4 ms·

> Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear po

by Herz 2y ago

> Until they had the highest rates in Europe when their nuclear energy did not deliver. [1] Currently they are completely unable to construct any new nuclear power given the outcome of Flamanville 3 [2] and cost escalations of their upcoming reactors [3], before they have even started building, the future for the French nuclear industry is looking incredibly bleak. You are cherry-picking examples to support your argument, which is intellectually dishonest. For instance, if I took the construction time of the slowest wind farm and presented it as the norm, it would be equally misleading. I provide average and mean construction times, which are more representative of the overall picture. > Have a look at all projects in the west in the past 20 years. They've either been cancelled or taken 20+ years from announcement until commercial operation. This is another example of cherry-picking. Western countries have not invested in nuclear power on a large scale in recent decades. However, countries like South Korea and China, which have heavily invested in nuclear energy, have achieved much shorter construction times. You mention statistics but fail to explain how building one nuclear plant per decade in the West represents any meaningful statistical evidence. It is misleading to generalize from such a small sample size. > Given the extreme costs and lengthy construction timelines of modern nuclear power, investing in it today prolongs climate change. Germany's Energiewende, which has cost 600 billion euros over 20 years, has not achieved significant decarbonization. Renewables remain the most heavily subsidized energy source in Europe. To understand your position better, do you prioritize excluding nuclear power or achieving decarbonization?

ViewTrick1002 2y ago
South Korea was building until their corruptions scandals blew up the industry. They haven't been able to sign a single export agreement since. [1] China has for every single passing year been reducing their nuclear targets in favor of renewables. They keep a toe in the nuclear business but it is not core to their energy strategy anymore. [2] We can have a look at all reactors we have tried to construct in the past 20 years in the west. The French examples are the pretty picture. Finished: - Olkiluoto 3: Took 20 years. - Flamanville 3: Incredible cost blow-out and delays. - Vogtle: Laughably delayed and expensive. Under construction: - Hinkley Point C: Laughably delayed and expensive. Cancelled after investment decision: - Virgil C. Summer: The ratepayers are going to pay for this chaotic project for decades to come. - Hanhikivi: Was apparently hard to certify a Russian reactor for western standards. Cancelled before investment decision: - NuScale: In the end it cost more than Vogtle in $/kW. Planning limbo because no one can agree on the costs: - Wylfa-Newydd - Sizewell C - Oldbury B - Bradwell B - Moorside Early stage planning: - 6 new EPR2s by EDF in France: Continuously getting more expensive. Given this horrific outcome taking statistics from the 70s and saying and saying it has any relevance to the costs and timelines of nuclear power construction in modern advanced economies is just sticking your head in the sand. Please compare Germany and South Korea then. South Korea, the modern poster child for nuclear power held up as the paragon to emulate. Stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh which is worse than even Germany. 21st century nuclear power does not deliver decarbonization. Renewables do. [1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed-and-corruption-blew-up-south-koreas-nuclear-industry/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed... [2]: https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t...
- Herz 2y ago
  What you report proves exactly what I said. You are citing individual cases that don't reflect the broader picture. The reactors you listed don't represent large-scale construction efforts like those seen decades ago. Additionally, you mention costs as if they are the final cost to consumers. While Olkiluoto 3 was expensive to build, electricity bills in Finland are now stable and relatively low because of it. Over the long term, once the construction costs are repaid, it will be even more economical. Regarding China, your point isn't clear. The fact remains that China is demonstrating the effectiveness of building multiple reactors in parallel, which is faster and cheaper. Building reactors sporadically, as France is doing with new technologies, is indeed slow and costly. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61927 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61927 As for Korea, your argument seems unrelated. I advocate for a mix of nuclear and renewables. Korea's current strategy lacks sufficient renewable energy, which is not ideal. I mentioned Korea specifically to highlight their nuclear power capabilities, not their overall decarbonization strategy. Both Korea and Germany show that decarbonization requires a mix of nuclear and renewable energy sources. So, is your priority to exclude nuclear power, or to achieve decarbonization?
  - ViewTrick1002 2y ago
    Incredible how every single reactor we have attempted to build in the west in the past 20 years are "individual cases" when you have to find a way to rationalize your own stand point. Both the French and the American large-scale efforts ended in tears. Scale did not solve it. > The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > By the mid-1970s, it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. > [...] > The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Over-commitment_and_cancellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... > Regarding China, your point isn't clear. The fact remains that China is demonstrating the effectiveness of building multiple reactors in parallel, which is faster and cheaper. Love how your link says "Continues rapid growth" about the Chinese nuclear program while the curve obviously is stagnating. > While Olkiluoto 3 was expensive to build, electricity bills in Finland are now stable and relatively low because of it. Over the long term, once the construction costs are repaid, it will be even more economical. So now we just ignore basic economics. You don't get anything for free in the world. Someone paid. In the case of OL3 the French paid for the majority of the cost. Do you think anyone will sign a contract like OL3 again where the supplier is certain to make a loss? Lets have a look at Denmark and South Australia then? 150 gCO2/kWh and rapidly declining. Why accept being stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh like South Korea simply because they build nuclear? Because you don't really care about nuclear plants but understands that the discussion has shifted and now promote nuclear to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.

