France prepares for possibility of electricity blackouts during winter months(rfi.fr)
rfi.fr
France prepares for possibility of electricity blackouts during winter months
https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20221201-how-france-is-preparing-to-avoid-a-major-blackout-this-winter
314 comments
EDF’s loss is due to the Arenh (Accès régulé à l’énergie nucléaire historique - regulated access to historical nuclear energy). This is a regulated market that was built to give a fixed price per GWH for new electricity companies.
The goal was to allow new providers to enter the market before investing massive amount of money in new power plants.
The idea was the following :
-EDF provides 100TWH at a fixed price, to allow newcomers to enter the electricity market (which was a monopoly) - new companies would then invest in new power plants to reduce long-term costs.
It did not work as expected: new power companies just bought cheap electricity and re-sold it without investing in their own plants.
That worked OK for a few years. But this year, EDF had a perfect storm:
- several nuclear reactors were taken down for a scheduled maintenance - corrosion issues were detected in several other reactors, bringing them down at the same time - the Ukraine war caused a massive increase in fossile electricity prices.
So EDF still had to sell electricity at a low price as defined by the Arenh, but had to import electricity at a higher price to compensate for their unavailable reactors.
This situation is completely absurd: EDF has to import electricity at high market price to sell it to a lower price through the arenh.
We even see some companies benefiting from the Arenh that are suspected of stopping the B2C segment just to resell the electricity on the European market at a higher price.
That’s why EDF is losing billions this year.
Here is an article explaining the Arenh and its flaws in more details (before the war so quite outdated, sorry I couldn’t find more sources in English):
https://www.magnuscmd.com/the-arenh-regulated-access-to-fran...
The goal was to allow new providers to enter the market before investing massive amount of money in new power plants.
The idea was the following :
-EDF provides 100TWH at a fixed price, to allow newcomers to enter the electricity market (which was a monopoly) - new companies would then invest in new power plants to reduce long-term costs.
It did not work as expected: new power companies just bought cheap electricity and re-sold it without investing in their own plants.
That worked OK for a few years. But this year, EDF had a perfect storm:
- several nuclear reactors were taken down for a scheduled maintenance - corrosion issues were detected in several other reactors, bringing them down at the same time - the Ukraine war caused a massive increase in fossile electricity prices.
So EDF still had to sell electricity at a low price as defined by the Arenh, but had to import electricity at a higher price to compensate for their unavailable reactors.
This situation is completely absurd: EDF has to import electricity at high market price to sell it to a lower price through the arenh.
We even see some companies benefiting from the Arenh that are suspected of stopping the B2C segment just to resell the electricity on the European market at a higher price.
That’s why EDF is losing billions this year.
Here is an article explaining the Arenh and its flaws in more details (before the war so quite outdated, sorry I couldn’t find more sources in English):
https://www.magnuscmd.com/the-arenh-regulated-access-to-fran...
Don’t even bother explaining that it is a result of an explicit political decision aiming to force the nuclear power industry to subsidize the renewables from its profits. In the end, regardless of your efforts, people will use the losses the nuclear incurs to subsidize renewables as a proof that nuclear is uneconomical, and that renewables beat it handily and are the way to go.
Wonder how much of this is related to the fact that France's energy minister have been MBA and political science graduates for quite some time. The previous one was Hollande's partner, so it's just another kind of nepotism[1].
Macron selling off France's nuclear infrastructure probably doesn't help either.
Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days? Were there more actual scientists and engineers in key positions in Government in the 60s and 70s?
For example in Germany Helmut Schmidt(74-82) had a plan for the future where Germany was to build out a fiber optic grid, which the subsequent Chancellor Kohl scrapped because did not like the influence of public TV services and wanted copper for cable TV to counter it[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ségolène_Royal
[2] https://netzpolitik.org/2018/danke-helmut-kohl-kabelfernsehe...
Macron selling off France's nuclear infrastructure probably doesn't help either.
Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days? Were there more actual scientists and engineers in key positions in Government in the 60s and 70s?
For example in Germany Helmut Schmidt(74-82) had a plan for the future where Germany was to build out a fiber optic grid, which the subsequent Chancellor Kohl scrapped because did not like the influence of public TV services and wanted copper for cable TV to counter it[2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ségolène_Royal
[2] https://netzpolitik.org/2018/danke-helmut-kohl-kabelfernsehe...
Valery Giscard d'Estaing graduated from Polytechnique (best engineering school in France).
He was a key driver of things like nuclear power, high-speed trains, the Minitel, etc.
He was a key driver of things like nuclear power, high-speed trains, the Minitel, etc.
> Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days?
You mean the Renaissance? Since then it's been 400 years of brain drain to the US.
You mean the Renaissance? Since then it's been 400 years of brain drain to the US.
You mean the US has competitive advantages because their products don't contain social costs like the ones from Europe?
I think it is simpler than that.
The US gained a lot of highly qualified immigration around WWII, when Europe tore itself into shreds. Poles, Italians, Russians, Germans, you name it.
And it is hard to disrupt the advantage of places like California ever since. Once you have top universities and top corporations somewhere, individuals will flock to them instead of trying to create competing hubs elsewhere. Plus the dominance of the English language all but guarantees that English-speaking countries will be the net benefactors of this global movement.
For all their advantages, Germany, Japan et al. still struggle with their parochiality when attracting foreign talent, while the US can do this really, really well. Take the entire roster of top IT people in the US and make a checkmark next to every immigrant or a child of immigrants. Similar lists in Munich, Paris, Tokyo etc. would look very different. Most European countries struggle with the fact that recent immigrants tend to be overrepresented in prisons.
The US gained a lot of highly qualified immigration around WWII, when Europe tore itself into shreds. Poles, Italians, Russians, Germans, you name it.
And it is hard to disrupt the advantage of places like California ever since. Once you have top universities and top corporations somewhere, individuals will flock to them instead of trying to create competing hubs elsewhere. Plus the dominance of the English language all but guarantees that English-speaking countries will be the net benefactors of this global movement.
For all their advantages, Germany, Japan et al. still struggle with their parochiality when attracting foreign talent, while the US can do this really, really well. Take the entire roster of top IT people in the US and make a checkmark next to every immigrant or a child of immigrants. Similar lists in Munich, Paris, Tokyo etc. would look very different. Most European countries struggle with the fact that recent immigrants tend to be overrepresented in prisons.
Probably not, when Europeans realize, that solar pannels manufacturing is dependent on China.
> people will use the losses the nuclear incurs to subsidize renewables as a proof that nuclear is uneconomical, and that renewables beat it handily
There is already plenty of proof around the world that renewables are cheaper than nuclear.
There is already plenty of proof around the world that renewables are cheaper than nuclear.
Maybe cheaper as of today if we don't account for storage, but since buulding renewables use far more materials than nuclear, would fossil fuels which ensured cheap production and transport become lacking, or base materials extraction not being able to follow a rising demand, I am not sure it would still be the case.
If nuclear used fewer raw materials nuke plants wouldn't be huge - huge - capital projects, wouldn't take years to come online, and wouldn't have huge cleanup costs.
If the money spent on nukes had been spent on renewables and on developing storage we wouldn't have these problems.
This was predictable decades ago.
The reality is that nukes are a political solution to a political problem. It's nice that they sometimes generate energy for a while, but there is no sense in which they've ever been a rational economic choice.
If the money spent on nukes had been spent on renewables and on developing storage we wouldn't have these problems.
This was predictable decades ago.
The reality is that nukes are a political solution to a political problem. It's nice that they sometimes generate energy for a while, but there is no sense in which they've ever been a rational economic choice.
Nuclear uses roughly an order of magnitude fewer ressources than wind, without factoring in storage: https://imgur.com/a/Kc2h21O.
Source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrenn... (page 390)
Source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrenn... (page 390)
You can't use a report from 2015 citing data from 2010 as indicative of a technology that has dropped in cost 10-fold and nearly doubled capacity factor since then.
Additionally the overwhelming majority of that material is foundation and tower. Both of which can be reused by replacing the nacelle.
Additionally the overwhelming majority of that material is foundation and tower. Both of which can be reused by replacing the nacelle.
The Vestas V112-3MW from 2009 has a 42% capacity factor. I don’t know any modern wind turbines that has a capacity factor of 80%.
https://www.thewindpower.net/turbine_en_413_vestas_v112-3000...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Gateway_Wind_Farm
https://www.thewindpower.net/turbine_en_413_vestas_v112-3000...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humber_Gateway_Wind_Farm
And this makes the point. A 2009 model turbine is a huge improvement on a retrospective on past history of plants that had been running for some time in 2010
https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sust...
A V112 has 40% lower materials per TWh (or ~30% for the lower wind configuration) than your report without considering modular foundations which would drop it by another factor of 3 or being able to reuse the foundation and tower at least once which would drop it by another 2.
On the other end you're not considering Uranium mining or enrichment facilities or waste storage or that the metals are all recyclable immediately rather than half of them being LLW or SLIW.
https://www.vestas.com/content/dam/vestas-com/global/en/sust...
A V112 has 40% lower materials per TWh (or ~30% for the lower wind configuration) than your report without considering modular foundations which would drop it by another factor of 3 or being able to reuse the foundation and tower at least once which would drop it by another 2.
On the other end you're not considering Uranium mining or enrichment facilities or waste storage or that the metals are all recyclable immediately rather than half of them being LLW or SLIW.
Average capacity factor is basically an irrelevant metric. What is more important is the lowest seasonal capacity factor, since seasonal power storage doesn’t make sense. For the UK this is 25% for offshore wind: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/bd2bb73a-ef25-4c4b...
This means that we need to overbuild wind by >200%, to have the necessary power year round.
Solar doesn’t work, since it is basically useless in the northern hemisphere during winter, and it needs a lot of battery storage during the night.
There is also a week in February where there is no wind, which will require green methane production and gas peakers(edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute)
Nuclear can work year round with load following using a design like the Natrium reactor. This design also uses a lot less concrete than traditional NPP’s.
This means that we need to overbuild wind by >200%, to have the necessary power year round.
Solar doesn’t work, since it is basically useless in the northern hemisphere during winter, and it needs a lot of battery storage during the night.
There is also a week in February where there is no wind, which will require green methane production and gas peakers(edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute)
Nuclear can work year round with load following using a design like the Natrium reactor. This design also uses a lot less concrete than traditional NPP’s.
Nice train you've got the goalposts on there.
The wind and solar capacity factors are anti-correlated.
There are areas in france where the december average is >2.6kWh/d. At 54kg/kWp a modern panel on a lightweight racking system gets this works out to 1800t/TWh and it's almost all glass you can build the same net wattage now for half the price and then use the money you save to replace in 30 years (or 50 if you take real world degradation rather than predicted). Having to recycle some glass once to decarbonize now ranther than in 20 years is a reasonable tradeoff for halving the costs. The gas plants are dirt cheap and that much solar would easily power enough electrolysis to fill your february gap during the 11 months of the year when it produces far more. The electrolysers will be needed in either case for ammonia, shipping, and SAF.
If we're invoking technology that doesn't exist and costs several times more, just use something that does exist and costs several times more like a CSP plant and an HVDC cable.
Additionally for the vast majority of the world which is in transmission range of somewhere arid, CSP is strictly cheaper than the easy part of a Natrium reactor.
The wind and solar capacity factors are anti-correlated.
There are areas in france where the december average is >2.6kWh/d. At 54kg/kWp a modern panel on a lightweight racking system gets this works out to 1800t/TWh and it's almost all glass you can build the same net wattage now for half the price and then use the money you save to replace in 30 years (or 50 if you take real world degradation rather than predicted). Having to recycle some glass once to decarbonize now ranther than in 20 years is a reasonable tradeoff for halving the costs. The gas plants are dirt cheap and that much solar would easily power enough electrolysis to fill your february gap during the 11 months of the year when it produces far more. The electrolysers will be needed in either case for ammonia, shipping, and SAF.
If we're invoking technology that doesn't exist and costs several times more, just use something that does exist and costs several times more like a CSP plant and an HVDC cable.
Additionally for the vast majority of the world which is in transmission range of somewhere arid, CSP is strictly cheaper than the easy part of a Natrium reactor.
Nuclear plants use very little raw materials relative to the amount of power the produce. When built at scale, nuclear plants have been delivered at prices around $1-2 billion dollars per GW of capacity.
The cheapest form of carbon-free energy really depends on what the objective is: small reductions in a mostly fossil-fuel grid? Or total replacement of fossil fuels? Renewables are great for the former: you can throw up some solar panels or wind turbines and reduce a chunk of fossil fuels use. But once you try to start delivering significant portions of the energy grid through intermittent sources the surplus energy starts to get wasted, and the effectiveness drops.
The cheapest form of carbon-free energy really depends on what the objective is: small reductions in a mostly fossil-fuel grid? Or total replacement of fossil fuels? Renewables are great for the former: you can throw up some solar panels or wind turbines and reduce a chunk of fossil fuels use. But once you try to start delivering significant portions of the energy grid through intermittent sources the surplus energy starts to get wasted, and the effectiveness drops.
