| ▲ | mpweiher a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
> [renewables massively increased electricity prices, not decreased them as claimed] > We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. Yes, we do. When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money when you consider the long term. > I analyzed it for France. With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion. > Nope [to having little effect on CO₂ emissions] The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable. France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. Have been for decades, at a fraction of the cost. > France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed. Again, the opposite is true. Those projects did not "fail". They all produce reliable power, which intermittent renewables cannot do, at better prices than intermittent renewables. Of course, compared to other nuclear projects, they were massive failures, but not when compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different. And your reasoning is also wrong: those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds, and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years. FOAK builds are slow and expensive (and slow is extra expensive, as most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments). NOAK builds tend to go much quicker and be a lot cheaper. As an example, China builds much faster and cheaper. People incorrectly claim this is because they skimp on safety, labor, tech etc. Not true. Their first AP-1000 took 9 years, almost as long as Vogtles, especially when you take into account the COVID years. They are now building their version in 5 years. Essentially the same reactor, certainly the same country. Half the time. FOAK vs. NOAK is the ticket. > .. therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. France's primary problem was lack of maintenance due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years and deferred maintenance during COVID. And you don't build just one kind. Build 2-3 kinds and 10-20 of each. Oh, and don't build them too quick. These things last for 100 years, so to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers. > Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure. No it didn't. Relative to the standards of nuclear power plants it was horrific. But even under fairly negative assumptions for the price of electricity it will have "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects. And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project. > There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else. That is false. The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 and later on to build 8 more. Sites have been selected for the first 6, and engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded to the tune of several billion €. If that's "nothing", then can I have just a bit of that "nothing" from you? Can send you my bank details. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | natmaka a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money Non-backed-up nonsense. > With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion. Once again: source? The reality is that the French Cour of Audit officially declared 5 years ago that there could be no more nuclear project without a financial direct public guarantee. Proof: https://www.challenges.fr/top-news/nucleaire-la-cour-des-com... Its last report on nuclear, published last January, is TITLED: "DES RISQUES PERSISTANTS" (persistent risks). Proof: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2025-01/20250114... > The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable Nope, 538 geqCO2/KWh (2013) to 344 (2024) with a huge coal industry which cannot be quickly phased out and while shutting down all nuclear reactors is very good. > France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. The reasons are well-known (France, during the 1960's, had no other option): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl... > at a fraction of the cost. Nope (TCO), as already exposed (along with sources): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h.... >> France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed. > Again, the opposite is true OMG. According to you they are successes, and even official reports conclude that they failed. > compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different. That's patently not the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... > those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. Nope, this appeal to some strong and persistent benefit induced by batching projects is void, and the industry knows it for quite a while: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... > They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds The EPR is explicitly and officially very similar to existing reactors, it only is an evolution of existing designs and not a new concept. Proof: https://recherche-expertise.asnr.fr/savoir-comprendre/surete... > and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years. The projects started 15 to 25 years ago, just a few years after the last reactor built before them. Moreover those nations have active reactors fleets and massive public nuclear R&D budgets, therefore the fable "no-one worked on all this" is ridiculous. > most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments True, but only because the projects were extremely late. > China builds Renewables. Facts (sourced! just try to do so): https://sites.google.com/view/nuclaireenchine/accueil > They are now building Very few reactors. Their EPR were officially late and overbudget. > France's primary problem was lack of maintenance Source? Not at all. The nuclear authority is very, very picky here. > due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years Nope. Mitterrand heavily helped nuclear, and this is now a well-known fact. M. Boiteux, EDF boss at the time, also did reckon it. French ahead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rvP1zstk68 > and deferred maintenance during COVID. Source? Not at all, in practice, as many 'Grand Carénage' subprojects were completed in due time while respecting budgets (this is very rare in this industry and was touted). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage > to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers. In France the solution was to try to sell reactors to various nations, and >> Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure. > No it didn't. Wrong, once more. Proof: "La construction de l’EPR de Flamanville aura accumulé tant de surcoûts et de délais qu’elle ne peut être considérée que comme un échec pour EDF". Source: conclusion of the official report analyzing the EPR at Flamanville, page 31 https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme... > "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects. Source? > And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project. Granted. Which project succeeded since year 2000? >> There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else. > The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 Yes: it only is a plan. Nothing more. And "6" is "at least 2". Right now we only know where 2 of them can theoretically be built (at the existing plant at Penly). > Sites have been selected for the first 6 Which ones? Sources? > engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded Yes, for preparatory work. There is a long route ahead... > If that's "nothing" Compared to renewables? Nothin' indeed! https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||