by Herz 2y ago

ViewTrick1002 2y ago

South Korea was building until their corruptions scandals blew up the industry. They haven't been able to sign a single export agreement since. [1] China has for every single passing year been reducing their nuclear targets in favor of renewables. They keep a toe in the nuclear business but it is not core to their energy strategy anymore. [2] We can have a look at all reactors we have tried to construct in the past 20 years in the west. The French examples are the pretty picture. Finished: - Olkiluoto 3: Took 20 years. - Flamanville 3: Incredible cost blow-out and delays. - Vogtle: Laughably delayed and expensive. Under construction: - Hinkley Point C: Laughably delayed and expensive. Cancelled after investment decision: - Virgil C. Summer: The ratepayers are going to pay for this chaotic project for decades to come. - Hanhikivi: Was apparently hard to certify a Russian reactor for western standards. Cancelled before investment decision: - NuScale: In the end it cost more than Vogtle in $/kW. Planning limbo because no one can agree on the costs: - Wylfa-Newydd - Sizewell C - Oldbury B - Bradwell B - Moorside Early stage planning: - 6 new EPR2s by EDF in France: Continuously getting more expensive. Given this horrific outcome taking statistics from the 70s and saying and saying it has any relevance to the costs and timelines of nuclear power construction in modern advanced economies is just sticking your head in the sand. Please compare Germany and South Korea then. South Korea, the modern poster child for nuclear power held up as the paragon to emulate. Stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh which is worse than even Germany. 21st century nuclear power does not deliver decarbonization. Renewables do. [1]: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed-and-corruption-blew-up-south-koreas-nuclear-industry/ https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/04/22/136020/how-greed... [2]: https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-the-switch-from-nuclear-to-renewable-energy/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/chinas-quiet-energy-revolution-t...

Herz 2y ago
What you report proves exactly what I said. You are citing individual cases that don't reflect the broader picture. The reactors you listed don't represent large-scale construction efforts like those seen decades ago. Additionally, you mention costs as if they are the final cost to consumers. While Olkiluoto 3 was expensive to build, electricity bills in Finland are now stable and relatively low because of it. Over the long term, once the construction costs are repaid, it will be even more economical. Regarding China, your point isn't clear. The fact remains that China is demonstrating the effectiveness of building multiple reactors in parallel, which is faster and cheaper. Building reactors sporadically, as France is doing with new technologies, is indeed slow and costly. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61927 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=61927 As for Korea, your argument seems unrelated. I advocate for a mix of nuclear and renewables. Korea's current strategy lacks sufficient renewable energy, which is not ideal. I mentioned Korea specifically to highlight their nuclear power capabilities, not their overall decarbonization strategy. Both Korea and Germany show that decarbonization requires a mix of nuclear and renewable energy sources. So, is your priority to exclude nuclear power, or to achieve decarbonization?
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Incredible how every single reactor we have attempted to build in the west in the past 20 years are "individual cases" when you have to find a way to rationalize your own stand point. Both the French and the American large-scale efforts ended in tears. Scale did not solve it. > The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > By the mid-1970s, it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. > [...] > The failure of the U.S. nuclear power program ranks as the largest managerial disaster in business history, a disaster on a monumental scale … only the blind, or the biased, can now think that the money has been well spent. It is a defeat for the U.S. consumer and for the competitiveness of U.S. industry, for the utilities that undertook the program and for the private enterprise system that made it possible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Over-commitment_and_cancellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... > Regarding China, your point isn't clear. The fact remains that China is demonstrating the effectiveness of building multiple reactors in parallel, which is faster and cheaper. Love how your link says "Continues rapid growth" about the Chinese nuclear program while the curve obviously is stagnating. > While Olkiluoto 3 was expensive to build, electricity bills in Finland are now stable and relatively low because of it. Over the long term, once the construction costs are repaid, it will be even more economical. So now we just ignore basic economics. You don't get anything for free in the world. Someone paid. In the case of OL3 the French paid for the majority of the cost. Do you think anyone will sign a contract like OL3 again where the supplier is certain to make a loss? Lets have a look at Denmark and South Australia then? 150 gCO2/kWh and rapidly declining. Why accept being stuck at 450 gCO2/kWh like South Korea simply because they build nuclear? Because you don't really care about nuclear plants but understands that the discussion has shifted and now promote nuclear to prolong our reliance on fossil fuels.