Nuclear is roughly equal to wind on a modular foundation if you account for the fact that the tower and foundation outlast the nacelle. The "$2/GW" nuclear reactors were all built by state run agencies with opaque budgets and in France's, Japan's, and South Korea's cases have all proved wildly unreliable in addition to having opaque public subsidy on top of the very large visible subsidies in the supply chain and finance. If you think it's possible to match the prices China reports that megaprojects cost, I'd like to see any examples of projects in the global north with auditable accounting matching their figures in hydro, or highways, or rail, or ports or... basically anything.
In mediocre to good areas with something like the PEG racking system solar uses about the same raw material than nuclear already and it's almost all sand. By the time a new nuke came online this will be far less.
Both are recyclable. 12 hour storage adds negligible mass and can easily cover daily variation.
Intermittent power without storage can easily feed dispatchable loads like EV charging, chemical feedstock and heat production. These vastly exceed non-dispatchable electricity and can be used for virtual seasonal storage.
There are only a small handful of areas best served by nuclear, and most of them have hydro or nuclear already.
There's a narrow niche where nuclear is optimal:
Grid electricity between 50% and 80% penetration in the 50% of areas where hybrid CSP + e-fuel backup isn't better. This niche is rapidly shrinking and could easily be gone by the time one is built. More carbon can be removed faster and with fewer resources by throwing renewables at the other 10 or so TW of fossil fuels currently being burnt. Until those resources are committed, new nuclear just delays things.
In mediocre to good areas with something like the PEG racking system solar uses about the same raw material than nuclear already and it's almost all sand. By the time a new nuke came online this will be far less.
Both are recyclable. 12 hour storage adds negligible mass and can easily cover daily variation.
Intermittent power without storage can easily feed dispatchable loads like EV charging, chemical feedstock and heat production. These vastly exceed non-dispatchable electricity and can be used for virtual seasonal storage.
There are only a small handful of areas best served by nuclear, and most of them have hydro or nuclear already.
There's a narrow niche where nuclear is optimal:
Grid electricity between 50% and 80% penetration in the 50% of areas where hybrid CSP + e-fuel backup isn't better. This niche is rapidly shrinking and could easily be gone by the time one is built. More carbon can be removed faster and with fewer resources by throwing renewables at the other 10 or so TW of fossil fuels currently being burnt. Until those resources are committed, new nuclear just delays things.
> Nuclear is roughly equal to wind on a modular foundation if you account for the fact that the tower and foundation outlast the nacelle.
Except intermittent sources also need storage. They also need long distance transmission lines to bring power from remote areas of generation to places of demand (whereas you can just place nuclear plants next to areas of demand).
This is a common pattern in renewables discussion: laser focus on generation and ignoring the fact that wind and solar have storage and transmission requirements that other energy sources don't have.
> The "$2/GW" nuclear reactors were all built by state run agencies with opaque budgets
Nope, do more research. These were all built in the US with public cost history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach_Bottom_Nuclear_Generat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_Nuclear_Plant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Sta...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuire_Nuclear_Station
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_C._Cook_Nuclear_Plant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Nuclear_One
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lucie_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generatin...
> 12 hour storage adds negligible mass and can easily cover daily variation
12 hours of storage for the world is 30,000 GWh. This is 70-100 times the global battery production output. "Negligible mass" is going to have to see a hundredfold increase in som extraction industries. By comparison, nuclear already produces 20% of the US's electricity hand about a tenth of the world's electricity. A tenfold increase is much more manageable than a hundredfold increase.
> Intermittent power without storage can easily feed dispatchable loads like EV charging, chemical feedstock and heat production. These vastly exceed non-dispatchable electricity and can be used for virtual seasonal storage.
If you're going to tell chemical industries and metallurgy plants that they'll have to cease production for part of the year when renewables are producing lower than average output, then that has to be factored into your costs. If the price of steel and ammonia goes up because they can't run their plants as usual, then that cost is ultimately borne by consumers. You can't just use load shifting as part of the plan and ignore the costs of load shifting. "Virtual seasonal storage" amounts to "tell industries to shut off during winter". And no, heat production is not non-dispatchable unless you're okay with people freezing to death.
Except intermittent sources also need storage. They also need long distance transmission lines to bring power from remote areas of generation to places of demand (whereas you can just place nuclear plants next to areas of demand).
This is a common pattern in renewables discussion: laser focus on generation and ignoring the fact that wind and solar have storage and transmission requirements that other energy sources don't have.
> The "$2/GW" nuclear reactors were all built by state run agencies with opaque budgets
Nope, do more research. These were all built in the US with public cost history.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peach_Bottom_Nuclear_Generat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browns_Ferry_Nuclear_Plant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_Nuclear_Generating_Sta...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuire_Nuclear_Station
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_C._Cook_Nuclear_Plant
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Nuclear_Generat...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas_Nuclear_One
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Lucie_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Anna_Nuclear_Generatin...
> 12 hour storage adds negligible mass and can easily cover daily variation
12 hours of storage for the world is 30,000 GWh. This is 70-100 times the global battery production output. "Negligible mass" is going to have to see a hundredfold increase in som extraction industries. By comparison, nuclear already produces 20% of the US's electricity hand about a tenth of the world's electricity. A tenfold increase is much more manageable than a hundredfold increase.
> Intermittent power without storage can easily feed dispatchable loads like EV charging, chemical feedstock and heat production. These vastly exceed non-dispatchable electricity and can be used for virtual seasonal storage.
If you're going to tell chemical industries and metallurgy plants that they'll have to cease production for part of the year when renewables are producing lower than average output, then that has to be factored into your costs. If the price of steel and ammonia goes up because they can't run their plants as usual, then that cost is ultimately borne by consumers. You can't just use load shifting as part of the plan and ignore the costs of load shifting. "Virtual seasonal storage" amounts to "tell industries to shut off during winter". And no, heat production is not non-dispatchable unless you're okay with people freezing to death.
> Except intermittent sources also need storage. They also need long distance transmission lines to bring power from remote areas of generation to places of demand
You are correct. They also need storage like nuclear for non-dispatchable loads in areas without good hydro or CSP resource.
For the remainder your battery production figures are off by at least a factor of two. China delivered 280GWh in H1 2022 at the peak of a market crunch in an industry that is growing at 50% YoY. There's no compelling reason to think the 5TWh/yr of factories under construction won't be completed on time as the renewable industry has been consistently over-delivering for a decade.
Your scaling for nuclear is new capacity. Which is around 5GW/yr right now. It has to increase tenfold to match the last year of new renewable generation, or fifteenfold to match the new capacity weighted installation.
> (whereas you can just place nuclear plants next to areas of demand).
Incorrect. Seismic activity, ground, water, temperature, security and many other concerns limit siting severely.
> If the price of steel and ammonia goes up because they can't run their plants as usual, then that cost is ultimately borne by consumers. You can't just use load shifting as part of the plan and ignore the costs of load shifting. "Virtual seasonal storage" amounts to "tell industries to shut off during winter". And no, heat production is not non-dispatchable unless you're okay with people freezing to death.
Hydrogen or ammonia continue to exist after you make them. Simply overprovision your $300/kW electrolyser slightly and use chemical energy as your buffer. This has the added advantage of being an emergency or low CF backup at minimal extra cost.
You are correct. They also need storage like nuclear for non-dispatchable loads in areas without good hydro or CSP resource.
For the remainder your battery production figures are off by at least a factor of two. China delivered 280GWh in H1 2022 at the peak of a market crunch in an industry that is growing at 50% YoY. There's no compelling reason to think the 5TWh/yr of factories under construction won't be completed on time as the renewable industry has been consistently over-delivering for a decade.
Your scaling for nuclear is new capacity. Which is around 5GW/yr right now. It has to increase tenfold to match the last year of new renewable generation, or fifteenfold to match the new capacity weighted installation.
> (whereas you can just place nuclear plants next to areas of demand).
Incorrect. Seismic activity, ground, water, temperature, security and many other concerns limit siting severely.
> If the price of steel and ammonia goes up because they can't run their plants as usual, then that cost is ultimately borne by consumers. You can't just use load shifting as part of the plan and ignore the costs of load shifting. "Virtual seasonal storage" amounts to "tell industries to shut off during winter". And no, heat production is not non-dispatchable unless you're okay with people freezing to death.
Hydrogen or ammonia continue to exist after you make them. Simply overprovision your $300/kW electrolyser slightly and use chemical energy as your buffer. This has the added advantage of being an emergency or low CF backup at minimal extra cost.
> They also need storage like nuclear for non-dispatchable loads in areas without good hydro or CSP resource.
Really? Show me all the storage facilities France built when they have >80% of their electricity coming from nuclear power? It'll be challenging for you to do so, since no such storage facilities were built. Nuclear power can be modulated. Plants try not to do this since they want to run at 100% as much as they can to make money, but there is no storage requirement for nuclear power.
> Incorrect. Seismic activity, ground, water, temperature, security and many other concerns limit siting severely.
All of which has been solved already. Seismically active areas have nuclear plants both in the US and around the world. Water is a non-issue since places with large energy use tend to be cities, which are populated by humans which also need water. Nuclear plants can also use wastewater or seawater (like the Palo Verde plant), it doesn't have to be potable water.
> Hydrogen or ammonia continue to exist after you make them. Simply overprovision your $300/kW electrolyser slightly and use chemical energy as your buffer. This has the added advantage of being an emergency or low CF backup at minimal extra cost.
Then show me the price history of commercial ammonia grid storage operators. Well, first you'll have to wait for such a facility to come online because none are operational. Proponents of intermittent sources keep hoping that some silver bullet will make storage nearly-free, since it's the only way to make wind and solar viable as primary sources of energy. But thus far, no silver bullet has come and it's unclear if it ever will.
Unlike nuclear which has historical precedence of being built at scale and cheaply. If we had kept building nuclear plant at the same rate as we did in the 60s and 70s we'd have a completely decarbonized grid by now. We have no such historical precedence building grid storage.
Really? Show me all the storage facilities France built when they have >80% of their electricity coming from nuclear power? It'll be challenging for you to do so, since no such storage facilities were built. Nuclear power can be modulated. Plants try not to do this since they want to run at 100% as much as they can to make money, but there is no storage requirement for nuclear power.
> Incorrect. Seismic activity, ground, water, temperature, security and many other concerns limit siting severely.
All of which has been solved already. Seismically active areas have nuclear plants both in the US and around the world. Water is a non-issue since places with large energy use tend to be cities, which are populated by humans which also need water. Nuclear plants can also use wastewater or seawater (like the Palo Verde plant), it doesn't have to be potable water.
> Hydrogen or ammonia continue to exist after you make them. Simply overprovision your $300/kW electrolyser slightly and use chemical energy as your buffer. This has the added advantage of being an emergency or low CF backup at minimal extra cost.
Then show me the price history of commercial ammonia grid storage operators. Well, first you'll have to wait for such a facility to come online because none are operational. Proponents of intermittent sources keep hoping that some silver bullet will make storage nearly-free, since it's the only way to make wind and solar viable as primary sources of energy. But thus far, no silver bullet has come and it's unclear if it ever will.
Unlike nuclear which has historical precedence of being built at scale and cheaply. If we had kept building nuclear plant at the same rate as we did in the 60s and 70s we'd have a completely decarbonized grid by now. We have no such historical precedence building grid storage.
> Really? Show me all the storage facilities France built when they have >80% of their electricity coming from nuclear power?
It's called Europe. To make their nuclear less unaffordable they use other countries as seasonal and diurnal storage.
> Unlike nuclear which has historical precedence of being built at scale and cheaply
Where? Show a single privately run Gen III or later commercial plant funded without government enforced monopoly, free loans, or direct funding that comes in at an affordable price.
> Unlike nuclear which has historical precedence of being built at scale and cheaply. If we had kept building nuclear plant at the same rate as we did in the 60s and 70s we'd have a completely decarbonized grid by now. We have no such historical precedence building grid storage.
No, there'd be no viable Uranium in the ground after about 1980.
It's called Europe. To make their nuclear less unaffordable they use other countries as seasonal and diurnal storage.
> Unlike nuclear which has historical precedence of being built at scale and cheaply
Where? Show a single privately run Gen III or later commercial plant funded without government enforced monopoly, free loans, or direct funding that comes in at an affordable price.
> Unlike nuclear which has historical precedence of being built at scale and cheaply. If we had kept building nuclear plant at the same rate as we did in the 60s and 70s we'd have a completely decarbonized grid by now. We have no such historical precedence building grid storage.
No, there'd be no viable Uranium in the ground after about 1980.
> Nope, do more research. These were all built in the US with public cost history.
On top of not including the cost of finance, liabity, or upstream supply chain which was provided by state military projects. The first one you linked had repeated safety violations and maintenance issues and has no record if how much they cost to remedy. The quoted price leads here:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6259203
And is in nominal dollars not 1986 dollars. $763 million 1966 dollars is $7 billion, not $3 billion. Add in the cost of finance and you get $10-14 billion or around $7/watt for an unsafe, inefficient plant with corrupt management. And this was not a greenfield site, it already had work for unit 1.
