3 ms·

Yes, that's one of the issue with nuclear, it appears cheap because the cost are/will be carried by someone else. After all why take into account the waste mana

by forty 1y ago

Yes, that's one of the issue with nuclear, it appears cheap because the cost are/will be carried by someone else. After all why take into account the waste management in many years or the price of dismantling old reactors into account when we have electricity now and we won't have to handle all that ourselves ^^

spwa4 1y ago
The issue in this case was management not properly planning (ie. don't repair all your plants at the same time), and doesn't have anything to do with nuclear versus any other source of power. If you disconnect all your generators at the same time, it will go down, no matter the technology.
- forty 1y ago
  Some of them were stopped for planned maintainance but some of them were stopped because they noticed some issues (corrosion I think?), so I'm not sure it was really a choice.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    It was a choice delaying maintenance to save a few bucks every time for years, dozens of times by now. Then they got into critical trouble in a number of places at the same time. Wait, sorry. I say "they got into trouble", which is true, they caused the trouble. But not financially, of course, WE got into trouble there. Given that the CEO is an accountant I'd bet my firstborn this was not lost on him. But all of France is paying for their systematically wrong decisions over a long period (which still leaves the power pretty cheap tbh).
  - seec 1y ago
    There were some questions about some pipes condition indeed but it turned out to be a nothing burger. The thing is that nuclear power is still a relatively new thing and we don't have historical experience to rely on. Since it is basically the first time reactors are this old and there are a lot of risks, it was decided to verify just to be sure. But now we know they can run fine for much longer than was anticipated. That is something the anti-nuclear conveniently avoid, the reactors have cost a lot to build but they are still providing value and it's expected that their life will be extended by quite a lot.

by forty 1y ago

spwa4 1y ago

The issue in this case was management not properly planning (ie. don't repair all your plants at the same time), and doesn't have anything to do with nuclear versus any other source of power. If you disconnect all your generators at the same time, it will go down, no matter the technology.

forty 1y ago
Some of them were stopped for planned maintainance but some of them were stopped because they noticed some issues (corrosion I think?), so I'm not sure it was really a choice.
- spwa4 1y ago
  It was a choice delaying maintenance to save a few bucks every time for years, dozens of times by now. Then they got into critical trouble in a number of places at the same time. Wait, sorry. I say "they got into trouble", which is true, they caused the trouble. But not financially, of course, WE got into trouble there. Given that the CEO is an accountant I'd bet my firstborn this was not lost on him. But all of France is paying for their systematically wrong decisions over a long period (which still leaves the power pretty cheap tbh).
- seec 1y ago
  There were some questions about some pipes condition indeed but it turned out to be a nothing burger. The thing is that nuclear power is still a relatively new thing and we don't have historical experience to rely on. Since it is basically the first time reactors are this old and there are a lot of risks, it was decided to verify just to be sure. But now we know they can run fine for much longer than was anticipated. That is something the anti-nuclear conveniently avoid, the reactors have cost a lot to build but they are still providing value and it's expected that their life will be extended by quite a lot.