5 ms·

From that same Wikipedia article: “The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is not published by EDF or the French government but is estimated

by Retric 2y ago

From that same Wikipedia article: “The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is not published by EDF or the French government but is estimated to be between €59/MWh and €83/MWh.” that’s using numbers from 2012 in todays money €73/MWh and €103/MWh. What you were quoting was counting “investments” not total costs on an inflation adjusted basis. In 2012 published results for ongoing costs at “The court expects EDF's projected investment programme in existing plant, including post Fukushima safety improvements, will add between 9.5% and 14.5% to generation costs, taking costs to between 37.9 and 54.2 EUR/MWh” (Note that’s annual costs excluding construction and decommissioning.) Your investment number included R&D subsidies that aren’t part of that 47 to 67 EUR/MWh in today’s money. If you wonder how these could be so wildly different it’s because France isn’t just adding up total costs and adjusting for inflation they simply don’t want to admit how large the subsidies have been because it’s so dam expensive. France nuclear power plants don’t hit 90% capacity factors. If your generate 30% of power from nuclear you can have capacity factors that high but France ran past that and ran into the fundamental issue that people want less power on nights, weekends, and spring/fall when they don’t need heat or AC. How about some real world numbers. From 61.4 GW of generating capacity In 2022 France produced 282 TWh, in 2023 it hit 320 TWh that’s (282 + 320)/2 / 365 / 24 * 1000 / 61.4 = 56% capacity factor. Wow that’s low let’s look at some lifetime numbers 72.60% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belleville_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belleville_Nuclear_Power_Plant 75% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blayais_Nuclear_Power_Plant 74% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattenom_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattenom_Nuclear_Power_Plant Wow your 90% is sure looking crazy optimistic. “80 year running life” you know France is having troubles keeping a ~40 year old fleet operating, I’m sure they will have zero problems trying to hit 80 years.

nomel 2y ago
You can civilly correct someone. No need to be rude.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 2y ago
  I disagree, what I said was civil. There’s an art to it, but civility isn’t about avoiding all conflict. A prosecutor can have a perfectly civil conversation where they threaten someone with execution if they don’t accept a plea deal. A few mocking jabs about how incorrect someone’s statement was is fine as long as you’re mocking what was said and not their person, manor of speech, accent, speech impediment, etc.
mpweiher 2y ago
1. Operating costs. Operating costs for nuclear power plants are low and consistent over time. The bulk of the cost is the initial investment, and of that the bulk is financing, i.e. interest. https://endexiresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/the-cost-of-french-nuclear-scale-up-a.-grubler.pdf https://endexiresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020... This has a graph of operating costs for French nuclear plants over time on page 10. After an initial high cost of 40 centimes / kWh it settles down to slightly above 10 centimes / kWh in around 1984 and then stays flat until 2000, where the graph ends. Let's call that 12 centimes. The French franc was converted to € at a rate of 6.55 : 1 so that's slightly less than 2 euro-cents per kWh. 2. Capacity factors Current French nuclear plants are old designs and there was significant overbuild. Modern plants easily hit > 90% capacity factors, heck, the EPR even has 4 independent cooling systems so that they can keep the plant running while doing maintenance on the cooling system! Alas, that's one of the reasons it is so difficult to build. For the US: "Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2021." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity In Germany, it was 93% IIRC before it went to 0% due to government action. "In 2019, the global median capacity factor was 85.9 %, in line with the load factor in recent years." https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data-on-nuclear-power-plants-operating-experience https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data... France is also adding renewables so the nuclear plants don't have to buffer all the variability in demand. Right now they have nuclear plants that they just shut down on weekends. So let's low-ball this and say the capacity factor of these new plants will only be 80%. How much does this affect the calculations? 1.5 * 24 * 365 * 0.8 * 80 = 840960 So instead of producing 946 TWh over its lifetime, the plant will produce 840 TWh or 840 billion kWh. That doesn't really affect the calculations much. At 1 cent / kWh that's € 8.4 billion, which is still pretty close to the construction costs. At 2 cents / kWh we are looking at € 16.8 billion. Add another 2 cents for operating costs and we are at a total of 4 cents / kWh. 4 cents / kWh. Now this is obviously not a perfect calculation, if such a thing can even be made. But it is very much in the right ballpark. The claims of 20 cents / kWh or more by anti-nuclear lobbyists are not in the right ballpark. And unsurprisingly, their source for those kinds of numbers is "trust me, bro". Or Lazard, which is arguably worse than "trust me, bro". 3. Lifetime Yes, I believe 80 years is extremely realistic, particularly for these newer reactors that were specifically designed for long operation, with lessons learned from older designs. Probably more of a lower bound than an upper bound. "There are no technical barriers to running some nuclear plants for up to 80 years, ..." "There are two research programs addressing the five main challenges to long-term operation: primary system metals and piping; concrete and containment structures; electrical cables; reactor pressure vessel and buried piping. “These programs have not uncovered any technical show-stoppers that would prevent the renewal of licenses from 60 to 80 years,” the study authors wrote, adding that more research is needed." https://spectrum.ieee.org/aps-argues-to-extend-lifespan-of-nuclear-reactors-to-80-years https://spectrum.ieee.org/aps-argues-to-extend-lifespan-of-n... "Research demonstrates no technical limits for reactors operating up to 80 years." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re... "A handful of reactors have already been approved to operate for a total of 80 years,..." https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/04/1090630/old-nuclear-plants/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/04/1090630/old-nucl... "... a majority of executives say that it is very likely their plants will operate for 80 years or longer. It is a fairly natural progression, according to Was. "If they last till 60, maybe they can last to 80," Was said. "Heck, maybe 100?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla... As an example, the AP-1000, which is a peer to the EPR/EPR2 designs is specifically touted as having an 80 year lifetime. "Nuclear energy is emission free, and the new units are expected to provide reliable power throughout the region for the next 60-80 years. " https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/westinghouse-celebrates-milestone-achievement-as-ap1000-technology-powers-plant-vogtle-unit-4-into-commercial-operation https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/westinghouse-celeb... "...with a plant lifetime that can be readily extended to 80 years and beyond." http://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000 http://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000