Do more research.
Every pro nuclear claim turns out to be a lie when examined even with the slightest scrutiny. All of them.
On top of not including the cost of finance, liabity, or upstream supply chain which was provided by state military projects. The first one you linked had repeated safety violations and maintenance issues and has no record if how much they cost to remedy. The quoted price leads here:
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6259203
And is in nominal dollars not 1986 dollars. $763 million 1966 dollars is $7 billion, not $3 billion. Add in the cost of finance and you get $10-14 billion or around $7/watt for an unsafe, inefficient plant with corrupt management. And this was not a greenfield site, it already had work for unit 1.
Do more research.
Every pro nuclear claim turns out to be a lie when examined even with the slightest scrutiny. All of them.
Your article studies plants built after the nuclear boom, which of course leads to higher prices. See the cluster of plants built cheaply starting in the mid 60s [1]? That's the nuclear boom. Your article studies plants still in construction at the end of 1986, which is when the nuclear boom tapered off following thee mile island. Deliberately or not you're pulling a slight of hand here by shifting the time frame. But in the end, this helps reinforce my point: nuclear is expensive when built in small numbers as your study demonstrates, and cheaper when built at scale as the study I'll link below explains.
Finance liability is a fancy word for debt: this has nothing to do with construction costs, and everything to do with financing models. You're right, nuclear would be even cheaper if better financing was done. Upstream supply chain is accounted for by the downstream purchase costs. This is like saying wind turbine costs don't include the costs of mining copper for the dynamos. That cost is in included when the wind turbine manufacturer pays for copper coils.
Research on nuclear's cost history overwhelmingly finds that costs are lower when built at scale: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
1. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03014215163001...
> Every pro nuclear claim turns out to be a lie when examined even with the slightest scrutiny. All of them.
Well, you sound like you're engaging with this topic in well-adjusted and unbiased manner!
Finance liability is a fancy word for debt: this has nothing to do with construction costs, and everything to do with financing models. You're right, nuclear would be even cheaper if better financing was done. Upstream supply chain is accounted for by the downstream purchase costs. This is like saying wind turbine costs don't include the costs of mining copper for the dynamos. That cost is in included when the wind turbine manufacturer pays for copper coils.
Research on nuclear's cost history overwhelmingly finds that costs are lower when built at scale: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151...
1. https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S03014215163001...
> Every pro nuclear claim turns out to be a lie when examined even with the slightest scrutiny. All of them.
Well, you sound like you're engaging with this topic in well-adjusted and unbiased manner!
The costs you quoted were from a source linked on wiki talking about the first reactor on your list.
My source is a primary source from the DOE for that source.
It included every reactor built before 1986 including Palisades which your article lists as $650/kWe, but it has down as $118 million or $1300/kWe in 2022 $ excluding retrofit for subsequent safety standards. With capacity factor that's $1700/kW net for an inefficient and unsafe design before major safety standards were written.
If your downstream product is a byproduct of a military project that was built for a different purpose then you cannot claim it includes costs. If the US military needed a supply of worn out giant bearings, provided wind turbine designs that cost trillions for free, and was selling turbine blades and nacelles at low prices it would also be a subsidy.
Whatever your opinion on finance, it is included in renewable projects which are fully privately funded.
If your hypothesis about construction booms was true, then the price minimum would be either reactors started in 1982 when construction was at its peak, or if you want to claim TMI as a boogeyman, then reactors finished just before it.
More likely it is:
a) an artefact of whatever part of your chain of references didn't catch the bit in the DOE report that says it is in nominal dollars which depresses prices of early reactors by a factor of two, and
b) The fact that nuclear has a strong causal mechanism for negative learning rate. Each new reactor teaches you new things that can go wrong which you then have to retrofit to old reactors. This only appears in the sticker price if they are still under construction.
Taking arkansas one unit 2. It was $577m for 858MW at 80% CF.
Inflation was quite substantial, so we can't answer without knowing what rate it was disbursed and at what interest during construction, but it is between $4500 and $6500 per kW net. Right inline with new reactors once cost of finance is included.
US nuclear costs and always has cost around $10-12/W using modern accounting terminology with a few outliers and a few early plants before the negative learning kicked in. You just taught me this by having me cursorially examine your lie. Thankyou.
Edit: actually it might have gone down a bit with after TMI. As there might be different accounting on later reports.
My source is a primary source from the DOE for that source.
It included every reactor built before 1986 including Palisades which your article lists as $650/kWe, but it has down as $118 million or $1300/kWe in 2022 $ excluding retrofit for subsequent safety standards. With capacity factor that's $1700/kW net for an inefficient and unsafe design before major safety standards were written.
If your downstream product is a byproduct of a military project that was built for a different purpose then you cannot claim it includes costs. If the US military needed a supply of worn out giant bearings, provided wind turbine designs that cost trillions for free, and was selling turbine blades and nacelles at low prices it would also be a subsidy.
Whatever your opinion on finance, it is included in renewable projects which are fully privately funded.
If your hypothesis about construction booms was true, then the price minimum would be either reactors started in 1982 when construction was at its peak, or if you want to claim TMI as a boogeyman, then reactors finished just before it.
More likely it is:
a) an artefact of whatever part of your chain of references didn't catch the bit in the DOE report that says it is in nominal dollars which depresses prices of early reactors by a factor of two, and
b) The fact that nuclear has a strong causal mechanism for negative learning rate. Each new reactor teaches you new things that can go wrong which you then have to retrofit to old reactors. This only appears in the sticker price if they are still under construction.
Taking arkansas one unit 2. It was $577m for 858MW at 80% CF.
Inflation was quite substantial, so we can't answer without knowing what rate it was disbursed and at what interest during construction, but it is between $4500 and $6500 per kW net. Right inline with new reactors once cost of finance is included.
US nuclear costs and always has cost around $10-12/W using modern accounting terminology with a few outliers and a few early plants before the negative learning kicked in. You just taught me this by having me cursorially examine your lie. Thankyou.
Edit: actually it might have gone down a bit with after TMI. As there might be different accounting on later reports.
Heating is trivially dispatchable over 24 hours. Put some sand, brick or water between what you want to heat and the heat source. This method has been used for thkusands of years.
Scale it up a bit and you can do it seasonally.
Scale it up a bit and you can do it seasonally.
Not if you calculate in the cost of wanting to have a nuclear weapons and submarine fleet…
They don't compete. Nuclear provides base load.
They both provide non-dispatchable power. Renewables have a slight edge at moderate penetration with no storage because you can turn them off whenever you want without incurring massive costs and solar output is biased towards peak time.
Then there's hybrid PV-CSP which is available in about half of the world and is dispatchable. I guess you're probably right in that nuclear doesn't compete because hybrid CSP is vastly cheaper even in FOAK form and dispatchable power is superior.
Then there's hybrid PV-CSP which is available in about half of the world and is dispatchable. I guess you're probably right in that nuclear doesn't compete because hybrid CSP is vastly cheaper even in FOAK form and dispatchable power is superior.
Nuclear is dispatchable.
No it isn't. Ramping is slow and can't be done beyond 20% very often or you destroy your fuel and control rods
Reducing output doesn't reduce costs, it increases them. This is the opposite of dispatchable.
If you can only pay for your reactor by coercing people into buying daytime electricity for 20c/kWh rather than buying a solar panel that will pay for itself in 3 years then it's not dispatchable.
Reducing output doesn't reduce costs, it increases them. This is the opposite of dispatchable.
If you can only pay for your reactor by coercing people into buying daytime electricity for 20c/kWh rather than buying a solar panel that will pay for itself in 3 years then it's not dispatchable.
You don't need to alter the thermal output of the reactor to modulate a nuclear plant's electrical output. You can more aggressively cool the reactor to reduce the energy delivered to the turbine. This isn't often done since it's essentially deliberately reducing the efficiency of the plant.
> Ramping is slow and can't be done beyond 20% very often or you destroy your fuel and control rods
20% is all that's necessary to accommodate most load variations: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
> Ramping is slow and can't be done beyond 20% very often or you destroy your fuel and control rods
20% is all that's necessary to accommodate most load variations: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=42915
That is also slow.
Dispatchable generation ramps in tens of seconds and you don't pay $90-200/MWh for it when you're not using it.
Dispatchable generation ramps in tens of seconds and you don't pay $90-200/MWh for it when you're not using it.
It's not slow: the turbine water is can be cooled more aggressively immediately, and will start reducing output with one circuit of the generation turbine. Also, modulation only needs to vary 20-30% over the span of entire days not of tens of seconds. And no, dispatchable generation does not ramp in 10s of seconds. Natural gas plants - the most popular peaking generation plant - still takes an hour to activate. But this isn't an issue because electricity use doesn't fluctuate by 20% in the matter of tens of seconds.
Tell that to the power station engineers who have to watch for the ad breaks in British TV.
And it's still not dispatchable if not using it costs you anyway.
And it's still not dispatchable if not using it costs you anyway.
Not when you take intermittency into account.
> several nuclear reactors were taken down for a scheduled maintenance
To add to everything you said, the Covid crisis also impacted maintenance, delaying repairs by about a year (source: I've got surprisingly many friends/colleagues coming from the CEA, the French Atomic Commission)
Also, EDF lost a lot of knowledge and manpower during past decades, (most? at least many of) people working on nuclear plants are now sub-contractors, that impacted stability.
To add to everything you said, the Covid crisis also impacted maintenance, delaying repairs by about a year (source: I've got surprisingly many friends/colleagues coming from the CEA, the French Atomic Commission)
Also, EDF lost a lot of knowledge and manpower during past decades, (most? at least many of) people working on nuclear plants are now sub-contractors, that impacted stability.
> To add to everything you said, the Covid crisis also impacted maintenance, delaying repairs by about a year
You’re absolutely right ! I forgot to mention that
You’re absolutely right ! I forgot to mention that
The situation with Arenh is even worse this year. The government reviewed it in September 2021 (voted in August this year), increasing the quantity of energy that could be bought through Arenh each year. But this increase happened after most long term contracts were already bought so the extra deliveries they had to do in 2022 are not only a cut on their profit, they are also a massive loss as they have to buy this energy on short term markets which are multiple fold higher than the Arenh price point.
Thanks. That might be true, but it's not what I meant. Generally, the view is that most of the cost of a nuclear plant is paid upfront, the fuel does not cost much. If that view is correct, you basically need to run them all the time to make it even remotely economical. These unplanned downtimes are a killer.
EDF is losing money because of stupid decision like ARHEN that forces EDF to sell electricity at a low price, and also forces them to buy at a high price...
So called electricity "providers" can sell electricity to customers without generating electricity in the first place, and also without transporting it. And at the same time, they get money from EDF through ARHEN!
So called electricity "providers" can sell electricity to customers without generating electricity in the first place, and also without transporting it. And at the same time, they get money from EDF through ARHEN!
We have the same in Germany with hundreds of "electricity providers" that themselves own no infrastructure whatsoever, just resellers. As far as I can tell the scheme is to aggressively recruit customers with signup bonuses and more, profit from the wholesale market as long as the prices are in your favor, and should the market turn against you simply declare bankruptcy and start over with a new company.
No we don't, those companies you're talking about are buying electricity on the market, they have no price guarantees by anyone, unlike in France.
Europe basically needs to federalize and become a fiscal union like the US or India to stay powerful and get rid of these inefficiencies but are too divided by bad blood from about half a century ago and by vested interests of it's leadership class to do so. While many make the argument of diversity in cultures making union difficult, India has more diversity in culture and languages but has the advantage of almost half a century or so of concerted effort to unify the country pre and post independence - in contrast to the wars in Europe. So India is often able to plan and implement at a national level on some of these economic issues. The amount of development in the last quarter of a century has been nothing short of remarkable. Of course everyone else outside of Europe encourages divisions as a united nuclear armed Europe with over half a billion people in an advanced economy would become a powerful force and nobody has forgotten what colonization by Europe in Asia and Africa entailed. It remains to be seen if Europe residents will realise where there best interests lie.
I suspect language will be a key barrier in changing Europe from a Union to a single country.
Language us a powerful factor in population dynamics (see Canada with English and French) and in Europe you'd be dealing with major language roots.
English obviously, but also French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Polish and so on. I don't see much cohesion with so many languages, and no current country to give up language primacy.
Using language to create an us-versus-them situation is easy, and I don't see this happy union-of-equals easily subscribing to a federated state concept.
Language us a powerful factor in population dynamics (see Canada with English and French) and in Europe you'd be dealing with major language roots.
English obviously, but also French, German, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Polish and so on. I don't see much cohesion with so many languages, and no current country to give up language primacy.
Using language to create an us-versus-them situation is easy, and I don't see this happy union-of-equals easily subscribing to a federated state concept.
It's not just language. There's also cultural differences, religious differebces, inter-cultural conflict, historical controversies and so on.
