on old nuclear. They’ve been importing renewables from Germany due to reduced capacity factor. The fleet is a money pit. https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/embattled-edf-stuck-with-30bn-bill-from-ailing-nuclear-fleet-as-utility-makes-massive-loss/2-1-1406062 https://www.rechargenews.com/energy-transition/embattled-edf... https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-prized-nuclear-sector-stalled-in-europe-s-hour-of-need https://www.france24.com/en/france/20230105-how-france-s-pri...
- mpweiher 3y ago
  Old news, a one time occurrence in 2022 when they scheduled a lot of inspections and maintenance they had put off in the COVID years. At that point the long underinvestment caught up with them. In 2023, they were net exporting again, like they were in the last 20+ years or so. But you are right that they had been coasting and were exploiting their nuclear plants without reinvesting. That has now changed.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
pedrocr 3y ago
According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_France#Nuclear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran... the last time France put a new nuclear reactor online was over 20 years ago. There was probably a window where we could have powered our grids with nuclear and done well with that versus the alternatives. A bunch of factors, including lobbying by fossil fuel interests, meant that didn't happen. These days that same lobbying and other factors are fighting against solar+wind+hydro but hopefully this time it's unstoppable. The fact that solar and wind are distributed and don't have extreme tail risks helps a lot. Nuclear was too easy to stop because of the extremely complex projects and very unlikely but very high magnitude risks.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  France was on the renewables train until last year. They've since changed course and are reinvesting massively into nuclear. Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-nuclear-renaissance-to-end-the-france-s-reliance-on-fossil-fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n... This is not just talk France's Assemblée Nationale adopts 'nuclear acceleration' bill on first reading https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/21/france-s-assemblee-nationale-adopts-nuclear-acceleration-bill-on-first-reading_6020219_7.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/21/france-s... 402 votes in favor, 130 against. 75% approval. So broad consensus. p.s.: Doesn't mean they are stopping renewables entirely. Still doing some off-shore wind that can be brought online relatively quickly.
Krasnol 3y ago
...renationalized EDF because it's so unprofitable, can't build a single reactor on time and on budget and has to subsidize every Watt sold with taxpayer money, so people don't go on the street and burn Cities down.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Or China, which built an AP1000 in nine years [1], about as long as it takes us to NEPA a transmission line [2]. Given about half of that was waiting for a reactor-coolant pump, it can likely be done in 5. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanced-nuclear-reactors https://spectrum.ieee.org/a-double-first-in-china-for-advanc... [2] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-clean-energy-storage-grid-enhancing-technology-dlr-distributed-resources/651567/ https://www.utilitydive.com/news/transmission-clean-energy-s...
- flashback2199 3y ago
  Withdrawn
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > impossible to draw any conclusion from a successful big project abroad Wait, we can draw conclusions from France building a different reactor (but only its latest ones, which were most expensive) but not from China building an AP1000?
    - flashback2199 3y ago
      Withdrawn
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > China's economy is a black box We can independently verify the plant was built. And we can confirm what Westinghouse was paid. We can’t see other costs incurred, which is why I’m solely citing them for time, not cost.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

mpweiher 3y ago

Time: Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-construction-time https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/nuclear-constructi... https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-construction-time-for-reactors-since-1981/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... France nuclearized its entire grid in 20 years, from the early 70s to the early 90s. They've been producing largely CO2 free, cheap electricity ever since. Germany has been trying to achieve low carbon electricity for 20 years so far while at the same tine getting out of nuclear (yes, it doesn't make sense). We're supposedly half way done, have the 2nd most expensive electricity in the EU and also the 2nd dirtiest electricity in the EU. The government went to such extremes to hide the costs of the energy crisis on off-budget vehicles that the constitutional court had to step in. Cost: "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANES.pdf https://web.mit.edu/kshirvan/www/research/ANP193%20TR%20CANE... Sailed: 22 countries just pledged to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 (yes, that's quite a ways away), including the US, Japan, Ukraine, France, Canada, Poland, South Korea etc. India, China and Russia did not sign, but are also expanding. Apart from representing 5 of the G7, the vast majority of world GDP and also the majority of the population, the list importantly also includes a number of countries that until as recently as two years ago were getting out of nuclear, either significantly or entirely. Poland currently has no nuclear plants and has just ordered 24 small reactors to be installed at 6 sites. etc.

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
> Nuclear power plants take an average of 7.5 years to build. Consistently for the last 40-50 years. Citing numbers from the 70s does nothing to further your argument. We can take a look at all plants we have attempted to construct in the west the past 20 years. - Virgil C. Summer: Contract: 2008. Cancelled 2017 - Vogtle Contract 2008, first reactor done 2023, second 2024(??) - Watts Bar: Construction start 1972, cancelled 1985. Restarted 2007. Finished 2016. - Flamanville: Construction start 2007. Hopefully finished 2024. - Hinkley Point C: Political decision and construction start 2008. Investment decision 2013. Hopefully done by 2028. - Olkiluoto 3: Construction start 2005. Done 2023 - Hanhikivi: Never passed the phase when they tried to certify a Russian reactor for western safety requirements - NuScale SMR Cancelled before they even started building. 7.5 years is simply a laughable prospect in 2023. > "LCOE of less than $30/MWhre for 40-60 years" even for the "expensive" US Westinghouse AP1000 A 60 year payback time + 15 years construction is 75 years. That is like Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the height of the second world war making investments that only pans out in 2023. In the real world, where you spend your own money, that is called insanity. The risk is huge, and extending the amortization cost like that is simply bad math. You should understand the Time Value of Money and suggesting such amortization times are simply nonsensical. Understanding the Time Value of Money: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp https://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/082703.asp But this is typical nukebro accounting. Finding the lowest possible number in the face of reality and then with the blindfold on repeating it hoping that we can subsidize nuclear enough to make it happen one more time. Just skip seeing the subsidies.