by Retric 2y ago

nomel 2y ago

You can civilly correct someone. No need to be rude.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
Retric 2y ago
I disagree, what I said was civil. There’s an art to it, but civility isn’t about avoiding all conflict. A prosecutor can have a perfectly civil conversation where they threaten someone with execution if they don’t accept a plea deal. A few mocking jabs about how incorrect someone’s statement was is fine as long as you’re mocking what was said and not their person, manor of speech, accent, speech impediment, etc.

mpweiher 2y ago

1. Operating costs. Operating costs for nuclear power plants are low and consistent over time. The bulk of the cost is the initial investment, and of that the bulk is financing, i.e. interest. https://endexiresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/the-cost-of-french-nuclear-scale-up-a.-grubler.pdf https://endexiresearch.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020... This has a graph of operating costs for French nuclear plants over time on page 10. After an initial high cost of 40 centimes / kWh it settles down to slightly above 10 centimes / kWh in around 1984 and then stays flat until 2000, where the graph ends. Let's call that 12 centimes. The French franc was converted to € at a rate of 6.55 : 1 so that's slightly less than 2 euro-cents per kWh. 2. Capacity factors Current French nuclear plants are old designs and there was significant overbuild. Modern plants easily hit > 90% capacity factors, heck, the EPR even has 4 independent cooling systems so that they can keep the plant running while doing maintenance on the cooling system! Alas, that's one of the reasons it is so difficult to build. For the US: "Nuclear has the highest capacity factor of any other energy source—producing reliable, carbon-free power more than 92% of the time in 2021." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/what-generation-capacity In Germany, it was 93% IIRC before it went to 0% due to government action. "In 2019, the global median capacity factor was 85.9 %, in line with the load factor in recent years." https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data-on-nuclear-power-plants-operating-experience https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-releases-2019-data... France is also adding renewables so the nuclear plants don't have to buffer all the variability in demand. Right now they have nuclear plants that they just shut down on weekends. So let's low-ball this and say the capacity factor of these new plants will only be 80%. How much does this affect the calculations? 1.5 * 24 * 365 * 0.8 * 80 = 840960 So instead of producing 946 TWh over its lifetime, the plant will produce 840 TWh or 840 billion kWh. That doesn't really affect the calculations much. At 1 cent / kWh that's € 8.4 billion, which is still pretty close to the construction costs. At 2 cents / kWh we are looking at € 16.8 billion. Add another 2 cents for operating costs and we are at a total of 4 cents / kWh. 4 cents / kWh. Now this is obviously not a perfect calculation, if such a thing can even be made. But it is very much in the right ballpark. The claims of 20 cents / kWh or more by anti-nuclear lobbyists are not in the right ballpark. And unsurprisingly, their source for those kinds of numbers is "trust me, bro". Or Lazard, which is arguably worse than "trust me, bro". 3. Lifetime Yes, I believe 80 years is extremely realistic, particularly for these newer reactors that were specifically designed for long operation, with lessons learned from older designs. Probably more of a lower bound than an upper bound. "There are no technical barriers to running some nuclear plants for up to 80 years, ..." "There are two research programs addressing the five main challenges to long-term operation: primary system metals and piping; concrete and containment structures; electrical cables; reactor pressure vessel and buried piping. “These programs have not uncovered any technical show-stoppers that would prevent the renewal of licenses from 60 to 80 years,” the study authors wrote, adding that more research is needed." https://spectrum.ieee.org/aps-argues-to-extend-lifespan-of-nuclear-reactors-to-80-years https://spectrum.ieee.org/aps-argues-to-extend-lifespan-of-n... "Research demonstrates no technical limits for reactors operating up to 80 years." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-reactor-much-longer-you-might-think https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/whats-lifespan-nuclear-re... "A handful of reactors have already been approved to operate for a total of 80 years,..." https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/04/1090630/old-nuclear-plants/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/04/1090630/old-nucl... "... a majority of executives say that it is very likely their plants will operate for 80 years or longer. It is a fairly natural progression, according to Was. "If they last till 60, maybe they can last to 80," Was said. "Heck, maybe 100?" https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-plant-aging-reactor-replacement-/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-pla... As an example, the AP-1000, which is a peer to the EPR/EPR2 designs is specifically touted as having an 80 year lifetime. "Nuclear energy is emission free, and the new units are expected to provide reliable power throughout the region for the next 60-80 years. " https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/westinghouse-celebrates-milestone-achievement-as-ap1000-technology-powers-plant-vogtle-unit-4-into-commercial-operation https://info.westinghousenuclear.com/news/westinghouse-celeb... "...with a plant lifetime that can be readily extended to 80 years and beyond." http://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000 http://canes.mit.edu/overnight-capital-cost-next-ap1000