There is a small spark of European identify slowly forming amongst younger generations, but it will take decades before anything like a federal union would even be feasable.
There is a small spark of European identify slowly forming amongst younger generations, but it will take decades before anything like a federal union would even be feasable.
Indeed, if you think Alabama and California are different, wait until you compare Italia and Norway.
Not to mention the economic power difference is huge.
Not to mention the economic power difference is huge.
Refer to Indian states. The languages across most states are actually mutually un-intelligible and cultures probably much more dramatically different than anything in Europe. In most of Europe, the majority culture have common elements of either Catholic or Protestant or Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
True, but I don't look at India as a success.
I really don't want Europe to look like India in any way, administratively, politically and logistically speaking. Not to mention the countless tensions you can feel accross the country when you travel there. It seems like a ticking social bomb when I go there, and we don't have the class system to shut up lower classes and women that keeps the uniquality stable.
I really don't want Europe to look like India in any way, administratively, politically and logistically speaking. Not to mention the countless tensions you can feel accross the country when you travel there. It seems like a ticking social bomb when I go there, and we don't have the class system to shut up lower classes and women that keeps the uniquality stable.
The partition of colonial India was anything but a peaceful road to co-existence. The consequences included over a million dead, and tens of millions of people displaced. Last time I checked, India and Pakistan shelling each others' positions is still so commonplace that it's become a meme.
state nation model is over. Time for decentralized low-tax systems.
Those mammoth states are only interesting for people with power ambitions, as this last war demonstrates.
Those mammoth states are only interesting for people with power ambitions, as this last war demonstrates.
It fact the reverse is true if you critically examine how power works. At a most fundamental level, the ability to maintain a state is a matter of (1) maintaining a monopoly on violence inside your jurisdiction so you can collect tax revenue in return for orderly administration (2) maintaining sufficient degree of both benefit and deterrence towards outsiders so they don't invade you.
In the modern high technology world, both (1) and (2) require increasingly higher investments to sustain advantage which favours bigger states. Small states have to work very hard on carrots on (2) in particular to avoid being trampled. Tax friendly small jurisdictions largely survive at the whim & fancy of the elites of the bigger countries whose private interests they serve. Tourism focused small countries face the same pressures of serving the elites of bigger countries and in fact were trampled during covid lockdowns. Small countries that can't make (2) work stay poor.
The Ukraine conflict effectively demonstrates the point. Previously, Ukraine failed at (1) in the provinces which had high ethnic Russian populations and (2) by giving up nuclear weapons and giving up Crimea without a war which enabled the invasion.
Even though it turns out Russia seems to have badly miscalculated it's ability to win, the war has dragged so long in spite of causing major global economic disruptions because no one else feels able to intervene due to the high technology Nuclear ICBM threat.
In the modern high technology world, both (1) and (2) require increasingly higher investments to sustain advantage which favours bigger states. Small states have to work very hard on carrots on (2) in particular to avoid being trampled. Tax friendly small jurisdictions largely survive at the whim & fancy of the elites of the bigger countries whose private interests they serve. Tourism focused small countries face the same pressures of serving the elites of bigger countries and in fact were trampled during covid lockdowns. Small countries that can't make (2) work stay poor.
The Ukraine conflict effectively demonstrates the point. Previously, Ukraine failed at (1) in the provinces which had high ethnic Russian populations and (2) by giving up nuclear weapons and giving up Crimea without a war which enabled the invasion.
Even though it turns out Russia seems to have badly miscalculated it's ability to win, the war has dragged so long in spite of causing major global economic disruptions because no one else feels able to intervene due to the high technology Nuclear ICBM threat.
If people turn their back and understand this is not good, in the long run they will lose.
If people understand that power calls power, that too centralized power is evil and that the world is not as dangerous as they pretend (in the sense that safety is more due to conventions and culture than on surveillance everywhere) then they will start to refuse it because they will understand the threat is the state itself when it grows so much. This is my current perception but was not so like 20 years ago or 25.
I know many ppl that do not believe anymore in tax systems as an effective vehicle to solve most problems but see it more of a problem where some ppl are doing their business from.
If people understand that power calls power, that too centralized power is evil and that the world is not as dangerous as they pretend (in the sense that safety is more due to conventions and culture than on surveillance everywhere) then they will start to refuse it because they will understand the threat is the state itself when it grows so much. This is my current perception but was not so like 20 years ago or 25.
I know many ppl that do not believe anymore in tax systems as an effective vehicle to solve most problems but see it more of a problem where some ppl are doing their business from.
Absolutely. As states are collapsing under their own weight (particularly for large western countries like the US and France), the transition to a new model will be unavoidable.
The next decades will be fascinating to observe in that regard.
The next decades will be fascinating to observe in that regard.
States are trying to put all kind of walls especially when CDBC come out to control population.
Do not underestimate them. But many ppl noticed already that nowadays this is not the best way to organize and that they are just there to suck resources.
But they will try with all kind of tricks to keep control, unfortunately.
Do not underestimate them. But many ppl noticed already that nowadays this is not the best way to organize and that they are just there to suck resources.
But they will try with all kind of tricks to keep control, unfortunately.
Oddly it went the other way.
France nuclear was only exporting during low demand periods primarily nights and weekends, France needed to import during peak demand. Other countries benefited from lower demand for fuel, but needed to have excess capacity to support Frances peak demand.
France nuclear was only exporting during low demand periods primarily nights and weekends, France needed to import during peak demand. Other countries benefited from lower demand for fuel, but needed to have excess capacity to support Frances peak demand.
> I think the next years are going to be renewables heavy in all of Europe
Maybe, but hopefully not or then global outage must be expected when sun/wind goes down... Random energy production is no subsidy
The problem is France, *not* nuclear, hopefully people understands this: (among) strictest quarantine in the world, no work for many months, social unrest and protests, bad planing ... there would be a lot to say to each of these points, but they all are responsible to the current situation we are seeing with NPP still in maintenance.
Maybe, but hopefully not or then global outage must be expected when sun/wind goes down... Random energy production is no subsidy
The problem is France, *not* nuclear, hopefully people understands this: (among) strictest quarantine in the world, no work for many months, social unrest and protests, bad planing ... there would be a lot to say to each of these points, but they all are responsible to the current situation we are seeing with NPP still in maintenance.
I already heard this argument last year, that unpredictable wind and solar energy can work only because they are backed by French nuclear. This year has put a big question mark on that, and I think policy makers are willing to try because there is no realistic alternative in the short term. Even Britain is moving to remove the de facto ban on onshore wind, a push led by Tories of all people [1].
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/5b08507d-ae4b-47d1-afb7-ae851f98d...
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/5b08507d-ae4b-47d1-afb7-ae851f98d...
I want to believe that, but France has already recommissioned a coal fired plant. Falling back on coal will delay and exacerbate the pain of the energy transformation. I am an American at a young hip company in the EU and people here only pay lip service to the energy transition. People will keep declaring climate change someone else's problem until they are starving or freezing. If you are in the USA do NOT pin your hopes on the EU leading the way.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/installed_power/chart.htm?...
Please don't look at short term effects when trying to judge the energy transition. France might restart a coal plant because of issues with its nuclear plants. Germany restarts some coal plants to deal with the gas shortage and to export electricity to France. But this is short term. It is simply not possible to build new plants within one year to deal with the political changes.
The long term trends are stable. With the transition to electric vehicles (https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/02/europe-electric-car-sal... ) fuel consumption should also soon start to fall in significant ways. Norway is already there with a decrease of 6.6% YoY (https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/olje-og-gass/statis... ), the rest of Europe is probably trailing by about 5 years.
Of course everything should be faster and yes, the USA have to find their own way. It's not like even Spain and Sweden can have a similar approach to migrating to renewable energy.
Please don't look at short term effects when trying to judge the energy transition. France might restart a coal plant because of issues with its nuclear plants. Germany restarts some coal plants to deal with the gas shortage and to export electricity to France. But this is short term. It is simply not possible to build new plants within one year to deal with the political changes.
The long term trends are stable. With the transition to electric vehicles (https://cleantechnica.com/2022/12/02/europe-electric-car-sal... ) fuel consumption should also soon start to fall in significant ways. Norway is already there with a decrease of 6.6% YoY (https://www.ssb.no/en/energi-og-industri/olje-og-gass/statis... ), the rest of Europe is probably trailing by about 5 years.
Of course everything should be faster and yes, the USA have to find their own way. It's not like even Spain and Sweden can have a similar approach to migrating to renewable energy.
hydropower / geothermal is great but most countries don't have that. Instead, using wind turbines / solar panels have random energy production... Maybe fine in the Caribbean, but you can't power a country like France or Germany with that in winter when it's cloudy, un-windy and cold for many weeks, that's utopian at best. Hence coal fired power plant, instead of NPP.
From absolute gold standard electric production/infrastructure in the 70s to barely able to light school rooms in 2022
I miss politicians who had a vision that didn't stop at the end of their term.
We even had to restart a coal power plant last week...
I miss politicians who had a vision that didn't stop at the end of their term.
We even had to restart a coal power plant last week...
I'll offer a different take. This is simply the human condition. It's extremely difficult to prioritize something that is working. Any effort put into something that isn't perceived broken is effort that is taken away from something else that is perceived as broken.
These cycles happen in just about everything. A perfect example is business security. Nearly every time there's a breach, it's the same pattern: "We take security seriously"....except we kind of put it on the back burner for the past years.
These cycles happen in just about everything. A perfect example is business security. Nearly every time there's a breach, it's the same pattern: "We take security seriously"....except we kind of put it on the back burner for the past years.
For anyone who played sim city know this. Sometimes youw won't extend power gens until some parts of the city glowing with electricity icon. And to optimize budget we like to have power gens to be just slightly overproduced than consumption.
Maybe simcity is not the best model of how reality works in society management.
Our (france) hospital system is collapsing and barely working everywhere in the country and it's still not prioritized.
Well, it’s a political issue though.
It’s not the same system that worked yesterday that is suddenly collapsing on itself.
It’s a series of hostile political decisions against it made to actively induce a collapsing.
We could very easily fix it by applying old recipes that worked well yesterday but nobody (with the power to) wants to fix it.
It’s not the same system that worked yesterday that is suddenly collapsing on itself.
It’s a series of hostile political decisions against it made to actively induce a collapsing.
We could very easily fix it by applying old recipes that worked well yesterday but nobody (with the power to) wants to fix it.
>We could very easily fix it by applying old recipes that worked well yesterday but nobody (with the power to) wants to fix it.
There are urgency services that are literally closing due to lack of personal, right now. Even in major cities. An the government is now considering to open a reflection on reintegrating thousands of people that were laid off (not fired but no longer paid) as they didn’t consent to be vaccinated.
So yes, there are some levers government can turn to instantly make situation a bit less terrible. But this will not be enough to make situation sound. No one want to go to work for miserable wages in awful conditions that are promised to be degraded constantly for what decades of data allows to forecast. And you don’t form new doctors, nurses and so on over the course of a night, not even speaking about what makes a group of trained individuals becoming an efficient team.
There are urgency services that are literally closing due to lack of personal, right now. Even in major cities. An the government is now considering to open a reflection on reintegrating thousands of people that were laid off (not fired but no longer paid) as they didn’t consent to be vaccinated.
So yes, there are some levers government can turn to instantly make situation a bit less terrible. But this will not be enough to make situation sound. No one want to go to work for miserable wages in awful conditions that are promised to be degraded constantly for what decades of data allows to forecast. And you don’t form new doctors, nurses and so on over the course of a night, not even speaking about what makes a group of trained individuals becoming an efficient team.
> An the government is now considering to open a reflection on reintegrating thousands of people that were laid off (not fired but no longer paid) as they didn’t consent to be vaccinated.
And health workers don't want them back in.
And health workers don't want them back in.
> From absolute gold standard electric production/infrastructure in the 70s to barely able to light school rooms in 2022
And they voted, like the rest of the EU, the ban of ICE and hybrid vehicles sales by 2035.
2023, risks of blackouts.
2035: every single car sold is going to be 100% EV.
And the switch to EVs is already happening, which is already putting a shitload of stress on the network. If 0% of the vehicles in France were EVs, there would be absolutely zero blackout this winter.
I'm not saying we should not switch to EVs. What I'm saying is we're simply not ready at all.
And they voted, like the rest of the EU, the ban of ICE and hybrid vehicles sales by 2035.
2023, risks of blackouts.
2035: every single car sold is going to be 100% EV.
And the switch to EVs is already happening, which is already putting a shitload of stress on the network. If 0% of the vehicles in France were EVs, there would be absolutely zero blackout this winter.
I'm not saying we should not switch to EVs. What I'm saying is we're simply not ready at all.
> If 0% of the vehicles in France were EVs, there would be absolutely zero blackout this winter.
Data source for this? I don't remotely believe you.
The average car (EV or ICE) drives for ~40km/day, meaning EVs don't need to charge every single day. Also, most EVs charge at night. They are not the problem.
