Of course running below maximum output drives up cost. Are you disagreeing with basic math? Consumption of fuel is not the main cost of a nuclear power plant, and even if you shut it down completely, it still needs external power for the cooling.
> Why not look at projects like Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant instead
Because the person I replied to talked about Flamanville... Do you even read what is discussed or just frantically go from one post to the other?
I also posted how long it took to reach 50% renewables - 20 years, during which time the EDF/Areva failed to complete almost all of the projects they were involved with. If Germany had gone that route it would still be pumping out 800g/kWh like Poland does and it would be doing that for the last 20 years. Thank God it didn't make that mistake.
I talked about Flamanville because the article is about France and I mentioned France's underinvestment. If you want to talk about well funded projects then yes the Chinese have done a much better job. But you're not really talking in earnest.
I'll repeat again. Nuclear power projects in France took 20 years and were not completed because of underinvestment; about 10% of what the Germans paid for the Energiewende. If the French invested 10x more money, the industry could have been rebuilt. Instead they just perfuse enough to keep it half-alive.
So we should talk about that one that maybe was not a total disaster, but we should not talk about the three others that have been. I notice a lot of no true Scotsman rhetoric by nuclear people in general: France is proof we can build nuclear fast, but they didn't do it right by not maintaining properly. Germany is proof we can run nuclear plants efficiently, but they are incompetent for not being able to make it work. Etc. etc. If only the French had done this or that. But in the end it does not work.
You don't have to repeat anything, I heard you the first time. Flamanville cost a 1/10 of the Energiewende and its output is 0. Its theoretical output is 1/25 of the actual output of German renewables. That's not a good deal. If the goal is to decarbonize, Flamanville is already a failure, for reasons I already posted.
Except my rhetoric is based on what you said (coulda would shoulda and it would all be peaches), not on made up impressions of other people. Living in a fact free world is also typical of pro-nuclear people. Take care. I will stop now, since some people got banned for flame wars already, and rightfully so.
France needs to and is decarbonising. Electricity is perhaps the most important (because of electrification) but it's not the only sector. Plus France's electricity has always had the last 20% to deal with.
France didn't decarbonize deliberately and they did it 50 years ago decades before anybody paid any attention to global warming.
Meanwhile theyre becoming progressively more aware of the extreme costs of staying nuclear - costs they kept halfway reasonable by neglecting maintenance which is now biting them back.
> France didn't decarbonize deliberately and they did it 50 years ago decades before anybody paid any attention to global warming.
Whether or not France did or did not decarbonize deliberatly is secondary to the fact that they DID decarbonize.
On the other hand, when Germany set out to decarbonize, they SHOULD look have looked at historical data for what actually produced the desired outcome. But instead they chose to replace their nuclear power with wind power, while keeping fossil power the same.
In 1990, Nuclear power contributed to about 1800PJ/15000PJ of primary energy consumption, or about 12%.
Last year, solar+wind was 6%, or half that.
Then there is a large chunk from "biomass", which is all sorts of stuff, some good for the environment and some that are as dirty as most fossil fuels, but labeled "biomass" to greenwash them. (One of the worst cases, at least globally, would be firewood, especially in terms of local polution.)
At best, "renewables" can be counted to 17.2% for 2022, at worst it's about 6%.
Also, in absolute terms, total energy consumption in Germany has gone down, for several different reasons, but that would have happened anyway, it's not due to wind and solar.
> By all measures
In other words, it really depends on what measures you look at whether or not my statement was true.
I suppose I could be been more concise, though. What I meant, was that new clean energy (meaning primarily wind + solar) has AT BEST only replaced the clean nuclear energy that was available in 1990.
So in terms of available clean energy, simply maintaining those plants (or replace them when they could no longer be maintained) would have provided the same benefit as the massive investments in wind and solar (and those biomass types that are clean).
Still, a reduction in gross consumption is also a good thing, and _some_ of this may be connected to the increase in prices.
Then again, simply enforcing a carbon tax would achive the same.
Correct. France built its reactors after the oil crises of the early 70s to guarantee its energy independence. The irony being those same plants failed at the time of the biggest energy crises since then.
They failed. A quarter was out because of faulty pipes and another quarter was out because of planned maintenance. France had to rely on its neighbors to keep its lights on, and became a net importer of electricity for the first time in decades. And I repeat during the biggest energy crisis in 50 years, which was the entire reason for their existence. Can't fail in a worse way.
Sounds like a P+R stunt so far to me. But it is doable, there is a working power line from Germany to Norway already. The only question is: is it a good idea to build a direct Morocco-UK power line or would it be more clever to connect Morocco with a shorter line to the central European grid and from there to the UK? Why should they sell to the UK and not central Europe?
But power lines can be built, no doubt. But then, as I said, you can as well transport wind energy from the coast to the rest of the country.
Funny how for renewables it's "certainly it's doable" and "powerlines can be built", but for nuclear "The problem of course is the proximity to power consumers"
You are twisting my words. It isn't a fundamental problem with nuclear, but with placing the power plants at the coasts. You might have made cooling easier, but increased the demand for the grid. That can be done, but should be mentioned. Especially in the context I wrote, but which you didn't quote, that at coasts there is no scarcity of wind, so it is way easier to build wind power there than nuclear.
Because nuclear power projects are never finished on time and within budget. Partly for political reasons (as in: People really don't like it), partly because engineers suck at estimating large projects.
- hit by earthquake at or above upper structural limit. The most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan
"maximum ground g-forces of 0.56, 0.52, 0.56 at units 2, 3, and 5 respectively. This exceeded the seismic reactor design tolerances of 0.45, 0.45, and 0.46 g for continued operation, but the seismic values were within the design tolerances at units 1, 4, and 6"
- hit by tsunami exceeding that limit
The largest tsunami wave was 13–14 m (43–46 feet) high and hit approximately 50 minutes after the initial earthquake, overwhelming the plant's ground level, which was 10 m (33 ft) above the sea level
---
This resulted in 1 (one) death directly attributable to the incident
> And pretty much all nuclear projects are finished behind schedule and wayyy above budget.
All projects do, including wind and solar.
--- start quote ---
Ernst & Young (EY) has found that an average power and utility megaproject is delivered 35% over budget and two years behind schedule
Of the megaprojects surveyed, 64% were delayed and 57% were over budge. Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,
Nuclear power projects are not just over-budget, they start off with a budget of a couple of billions, whereas individual solar or wind power projects are way smaller and therefor carry less of a risk. Nuclear power requires a huge financial backing from a single entity (even it is "fed" by multiple sources). Almost always, the risk is carried by society, the profit, if any is gobbled up by some corporation.
There is no need to "overbuild" wind or solar. There has never been any illusion those sources will produce at 100% capacity all the time. There will eventually be energy storage to level out the peaks, but most countries still have years to build up to the point where this is necessary.
We've had 60 years of nuclear and thousands of reactors. Still waiting for those terrorists I guess.
> as supposed to the also criminal but less intentional neglect in the case of Fukushima
Which is also a load of bull, mostly. I wish all criminal neglect was on the same level as Fukushima, really: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35711895