4 ms·

Germany will have to replace all of it's solar and wind capacity long before most French reactors become EOL.

by kgabis 3y ago

ViewTrick1002 3y ago
Which is factored in the cost. Sometimes companies upgrade early because the newer versions are more efficient. The French are looking to have their entire nuclear fleet become EOL the next 20 years and for replacement they have 1 reactor being constructed. That is an awful spot to be in.
- kgabis 3y ago
  What is not factored in, however, is that nuclear reactors can work for much longer than 40 years (which is a time span used by LCOE). Not to mention storage and grid extension. French reactors will have their lifetime extended beyond 60 years which gives France plenty of time to restart it's nuclear industry.
  - locallost 3y ago
    It's often tossed around that reactors can work for 80 years, but not a single one has managed that yet. The longest running nuclear plant is Beznau in Switzerland, now running for 54 years. But it needed extensive and expensive repairs around 10 years ago costing billions [1]. Swiss media reported that the reactor contains thousands of holes. [2] So the reality is less simple and rosy than people like to pretend. [1] https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/energy-knowledge.detail.html/energy-knowledge/nuclear-power-plant-beznau.html https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/energy-knowledge.detail.... [2] https://www.thelocal.ch/20151008/worlds-oldest-nuclear-reactor-like-emmental https://www.thelocal.ch/20151008/worlds-oldest-nuclear-react...
    - kgabis 3y ago
      Yes, nuclear reactors need maintenance, but extensions to 80 years are being approved, so 80+ years doesn't seem unrealistic for existing reactors.
      - locallost 3y ago
        It's neither realistic nor unrealistic, we don't really know because it hasn't been done. What we do know is that it won't be cheap. France for instance plans to invest 20-25 billion per year to keep its fleet running. But they are all in on nuclear and basically have no way out. Decommissioning of their 56 reactors would bankrupt their electricity sector so they're kicking the can down the road. The rest of the world will have cheaper options.
        yongjik 3y ago
        This sounds more like anti-nuclear propaganda. Decommissioning a functioning nuclear reactor doesn't need to be more expensive than running it. You just unplug it, let it naturally cool down, and later you can figure out how to recycle the unspent fuel (or bury it deep enough, if people really demand it) at your leisure. And if renewables really live up to the hype (I kinda hope it does, because otherwise it will get rather awkward for the climate), France can decide to install those fancy always-available renewables at that time, without going thru the pesky "We're being praised for our renewables while burning so much coal and gas!" stage Germany is famous for.
        locallost 3y ago
        Yes and everyone has a pot with endless gold.

Germany will have to replace all of it's solar and wind capacity long before most French reactors become EOL.

by kgabis 3y ago

Germany will have to replace all of it's solar and wind capacity long before most French reactors become EOL.

Which is factored in the cost. Sometimes companies upgrade early because the newer versions are more efficient. The French are looking to have their entire nuclear fleet become EOL the next 20 years and for replacement they have 1 reactor being constructed. That is an awful spot to be in.

kgabis 3y ago
What is not factored in, however, is that nuclear reactors can work for much longer than 40 years (which is a time span used by LCOE). Not to mention storage and grid extension. French reactors will have their lifetime extended beyond 60 years which gives France plenty of time to restart it's nuclear industry.
- locallost 3y ago
  It's often tossed around that reactors can work for 80 years, but not a single one has managed that yet. The longest running nuclear plant is Beznau in Switzerland, now running for 54 years. But it needed extensive and expensive repairs around 10 years ago costing billions [1]. Swiss media reported that the reactor contains thousands of holes. [2] So the reality is less simple and rosy than people like to pretend. [1] https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/energy-knowledge.detail.html/energy-knowledge/nuclear-power-plant-beznau.html https://www.axpo.com/ch/en/about-us/energy-knowledge.detail.... [2] https://www.thelocal.ch/20151008/worlds-oldest-nuclear-reactor-like-emmental https://www.thelocal.ch/20151008/worlds-oldest-nuclear-react...
  - kgabis 3y ago
    Yes, nuclear reactors need maintenance, but extensions to 80 years are being approved, so 80+ years doesn't seem unrealistic for existing reactors.
    - locallost 3y ago
      It's neither realistic nor unrealistic, we don't really know because it hasn't been done. What we do know is that it won't be cheap. France for instance plans to invest 20-25 billion per year to keep its fleet running. But they are all in on nuclear and basically have no way out. Decommissioning of their 56 reactors would bankrupt their electricity sector so they're kicking the can down the road. The rest of the world will have cheaper options.
      - yongjik 3y ago
        This sounds more like anti-nuclear propaganda. Decommissioning a functioning nuclear reactor doesn't need to be more expensive than running it. You just unplug it, let it naturally cool down, and later you can figure out how to recycle the unspent fuel (or bury it deep enough, if people really demand it) at your leisure. And if renewables really live up to the hype (I kinda hope it does, because otherwise it will get rather awkward for the climate), France can decide to install those fancy always-available renewables at that time, without going thru the pesky "We're being praised for our renewables while burning so much coal and gas!" stage Germany is famous for.
        locallost 3y ago
        Yes and everyone has a pot with endless gold.