Also, France has approx. 200,000 EVs, out of ~38M of vehicles [0]. A rounding error.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/455887/passenger-cars-re...
Data source for this? I don't remotely believe you.
The average car (EV or ICE) drives for ~40km/day, meaning EVs don't need to charge every single day. Also, most EVs charge at night. They are not the problem.
Also, France has approx. 200,000 EVs, out of ~38M of vehicles [0]. A rounding error.
[0]: https://www.statista.com/statistics/455887/passenger-cars-re...
Funnily enough, Switzerland is mulling a temporary EV ban because of its toll on the electric grid.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/swiss-government-may-ban-...
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/swiss-government-may-ban-...
The article doesn't say it's a ban: just a limitation for essential travel, after non-essential heating is turned off in nightclubs, etc:
The first one would be the emergency phase and would have three degrees of restrictions that will entail reducing shop operating hours, turning off heating systems in nightclubs, and reducing temperature in buildings to no more than 20 degrees celsius. The restrictions on electric vehicle usage for non-essential travel is in the third escalation level of the emergency phase.
The first one would be the emergency phase and would have three degrees of restrictions that will entail reducing shop operating hours, turning off heating systems in nightclubs, and reducing temperature in buildings to no more than 20 degrees celsius. The restrictions on electric vehicle usage for non-essential travel is in the third escalation level of the emergency phase.
> What I'm saying is we're simply not ready at all
Then they will simply push the deadline out.
But far better to have an aggressive timeline for the market to coalesce around.
Then they will simply push the deadline out.
But far better to have an aggressive timeline for the market to coalesce around.
No, this is terrible for the EV industry.
It causes uncertainty and removes willingness in private business and citizens to lead the change. More and more will start considering it may be better to wait and move only when the risk is low.
Switzerland is considering banning EVs. Even if they don't, your car is banned if you can't charge it...
This is different from an oil supply issue. It's your government telling you to buy an EV than the same government (not a foreign one) denying you electricity out of stupidity.
Edit: Switzerland isn't banning EVs, more appropriate to say it's considering restricting EVs
It causes uncertainty and removes willingness in private business and citizens to lead the change. More and more will start considering it may be better to wait and move only when the risk is low.
Switzerland is considering banning EVs. Even if they don't, your car is banned if you can't charge it...
This is different from an oil supply issue. It's your government telling you to buy an EV than the same government (not a foreign one) denying you electricity out of stupidity.
Edit: Switzerland isn't banning EVs, more appropriate to say it's considering restricting EVs
I didn’t know if you followed the news but France had a massive oil crisis in the last months, people were scrambling to fill the car. Every energy source has risks and electricity is more modular than oil because it can be produced for many different sources. Also we live in a time of crisis, we have to not be so weak and accept temporary restrictions for the greater good.
I follow the news in France, but the reason people were scrambling to fill their cars had nothing to do with an energy crisis.
The first wave of "people scrambling to fill their cars" was caused by union strikes at French refineries in October, leading to supply shortages at the pumps.
The second wave was caused by people scrambling to fill up their cars at a lower price per litre, before the government "subsidy" on fuel was reduced in mid-November. Whatever one might think of people who will sit in a traffic queue for several hours to save €10 at the pump, it has nothing to do with an energy crisis.
The first wave of "people scrambling to fill their cars" was caused by union strikes at French refineries in October, leading to supply shortages at the pumps.
The second wave was caused by people scrambling to fill up their cars at a lower price per litre, before the government "subsidy" on fuel was reduced in mid-November. Whatever one might think of people who will sit in a traffic queue for several hours to save €10 at the pump, it has nothing to do with an energy crisis.
Why does the reason matter? The fact is that people want to present combustion engines as more robust while they‘re clearly not. France can’t produce oil on its own territory much.
It matters for consumer behavior, I think.
In my opinion, the current energy crisis in France is more damning for the vehicle electrification plans than what you mentioned for gas cars.
One thing is the government telling you to buy EVs and then totally failing to deliver the "E" of the equation.
Another thing is an event caused by third-parties.
In my opinion, the current energy crisis in France is more damning for the vehicle electrification plans than what you mentioned for gas cars.
One thing is the government telling you to buy EVs and then totally failing to deliver the "E" of the equation.
Another thing is an event caused by third-parties.
Maybe people will decide to have two cars, then: gas and electric.
Point is: it doesn't look good for the EV industry. Saying the oil industry is ugly doesn't help.
Point is: it doesn't look good for the EV industry. Saying the oil industry is ugly doesn't help.
No?
We should build more reactors.
We should build more reactors.
Ironically, given battery availability as the limiting factor in EV adoption, you are far better off for CO2 emission using the one big battery in an EV to power dozens (or more!) hybrids!
> And they voted, like the rest of the EU, the ban of ICE and hybrid vehicles sales by 2035.
Yes, because we need to make things better. And doing so will be difficult, it will be uncomfortable, it will be expensive and it will be very hard work.
And it will be worthwhile, so we should keep striving to get there.
Yes, because we need to make things better. And doing so will be difficult, it will be uncomfortable, it will be expensive and it will be very hard work.
And it will be worthwhile, so we should keep striving to get there.
>2035: every single car sold is going to be 100% EV.
Yeah, that's not happening. It wouldn't even happen without the whole energy hoopla going on today, even less so as it is now.
>What I'm saying is we're simply not ready at all.
This is one of those feel-good goals that get moved decade by decade. It's not meant to be taken seriously...
It will just help push some subsidies and sell some more EVs, but nothing will be 100% EV or even 50% EV in 2035.
Yeah, that's not happening. It wouldn't even happen without the whole energy hoopla going on today, even less so as it is now.
>What I'm saying is we're simply not ready at all.
This is one of those feel-good goals that get moved decade by decade. It's not meant to be taken seriously...
It will just help push some subsidies and sell some more EVs, but nothing will be 100% EV or even 50% EV in 2035.
Why make such bold proclamations? Norway is at 84% of new car sales already. A lot can change in 10 years.
Norway has _really_ cheap electricity due to producing 90% of it via hydro, backed by being a gas and oil exporter with a total population smaller than Paris.
This is not the case for most of the EU.
I do agree that things can change in ten years.
This is not the case for most of the EU.
I do agree that things can change in ten years.
Really cheap electricity can be achieved with nuclear everywhere in the world.
Making the same errors we made in France are not a mandatory thing. What is happening right now is not because nuclear was the wrong choice, but because we stopped investing in it during decades and so we are now stuck with this corrosion issue everywhere because all our power plants aged in parallel and so, issues relative to aging happens in parallel.
It’s a sad state because this corrosion issue is said to be easily solvable … as long as you don’t have dozens of reactors to fix in parallel before the winter.
Making the same errors we made in France are not a mandatory thing. What is happening right now is not because nuclear was the wrong choice, but because we stopped investing in it during decades and so we are now stuck with this corrosion issue everywhere because all our power plants aged in parallel and so, issues relative to aging happens in parallel.
It’s a sad state because this corrosion issue is said to be easily solvable … as long as you don’t have dozens of reactors to fix in parallel before the winter.
> Really cheap electricity can be achieved with nuclear everywhere in the world.
sure, in abstract, but we're talking of the EU in 12 years.
I think the discussion is not meaningful anyway: the stop to ICE vehicles sales in 2035 does not mean the whole continent will stop having them.
My mom's neighbor drives a 20 year old FIAT Panda.
sure, in abstract, but we're talking of the EU in 12 years.
I think the discussion is not meaningful anyway: the stop to ICE vehicles sales in 2035 does not mean the whole continent will stop having them.
My mom's neighbor drives a 20 year old FIAT Panda.
They supported it with natural resources, subsidies/tax cuts for EVs, and a good enough economy. All of which are either non existend, or declining in most of Europe.
And having a country with big sales is nowhere close to the same thing as supporting a 350 market with anywhere near replacement rates of its cars - which beside lacking infrastructure, it also needs capacities, battery resources etc, that are not there at this level.
And having a country with big sales is nowhere close to the same thing as supporting a 350 market with anywhere near replacement rates of its cars - which beside lacking infrastructure, it also needs capacities, battery resources etc, that are not there at this level.
Due to subsidies from selling oil. In a climate where lithium batteries will die way faster than a combustion engine would. It looks great on paper, as long as you don't look at the big picture.
The trends affecting the next 10 years are reversing, not boosting this though...
> I miss politicians who had a vision that didn't stop at the end of their term.
Australia is exactly the same.
In 10 years there were 7 different Prime Minsters.
The leaders spend all their time bickering about who is in charge instead of actually doing anything.
In Australia they're calling it an "Energy Crisis", which is a complete lie.
Australia has a leadership crisis that has resulted in a crisis of basically everything else.
Australia is exactly the same.
In 10 years there were 7 different Prime Minsters.
The leaders spend all their time bickering about who is in charge instead of actually doing anything.
In Australia they're calling it an "Energy Crisis", which is a complete lie.
Australia has a leadership crisis that has resulted in a crisis of basically everything else.
This. Along with the privatisation of the industry and the miss aligned incentives. Gold plated delivery of electricity, but no guarantees of getting it.
I find it insane that a country with as much natural resources, plus unlimited sunshine and space for wind farms has such high energy prices.
It’s also why I’m not sold on electric cars. I’d hate to suddenly be unable to charge it. If someone is really serious about CO2 emissions we need to transform the economy to be reliant on electricity not oil, and the only way to do that is drive the price down close to zero.
Especially worrying for me is the push to get everything on electricity. Only to then do rolling blackouts, or turn things off selectively so energy providers can fleece end users with price hikes.
Alas everyone is only interested in the next 4 years so there is little vision.
I find it insane that a country with as much natural resources, plus unlimited sunshine and space for wind farms has such high energy prices.
It’s also why I’m not sold on electric cars. I’d hate to suddenly be unable to charge it. If someone is really serious about CO2 emissions we need to transform the economy to be reliant on electricity not oil, and the only way to do that is drive the price down close to zero.
Especially worrying for me is the push to get everything on electricity. Only to then do rolling blackouts, or turn things off selectively so energy providers can fleece end users with price hikes.
Alas everyone is only interested in the next 4 years so there is little vision.
The higher the cost of electricity the more lucrative new renewable energy sources are. Markets will do their thing.
The short term concerns you bring up are valid but at the same time to expect to shift from an oil based world to an electricity based world seamlessly is asking a lot.
The short term concerns you bring up are valid but at the same time to expect to shift from an oil based world to an electricity based world seamlessly is asking a lot.
> Markets will do their thing
And yet in a country with as much sun and coastline as Australia, electricity prices are set to double in the coming months.
Why? Profits.
And yet in a country with as much sun and coastline as Australia, electricity prices are set to double in the coming months.
Why? Profits.
That's not going to work until the market mechanisms are adjusted to pay for reliability. Renewable energy is not reliable, unless it's accompanied by storage. And storage is tremendously expensive.
> It’s also why I’m not sold on electric cars. I’d hate to suddenly be unable to charge it.
Have you ever wondered why they're called pumps when you go to the gas station?
They're electric pumps. All the diesel or petroleum you're imagining you can use instead because you were "not sold on electric cars" isn't going anywhere if the electricity is off.
Have you ever wondered why they're called pumps when you go to the gas station?
They're electric pumps. All the diesel or petroleum you're imagining you can use instead because you were "not sold on electric cars" isn't going anywhere if the electricity is off.
I understand your point but you have totally missed mine. One of the main reason to have an electric car is the ability to charge from home using your solar. With the way islanding laws work in Australia should rolling blackouts happen you cannot do this.
Admittedly they could change the laws around this. I would love to be able to use a car as my battery as well when I need power overnight.
Admittedly they could change the laws around this. I would love to be able to use a car as my battery as well when I need power overnight.
There are ways to isolate your solar supply from the grid so you can do this yourself. I was talking to someone the other day who did it.
there's enough gas in those tanks to run a small genny during outages and easily pump more out. You'd need a cup and a rope (but likely there are hand pumps) to get er started.
Totally different time and energy requirement dynamics between the two. The comparison you make is well off the mark.
The entire planet has a leadership crisis.
It doesn't even have a unified government, and until that changes all kinds of expensive self-harming nonsense is inevitable.
Countries are a tribal indulgence - which is becoming increasingly unaffordable.
It doesn't even have a unified government, and until that changes all kinds of expensive self-harming nonsense is inevitable.
Countries are a tribal indulgence - which is becoming increasingly unaffordable.
Energy infrastructure time horizons are different from politicians ones. Energy policy requires planning and large investments over decades.
There is no incentives for politicians today to say here we are spending $XXB on energy infrastructure now so you can reap the profits of it, in 20 years from now.
Specifically, France got some bad short-term decisions in mid-2000 to not renew nuclear maintenance (hoping to close it eventually), and now all those decisions have to be reversed. But again, reversing it is not going to happen in matter of weeks or months. So, this winter might bring some careful balance distribution (and imports).
The issue is simple: privatizations.
The public in the past have invested for the public interests. After the private have do not profiting from old State made investments leaving anything else falling apart. When they reach a certain level of mess they going out, leaving the State arrange the mess and handle the rage, waiting to came back once a new wave of investments will repair the mess.
Unfortunately people seems to ignore that, allowing such model to prosper.
The public in the past have invested for the public interests. After the private have do not profiting from old State made investments leaving anything else falling apart. When they reach a certain level of mess they going out, leaving the State arrange the mess and handle the rage, waiting to came back once a new wave of investments will repair the mess.
Unfortunately people seems to ignore that, allowing such model to prosper.
Not sure what privatisations have to do with the problem. My understanding is that it is a combination of a technical problem (corrosion happening at an unexpected pace) and the impact of covid lockdowns which deferred critical maintenance.
Privatization has everything to do with the problem. Let's take EDF and our nuclear plants. Why is EDF struggling financially today ? Because, through the magic of _opening up to the market_, they have been forced to sell up to 100TWh are prices as low as €40/MWh. The new private operators that came in simply resold that. And right now ? They're even kicking out clients, just so they could sell on the market at €1000/MWh. What does EDF struggling financially mean ? Among others, fully depending on the state to give them the money they need to exist, not being able to keep training and maintain specialists to repair such corrosion (we needed to import people because there were simply not enough qualified engineers for that), not being able to build more plants and therefore losing our edge in nuclear power.
Why are most of our public services struggling ? Because over time, they've been handed out to private companies. Unemployment office ? Partly privatized. Tax collection from employers ? Privatized. Healthcare ? Partly privatized, and the beast is being starved so they can privatize it more.
There has not been a single, memorable outcome of a public service being privatized in France and it getting better.
Why are most of our public services struggling ? Because over time, they've been handed out to private companies. Unemployment office ? Partly privatized. Tax collection from employers ? Privatized. Healthcare ? Partly privatized, and the beast is being starved so they can privatize it more.
There has not been a single, memorable outcome of a public service being privatized in France and it getting better.
> they have been forced to sell up to 100TWh are prices as low as €40/MWh.
Should be plenty. The Swedish paid off nuclear plants operate around €25/MWh. Lazard similarly puts the range for paid-off nuclear plants at $24-$33/MWh.
It's simply mismanagement of a golden goose.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
Should be plenty. The Swedish paid off nuclear plants operate around €25/MWh. Lazard similarly puts the range for paid-off nuclear plants at $24-$33/MWh.
It's simply mismanagement of a golden goose.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-...
It's easy to underpay nuclear power then realize heavy investments are needed after a while to either keep the plants alive with modern safety norms or to dismantle them (we have done that a lot here, electricity used to be cheap).
Also EDF has been trying to build the EPR in England, Finland and France, and it costed much more to build than budgeted. And someone has to pay the difference. And it seems that this someone is us :) (French tax payers and consumers)
Also EDF has been trying to build the EPR in England, Finland and France, and it costed much more to build than budgeted. And someone has to pay the difference. And it seems that this someone is us :) (French tax payers and consumers)
> Also EDF has been trying to build the EPR in England, Finland and France, and it costed much more to build than budgeted. And someone has to pay the difference. And it seems that this someone is us :) (French tax payers and consumers)
My view is that it is a subsidy for the naval nuclear reactors and weapons programs in UK and France that they choose to pay from a national security perspective. The French and UK public simply gets to eat the costs with barely any say in the matter.
My view is that it is a subsidy for the naval nuclear reactors and weapons programs in UK and France that they choose to pay from a national security perspective. The French and UK public simply gets to eat the costs with barely any say in the matter.
How do you get that? In the UK our nuclear weapons are US bought so we don't use any fissile materials we make, and my understanding was submarine reactors are very different to traditional utility scale reactors, to the point that different companies produce them.
It is all about creating the industrial base with people going through university specializing in it. This is from last time I googled the topic:
In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like.
> The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists.
> In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.
> [...]
> This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”.
> Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”.
> [...]
> At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”.
> Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...
> Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me.
> Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
In 2017 this angle was up in the news in the UK. Take the responses as you like.
> The government is using the “extremely expensive” Hinkley Point C nuclear power station to cross-subsidise Britain’s nuclear weapon arsenal, according to senior scientists.
> In evidence submitted to the influential public accounts committee (PAC), which is currently investigating the nuclear plant deal, scientists from Sussex University state that the costs of the Trident programme [1] could be “unsupportable” without “an effective subsidy from electricity consumers to military nuclear infrastructure”.
> [...]
> This week, the Green MP Caroline Lucas asked the government about the Ministry of Defence and the business department discussing the “relevance of UK civil nuclear industry skills and supply chains to the maintaining of UK nuclear submarine and wider nuclear weapons capabilities”.
> Harriett Baldwin, the defence procurement minister, answered that “it is fully understood that civil and defence sectors must work together to make sure resource is prioritised appropriately for the protection and prosperity of the United Kingdom”.
> [...]
> At the PAC hearing, the Labour MP Meg Hillier asked whether “Hinkley is a great opportunity to maintain our nuclear skills base”.
> Lovegrove answered: “We are completing the build of the nuclear submarines which carry conventional weaponry. So somehow there is very definitely an opportunity here for the nation to grasp in terms of building up its nuclear skills. I don’t think that’s going to happen by accident. It is going to require concerted government action to make that happen.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/12/electricity-...
> Andrew Stirling believes that there was a crucial, largely unspoken, reason for the government’s rediscovered passion for nuclear: without a civil nuclear industry, a nation cannot sustain military nuclear capabilities. In other words, no new nuclear power plants would spell the end of Trident. “The only countries in the world that are currently looking at large-scale civil power newbuild programmes are countries that have nuclear submarines, or have an expressed aim of acquiring them,” Stirling told me.
> Building nuclear submarines is a ferociously complicated business. It requires the kind of institutional memory and technical expertise that can easily disappear without practice. This, in theory, is where the civil nuclear industry comes in. If new nuclear power plants are being built, then the skills and capacity required by the military will be maintained. “It looks to be the case that the government is knowingly engineering an environment in which electricity consumers cross-subsidise this branch of military security,” Stirling told me.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/21/hinkley-point-c...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_(UK_nuclear_programme)
It’s “simply mismanagement” is a trivial tautology that can be applied to any situation.
Team didn’t deliver? Mismanaged the team. Team failed to deliver because they didn’t do any work? Mismanaged the hiring process. Massive wild fire? Mismanaged forests. Asteroid wipes out all life on Earth? Mismanaged the planetary defense systems. Andor escapes from Narkina 5? Mismanaged imperial prison complex.
Team didn’t deliver? Mismanaged the team. Team failed to deliver because they didn’t do any work? Mismanaged the hiring process. Massive wild fire? Mismanaged forests. Asteroid wipes out all life on Earth? Mismanaged the planetary defense systems. Andor escapes from Narkina 5? Mismanaged imperial prison complex.
Given that nuclear power plants are known entities and the list of "unknown unknowns" should be non-existent given their safety critical nature it simply is mismanagement.
If your nuclear plant costs more than $33/MWh to operate then you are doing something wrong and stop trying to blame "the green movement", "privatization" or whatever.
If your nuclear plant costs more than $33/MWh to operate then you are doing something wrong and stop trying to blame "the green movement", "privatization" or whatever.
so costs to build operate and maintain something never changes and is the exact same everywhere and in every country and if it’s different then what you think it’s “mismanagement”?
Because I’m pretty sure it’s going to be different from France to America to poland
Because I’m pretty sure it’s going to be different from France to America to poland
> The LCOE figures for existing Generation II nuclear power plants integrating post-Fukushima stress tests safety upgrades following refurbishment for extended operation (10-20 years on average): (in 2012 euros) €23/MWh to €26/MWh (5% and 10% discount rate).
There, from a source extremely positively biased towards nuclear.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
Putting the 2012 €23/MWh to €26/MW in an inflation calculator gives €26/MWh to €29/MWh.
There, from a source extremely positively biased towards nuclear.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-aspec...
Putting the 2012 €23/MWh to €26/MW in an inflation calculator gives €26/MWh to €29/MWh.
> Among others, fully depending on the state to give them the money they need to exist, not being able to keep training and maintain specialists to repair such corrosion (we needed to import people because there were simply not enough qualified engineers for that), not being able to build more plants and therefore losing our edge in nuclear power.
EDF is struggling because the state kept intervening and asking them to shut down future nuclear plants. You can't have specialists if they are retiring and the state destroyed any career prospects due to planning they would shut down plants...
EDF is struggling because the state kept intervening and asking them to shut down future nuclear plants. You can't have specialists if they are retiring and the state destroyed any career prospects due to planning they would shut down plants...
Have a look at Flamanville 3 and then try to sell another 20 of those to the public.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
Oops:
> EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[6] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[7] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.[8][2]
That's ten years late at 578% the projected cost.
> EDF estimated the cost at €3.3 billion[6] and stated it would start commercial operations in 2012, after construction lasting 54 months.[7] The latest cost estimate (July 2020) is at €19.1 billion, with commissioning planned tentatively at the end of 2022.[8][2]
That's ten years late at 578% the projected cost.
Subcontractors are extatic !
Incomplete and biased analysis. What you describe as 'privatization' is nothing like a free market which is what most people think you're describing.
Privatization in your case is crony capitalism combined with state power to manipulate markets in favor of certain actors. The key enabler in this scheme is government power corrupted by money.
The commonality in all the different areas that are failing -- power, healthcare, homelessness, etc.. --- are the regulatory systems that are grossly distorted by corrupted government interventions.
The main problem with governments and their services today is that there is no real feedback loop and systems without feedback are doomed to fail. You can vote liberal or conservative and nothing changes because they are two wings of the same bird.
Privatization in your case is crony capitalism combined with state power to manipulate markets in favor of certain actors. The key enabler in this scheme is government power corrupted by money.
The commonality in all the different areas that are failing -- power, healthcare, homelessness, etc.. --- are the regulatory systems that are grossly distorted by corrupted government interventions.
The main problem with governments and their services today is that there is no real feedback loop and systems without feedback are doomed to fail. You can vote liberal or conservative and nothing changes because they are two wings of the same bird.
Maybe there's no "good" capitalism? What we used to think of as "good" capitalism was really heavy government investment leading to a "virtuous feedback loop", for which the Government got no credit?
I think that's more accurate then the "not TRUE capitalism"/no true Scotsman interpretation.
I think that's more accurate then the "not TRUE capitalism"/no true Scotsman interpretation.
Capitalism is a terrible economic system, except for all the others.
Democratic socialism seems to be working out pretty well in Scandinavia.
Let me be clear: I mean setting prices with market mechanisms, which all the "mixed economies" do. There's really no alternative to it for the economy as a whole (although government adjustments due to externalities, for example, are needed.)
How would you explain the recent gas cap for Russian oil as the hand of the market?
> the recent gas cap for Russian oil as the hand of the market?
As not market pricing? Markets work to find the most efficient economic solution, or at least local maxima. But everything isn’t economics. National security, for instance. So we take economic pain in exchange for national security outcomes. Domestic energy markets are different from international ones.
As not market pricing? Markets work to find the most efficient economic solution, or at least local maxima. But everything isn’t economics. National security, for instance. So we take economic pain in exchange for national security outcomes. Domestic energy markets are different from international ones.
The hand of the market is a myth - we make the market. It isn't a divine force - that's the Neoliberism God talking.
In this case, we have decided to limit the value of oil a pariah state which attacked a neighbor can sell at. Pretty simple, imo.
In this case, we have decided to limit the value of oil a pariah state which attacked a neighbor can sell at. Pretty simple, imo.
Markets are essential. A modern industrial economy cannot function without markets to provide prices for the millions of different things being produced. This is why the Soviet Union failed and why China moved to allow a market to operate.
Right, but price setting via market mechanisms is orthogonal to capital ownership.
I'm increasingly convinced that we should strive towards an impure market socialist system because control of large corporations that are more powerful than some countries really doesn't belong in private hands.
And I say impure because some amount of private ownership to capture entrepreneurial spirits is a good idea. But Fortune 500 companies aren't about entrepreneurial spirits.
I'm increasingly convinced that we should strive towards an impure market socialist system because control of large corporations that are more powerful than some countries really doesn't belong in private hands.
And I say impure because some amount of private ownership to capture entrepreneurial spirits is a good idea. But Fortune 500 companies aren't about entrepreneurial spirits.
It doesn't and it is not used here.
Not one country in Scandinavia has anything like democratic socialism as its social economic system.
The issue with "privatisation" (they're not all the same) IMO is that it's usually done by politicians trying to get something for nothing.
Lets say the benefits of privatisation are 10% cheaper widgets or power stations, a politician will aim for 30%. Goodbye future.
Lets say the benefits of privatisation are 10% cheaper widgets or power stations, a politician will aim for 30%. Goodbye future.
Private or public, nuclear does not like short-term management. And there has been too much of it lately, mostly because politics.
Your own argument is busted by.. your own argument. EDF has been nationalized again and here we are. The issue isn't "privatizations".
Lol no it hasn't. As of last year, the state owned 83% of EDF, along with everything that being a publicly traded company entails. The renationalization process has been started, then immediately halted by shareholders that sued to block it. Additionally, things don't get magically fixed because it belongs to the state again. The current state of things is the result of 20 years of selling off EDF, piece by piece to vultures.
This is like watching a new administration take over government and then blaming them a month later for problems caused by the previous administrators. It takes time to fix years of neglect and malicious incompetence.
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I can't quite follow what you're saying. I know it's anti-privatization, but I can really make out the rest.
What does this mean > "After the private have do not profiting from old State made investments leaving anything else falling apart. When they reach a certain level of mess they going out, leaving the State arrange the mess and handle the rage"
What does this mean > "After the private have do not profiting from old State made investments leaving anything else falling apart. When they reach a certain level of mess they going out, leaving the State arrange the mess and handle the rage"
He means that a publically built monopoly rarely benefits from privatization. Because the efficiency gains will largely be extracted by the private owners.
there was also an (ideology motivated) sabotage, where EDF is forced to sell at a loss to private competitors who produce nothing, who then will turn around and sell to customers at a cheaper price than EDF. So they can claim that private is obviously better.
It’s all a house of cards anyway, as the “alternative providers” who were supposed to provide all that magical agile goodness through the wonders of competition fold one after the other and are actively pushing their customers to EDF.
That’s cargo cult economics: someone said competition was good so we’re going to have all the appearances of it without giving up on our large publicly-funded infrastructure. Because at the end of the day we need electricity and all these rent seekers are only good at extracting value from existing installations. Utterly disgusting.
That’s cargo cult economics: someone said competition was good so we’re going to have all the appearances of it without giving up on our large publicly-funded infrastructure. Because at the end of the day we need electricity and all these rent seekers are only good at extracting value from existing installations. Utterly disgusting.
That's what I call Potemkin Markets. You see that everywhere, enabling insiders to engage in legal risk free looting but claiming it's okay because you sprinkled magic free market pixie dust on it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sure, obviously this has nothing to do with a 40-year anti-nuclear policy.
> Sure, obviously this has nothing to do with a 40-year anti-nuclear policy.
Ah, the good ol' French anti-nuclear policy: I remember when French intelligence blew up a ship belonging to a pro-nuclear lobby group. Wait, that was the Rainbow Warrior[0], which belonged to Greenpeace, en route to demonstrations against French nuclear tests
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Ah, the good ol' French anti-nuclear policy: I remember when French intelligence blew up a ship belonging to a pro-nuclear lobby group. Wait, that was the Rainbow Warrior[0], which belonged to Greenpeace, en route to demonstrations against French nuclear tests
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
Blowing up nukes in middle of the Pacific ocean, has nothing to do with nuclear power generation. There is clearly a communication and educational issue around nuclear power.
"Anti-nuclear policy" is self-explanatory, but I'll indulge you. Can you name a country that is pro-nuclear weapons, but against nuclear power generation? I can nama a couple that have reversed attitudes.
Also, sinking protestor's ship goes beyond testing weapons, and is strong proof that France is pro-nuclear (weapons|energy)
Also, sinking protestor's ship goes beyond testing weapons, and is strong proof that France is pro-nuclear (weapons|energy)
Israel is one of those countries. Actually France helped Israel with nuclear bomb technology (1953) and yet Israel has no nuclear power plant to this day.
France has been historically pro-nuclear for weapons, for dissuasion (after WW2) and for energy (no gas/oil/coal), But it changed on the energy side in the last 15 years. Not sure why the sentiment changed over time. Likely poor communication and education.
Protestors (Rainbow Warrior) were protesting against the last nuclear tests (weapons) in the Pacific ocean in 1985. It had nothing to do with nuclear energy production in France.
So yes France have had an anti-nuclear policy in the past 15 years leading to today where half of the 56 nuclear reactors are stopped. France needs to become pro-nuclear again, restart the current reactors ASAP, and start building more nuclear power plants to replace the aging ones.
On the military side, Those nuclear weapons are for dissuasion. There are no more live tests (all simulation).
France has been historically pro-nuclear for weapons, for dissuasion (after WW2) and for energy (no gas/oil/coal), But it changed on the energy side in the last 15 years. Not sure why the sentiment changed over time. Likely poor communication and education.
Protestors (Rainbow Warrior) were protesting against the last nuclear tests (weapons) in the Pacific ocean in 1985. It had nothing to do with nuclear energy production in France.
So yes France have had an anti-nuclear policy in the past 15 years leading to today where half of the 56 nuclear reactors are stopped. France needs to become pro-nuclear again, restart the current reactors ASAP, and start building more nuclear power plants to replace the aging ones.
On the military side, Those nuclear weapons are for dissuasion. There are no more live tests (all simulation).
I disagree that France had an anti-nuclear policy, but good call on Israel, even though Israel's official position is to pretend it doesn't have nuclear weapons (or a nuclear program).
We're talking about nuclear power here, not weapons, I thought that was implicit, and no the two are not necessarily related
> ..and no the two are not necessarily relate
Perhaps as a thought experiment, but in practice the two are very much linked. I'll ask you the same question I asked sibling comment: can you name a country that is pro-nuclear weapons, but against nuclear power generation?
Perhaps as a thought experiment, but in practice the two are very much linked. I'll ask you the same question I asked sibling comment: can you name a country that is pro-nuclear weapons, but against nuclear power generation?
the anti-nuclear policy was in Germany
France was proud of the nuclear energy. It had plenty of cheap and carbon-free electricity (it was once exported to all the neighbouring countries) It was a way to be independent energy wise, as more countries can export nuclear fuel than oil. It was building power plants, and processing nuclear waste from other countries
And it made plenty of engineers busy ! France used to be a country led by engineers.
France was proud of the nuclear energy. It had plenty of cheap and carbon-free electricity (it was once exported to all the neighbouring countries) It was a way to be independent energy wise, as more countries can export nuclear fuel than oil. It was building power plants, and processing nuclear waste from other countries
And it made plenty of engineers busy ! France used to be a country led by engineers.
Anti-nuclear policy sure was more significant in Germany as it has led to the complete stop of its use, but in France it has also slowed down the development of the industry.
Although it has evolved positively over the last three years, nuclear energy remains controversial in public opinion [0,1], and many ecologist and left-wing movements have militated against nuclear power for the last 30 years. Whether or not it had an impact on the country policy toward nuclear power would require a more in-depth and complete archive work, but just remember that Emmanuel Macron was advocating toward reducing the share of nuclear power when he was elected for the first time in 2017 [2] (he has now changed)
[0] https://www.ifop.com/publication/lopinion-des-francais-sur-l...
[1] https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/sondage-ex...
[2] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87skbx
Although it has evolved positively over the last three years, nuclear energy remains controversial in public opinion [0,1], and many ecologist and left-wing movements have militated against nuclear power for the last 30 years. Whether or not it had an impact on the country policy toward nuclear power would require a more in-depth and complete archive work, but just remember that Emmanuel Macron was advocating toward reducing the share of nuclear power when he was elected for the first time in 2017 [2] (he has now changed)
[0] https://www.ifop.com/publication/lopinion-des-francais-sur-l...
[1] https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/sondage-ex...
[2] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87skbx
wow... I mean france basically said at the start of the energy crises that they will build tons of new nuclear plants! they even were the most influential country within the eu which made it possible that the eu gives funding for nuclear plants.
I'm really not sure what you want? of course for everything there is an anti movement, but france is definitly not anti-nuclear, neither are most of its people.
I'm really not sure what you want? of course for everything there is an anti movement, but france is definitly not anti-nuclear, neither are most of its people.
The Superphenix closure was entirely political. The turning point was when the socialists had to ally with the environmentalists because they were getting short on votes. That would be the “gauche plurielle” circa 1997. In parallel the Gaullist old guard, who were all about sovereignty were overtaken on the right by neo-liberals looking to get a quick buck, for whom the Russian oligarchs were role models, also in the mid-1990s. But even at that point it was uneasy. I think most informed people would have been pro-nuclear, but that was a politically risky thing to say out loud.
The environmentalists (well, most of them anyway; there always were some who saw that the alternative to nuclear was coal and oil, not sunshine and rainbows) were always against because they were mostly hippies doubtful of any state-run project and somehow nuclear bombs.
> France used to be a country led by engineers.
And teachers and doctors. But we’ve got the politicians we vote for.
The environmentalists (well, most of them anyway; there always were some who saw that the alternative to nuclear was coal and oil, not sunshine and rainbows) were always against because they were mostly hippies doubtful of any state-run project and somehow nuclear bombs.
> France used to be a country led by engineers.
And teachers and doctors. But we’ve got the politicians we vote for.
Superphénix was a fiasco. And France has since given up entirely on fast reactors. They've mothballed the entire program, cancelling what was to be the next fast reactor prototype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)
BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world. If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors. But they don't think there's enough of a market for them to be worth continuing to develop.
BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world. If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors. But they don't think there's enough of a market for them to be worth continuing to develop.
> Superphénix was a fiasco. And France has since given up entirely on fast reactors.
It was not really a fiasco; it was shut down before being really productive. Sure, there were some wrinkles, but it was a one-off, not the 10th in a fleet so this sort of kinks are expected. It was an experimental reactor, the design was not supposed to be directly useable as a commercial reactor.
Nevertheless, it had a whole scientific life ahead, some experiments would have been useful for nuclear fusion as well. There aren't many reactors able to produce fast neutrons with that spectrum. Regardless of the state of SFRs, closing it was a purely political decision, the consequence of horse trading between the socialists and the environmentalists without considering any engineering or scientific aspect.
> BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world.
France does not really think anything. There is no master plan, all the decisions are done in a certain context without really any long term thinking. What you see is an industry that has lost its political support. Now that some of the stupidity of the whole mess is dawning on some politicians there is a bit of flailing around, but do not mistake that for some kind of strategy.
> If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors.
That is not entirely true. There are thermal reactors that can work with unenriched uranium, it's just that PWRs are not the most fuel-efficient design.
In any case, no, nobody serious is advocating for using only nuclear. It is just one tool in the toolbox, and there are better sources for some uses.
It was not really a fiasco; it was shut down before being really productive. Sure, there were some wrinkles, but it was a one-off, not the 10th in a fleet so this sort of kinks are expected. It was an experimental reactor, the design was not supposed to be directly useable as a commercial reactor.
Nevertheless, it had a whole scientific life ahead, some experiments would have been useful for nuclear fusion as well. There aren't many reactors able to produce fast neutrons with that spectrum. Regardless of the state of SFRs, closing it was a purely political decision, the consequence of horse trading between the socialists and the environmentalists without considering any engineering or scientific aspect.
> BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world.
France does not really think anything. There is no master plan, all the decisions are done in a certain context without really any long term thinking. What you see is an industry that has lost its political support. Now that some of the stupidity of the whole mess is dawning on some politicians there is a bit of flailing around, but do not mistake that for some kind of strategy.
> If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors.
That is not entirely true. There are thermal reactors that can work with unenriched uranium, it's just that PWRs are not the most fuel-efficient design.
In any case, no, nobody serious is advocating for using only nuclear. It is just one tool in the toolbox, and there are better sources for some uses.
> That is not entirely true. There are thermal reactors that can work with unenriched uranium, it's just that PWRs are not the most fuel-efficient design.
That's not a rebuttal at all. The problem isn't enrichment, the problem is there's not enough cheap uranium ore. If the world's primary energy demand (18 TW) were provided by burner reactors, the estimated global uranium resource (at cost sufficient to not seriously affect economics of burner reactors) would be exhausted in perhaps five years.
This is so tight that nuclear w. burner reactors cannot provide more than a small fraction of the world's energy. Renewables would have to do almost all of it. In that scenario, there's little reason to use nuclear at all, as nuclear and renewables do not mix well on the grid or elsewhere.
That's not a rebuttal at all. The problem isn't enrichment, the problem is there's not enough cheap uranium ore. If the world's primary energy demand (18 TW) were provided by burner reactors, the estimated global uranium resource (at cost sufficient to not seriously affect economics of burner reactors) would be exhausted in perhaps five years.
This is so tight that nuclear w. burner reactors cannot provide more than a small fraction of the world's energy. Renewables would have to do almost all of it. In that scenario, there's little reason to use nuclear at all, as nuclear and renewables do not mix well on the grid or elsewhere.
> That's not a rebuttal at all.
It's not supposed to be one. It's just that there is more nuances to this than 'thermal reactors are going to run out of fuel in 10 years' and 'fast reactors are going to solve the uranium supply'. PWRs and reactors that depend on enriched uranium use much more uranium ore than those that can burn natural uranium, and not all of them are breeders.
> he problem isn't enrichment, the problem is there's not enough cheap uranium ore.
Which is directly related to enrichment, because to enrich uranium you need one order of magnitude more ore than for unenriched fuel and we end up throwing away a lot of perfectly fine nuclides. Then there is the issue of reprocessing, because you are also throwing away a lot of perfectly fine nuclides if you cannot re-use spent fuel, because you need to reach certain enrichment levels. That is something doable even in PWRs.
> If the world's primary energy demand (18 TW) were provided by burner reactors, the estimated global uranium resource (at cost sufficient to not seriously affect economics of burner reactors) would be exhausted in perhaps five years.
I don't understand why you think this is not related to the type of reactor. Different designs have different fuel efficiencies, so a given amount of raw materials would go further with more efficient designs. Just like condensing furnaces allow to use less gas for a given heat output.
> This is so tight that nuclear w. burner reactors cannot provide more than a small fraction of the world's energy.
That is under very conservative assumptions about the types of reactors and state of ore deposits. Realistically, it's about 100 years, and that's likely overestimating needs because nuclear cannot do everything.
> Renewables would have to do almost all of it. In that scenario, there's little reason to use nuclear at all, as nuclear and renewables do not mix well on the grid or elsewhere.
There is nothing specific preventing nuclear and renewables to be used on the same grid.
It's not supposed to be one. It's just that there is more nuances to this than 'thermal reactors are going to run out of fuel in 10 years' and 'fast reactors are going to solve the uranium supply'. PWRs and reactors that depend on enriched uranium use much more uranium ore than those that can burn natural uranium, and not all of them are breeders.
> he problem isn't enrichment, the problem is there's not enough cheap uranium ore.
Which is directly related to enrichment, because to enrich uranium you need one order of magnitude more ore than for unenriched fuel and we end up throwing away a lot of perfectly fine nuclides. Then there is the issue of reprocessing, because you are also throwing away a lot of perfectly fine nuclides if you cannot re-use spent fuel, because you need to reach certain enrichment levels. That is something doable even in PWRs.
> If the world's primary energy demand (18 TW) were provided by burner reactors, the estimated global uranium resource (at cost sufficient to not seriously affect economics of burner reactors) would be exhausted in perhaps five years.
I don't understand why you think this is not related to the type of reactor. Different designs have different fuel efficiencies, so a given amount of raw materials would go further with more efficient designs. Just like condensing furnaces allow to use less gas for a given heat output.
> This is so tight that nuclear w. burner reactors cannot provide more than a small fraction of the world's energy.
That is under very conservative assumptions about the types of reactors and state of ore deposits. Realistically, it's about 100 years, and that's likely overestimating needs because nuclear cannot do everything.
> Renewables would have to do almost all of it. In that scenario, there's little reason to use nuclear at all, as nuclear and renewables do not mix well on the grid or elsewhere.
There is nothing specific preventing nuclear and renewables to be used on the same grid.
> There is nothing specific preventing nuclear and renewables to be used on the same grid.
Any grid with both has the nuclear plant very expensively acheiving nothing whenever there is a surplus of renewables.
This is about 6-8 hours a day without storage or dispatch. When you can match the EAF of the nuclear plant by overprovisioning slightly and adding a few hours storage at lower cost, there's no way for the plant to be economical as a suppliment, because it can't match the $0 of the otherwise curtailed renewable energy.
They might have a viable niche generating heat + electricity for some uses though.
> That is under very conservative assumptions about the types of reactors and state of ore deposits. Realistically, it's about 100 years, and that's likely overestimating needs because nuclear cannot do everything.
An APR like AP1000 or EPR gets 60MWd thermal per kg at 3.5%. Assuming 0 tails essay (economical enrichment leaves behind about 1/4th to 1/3rd of U235) this is roughly 300GJ electric per kg of Natural Uranium. Roughly in line with a CANDU. Reprocessing repeatedly until all the nuclides are fertile rather than fissile adds <20%, or (using technology that exists) <15% with a single round of SNF.
In the most optimistic scenario. For the ~10 million tonnes of reasonably assured resource assuming no increase in energy use and 8 of 18TW can be reduced or provided with waste heat somehow this lasts around ten years.
Any grid with both has the nuclear plant very expensively acheiving nothing whenever there is a surplus of renewables.
This is about 6-8 hours a day without storage or dispatch. When you can match the EAF of the nuclear plant by overprovisioning slightly and adding a few hours storage at lower cost, there's no way for the plant to be economical as a suppliment, because it can't match the $0 of the otherwise curtailed renewable energy.
They might have a viable niche generating heat + electricity for some uses though.
> That is under very conservative assumptions about the types of reactors and state of ore deposits. Realistically, it's about 100 years, and that's likely overestimating needs because nuclear cannot do everything.
An APR like AP1000 or EPR gets 60MWd thermal per kg at 3.5%. Assuming 0 tails essay (economical enrichment leaves behind about 1/4th to 1/3rd of U235) this is roughly 300GJ electric per kg of Natural Uranium. Roughly in line with a CANDU. Reprocessing repeatedly until all the nuclides are fertile rather than fissile adds <20%, or (using technology that exists) <15% with a single round of SNF.
In the most optimistic scenario. For the ~10 million tonnes of reasonably assured resource assuming no increase in energy use and 8 of 18TW can be reduced or provided with waste heat somehow this lasts around ten years.
> PWRs and reactors that depend on enriched uranium use much more uranium ore than those that can burn natural uranium.
This has little to do with enrichment, and more to do with the better neutron economy of heavy water as a moderator. CANDU reactors have moved to use enriched fuel due to superior economics. CANDU reactors are still economically inferior to LWRs, though.
In any case, the difference is negligible to the point being made: that burner reactors cannot power the world for very long before the uranium runs out. CANDU reactors still leave the vast majority of the 238U unfissioned.
> Which is directly related to enrichment, because to enrich uranium you need one order of magnitude more ore than for unenriched fuel and we end up throwing away a lot of perfectly fine nuclides.
To first order, burner reactors are burning 235U. It doesn't matter if this 235U has been concentrated or not. The 238U that enrichment tosses out can't be used in burner reactors in any case.
(This is not entirely correct, since some 238U is converted to Pu even in burner reactors. But only a small part of it can be, since the breeding ratio is well below 1, enriched fuel or not.)
> I don't understand why you think this is not related to the type of reactor.
Because it's not. Burner reactors, by definition, run out of fissionables before they've converted most of the 238U to plutonium.
> Realistically, it's about 100 years
This must be assuming a much larger uranium resource.
> There is nothing specific preventing nuclear and renewables to be used on the same grid.
Yes there is. They are both inflexible sources, and compete with each other to be supported by sources of flexibility (dispatchable demand, dispatchable generation from e-fuels, storage, hydro). In general, when you look at optimal solutions to providing power for the grid, the optimal solution is either all renewables or all or mostly nuclear. There's no middle ground. Putting it another way: if it makes sense to have a grid that 10% nuclear and 90% renewable, it would make even more sense to have more nuclear. Nuclear either goes big or it goes home.
This has little to do with enrichment, and more to do with the better neutron economy of heavy water as a moderator. CANDU reactors have moved to use enriched fuel due to superior economics. CANDU reactors are still economically inferior to LWRs, though.
In any case, the difference is negligible to the point being made: that burner reactors cannot power the world for very long before the uranium runs out. CANDU reactors still leave the vast majority of the 238U unfissioned.
> Which is directly related to enrichment, because to enrich uranium you need one order of magnitude more ore than for unenriched fuel and we end up throwing away a lot of perfectly fine nuclides.
To first order, burner reactors are burning 235U. It doesn't matter if this 235U has been concentrated or not. The 238U that enrichment tosses out can't be used in burner reactors in any case.
(This is not entirely correct, since some 238U is converted to Pu even in burner reactors. But only a small part of it can be, since the breeding ratio is well below 1, enriched fuel or not.)
> I don't understand why you think this is not related to the type of reactor.
Because it's not. Burner reactors, by definition, run out of fissionables before they've converted most of the 238U to plutonium.
> Realistically, it's about 100 years
This must be assuming a much larger uranium resource.
> There is nothing specific preventing nuclear and renewables to be used on the same grid.
Yes there is. They are both inflexible sources, and compete with each other to be supported by sources of flexibility (dispatchable demand, dispatchable generation from e-fuels, storage, hydro). In general, when you look at optimal solutions to providing power for the grid, the optimal solution is either all renewables or all or mostly nuclear. There's no middle ground. Putting it another way: if it makes sense to have a grid that 10% nuclear and 90% renewable, it would make even more sense to have more nuclear. Nuclear either goes big or it goes home.
Macron was in New Orleans yesterday flogging wind power and trying to promote French companies here. What is he doing in France for it?
He is actually generating of a lot of hot air!
I don't understand the advice of switching off appliances and lights at night. Surely if France has an energy production shortfall, it must be at peak period which is during the day from 9am until about 7pm [1], not in the middle of the night. Particularly given the vast majority of its production costs the same whether you use it or not (nuclear, wind). And even for gas, the problem isn't the quantity of gas available, it is the output of the gas power plants available. So saving gas during the night doesn't help peak production.
[1] https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricit...
[1] https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricit...
On top of the peak production issue, there is also a fuel reserve issue
As half of the the nuclear power plants are down, they have to rely on gas. And gas has become difficult to import.
France feels both the liberalisation of the electricity production : Private operators promised to produce cheaper and cleaner power back in the 2000s. But they didn't. Virtually all of them used a scheme (the Arenh system) to get public electricity in bulk, sold to them at a loss and at a fixed price, so that they could compete with the public company on retail prices. Then the government was still in their privatization bubble, lobbies told them everything was fine, and they began to stop to maintain and to phase out public nuclear power plants.
And now we no longer have electricity.
The backup would be electricity made with natural gas. But you need to save that natural gas now. Russia froze the export of natural gas. And other companies know that gas is in short supply, so prices skyrocket.
So yeah, we have to turn everything off at night.
As half of the the nuclear power plants are down, they have to rely on gas. And gas has become difficult to import.
France feels both the liberalisation of the electricity production : Private operators promised to produce cheaper and cleaner power back in the 2000s. But they didn't. Virtually all of them used a scheme (the Arenh system) to get public electricity in bulk, sold to them at a loss and at a fixed price, so that they could compete with the public company on retail prices. Then the government was still in their privatization bubble, lobbies told them everything was fine, and they began to stop to maintain and to phase out public nuclear power plants.
And now we no longer have electricity.
The backup would be electricity made with natural gas. But you need to save that natural gas now. Russia froze the export of natural gas. And other companies know that gas is in short supply, so prices skyrocket.
So yeah, we have to turn everything off at night.
I am sure France isn't contemplating blackouts to save on the gas supply.
No
i'm just saying there are 2 issues nowadays :
peak production issue
and how to keep producing electricity in the next year, as gas is difficult to source, and the tank might eventually run out.
The government is just making a single campaign to simplify the PR ! In the same ads, they ask citizens to both reduce energy consumption (eg lower heating to 18°C), and to delay intensive usage out of peak hours (eg use you washing machine or the space heater during the day and not in the evening)
i'm just saying there are 2 issues nowadays :
peak production issue
and how to keep producing electricity in the next year, as gas is difficult to source, and the tank might eventually run out.
The government is just making a single campaign to simplify the PR ! In the same ads, they ask citizens to both reduce energy consumption (eg lower heating to 18°C), and to delay intensive usage out of peak hours (eg use you washing machine or the space heater during the day and not in the evening)
Normille(6)
In France, a lot of heating is done during the night (Water, buildings with so cold "accumulator electrical heating").
You also need to think that France is not alone. If they can save during the night, this is extra power which can be exported to Germany where the base production relies on coal and gas. This way, Germany uses less gas during the night and can export more during the day to help France.
We are fully interconnected, we need to look beyond "just our country".
You also need to think that France is not alone. If they can save during the night, this is extra power which can be exported to Germany where the base production relies on coal and gas. This way, Germany uses less gas during the night and can export more during the day to help France.
We are fully interconnected, we need to look beyond "just our country".
But that assumes the blackouts are the result of gas power plants not running at full capacity at peak period because of a lack of gas. I don't believe that is the case, at least not this winter.
they run at full capacity, but the capacity of natural gas power plant is very limited
Nuclear power plants used to make up for the steady base consumption. Natural gas power plants used to be the last ones to be solicited. They were just used to adjust to the marginal needs, not to produce most of the power.
Nuclear power plants used to make up for the steady base consumption. Natural gas power plants used to be the last ones to be solicited. They were just used to adjust to the marginal needs, not to produce most of the power.
A recent article, in french, explain a bit why our energy sector is in this sorry state:
https://www-marianne-net.translate.goog/politique/gouverneme...
> High Commissioner for Atomic Energy from 2012 to 2018 pointed out, in front of the deputies, "the scientific and technical lack of culture of our political class", according to him "at the heart of the problem" in French energy policy.
> The propensity to consider that the technologies under development – hydrogen as an energy vector, smart-grids – can be, in a climate emergency, technologies to be deployed massively, in the moment, testifies to a profound ignorance of development deadlines.
> Conversely, the procrastination on all decisions concerning nuclear power and the policy of announcements while waiting for concrete decisions to start construction show a staggering ignorance of the intrinsic inertia of heavy industries and the need for a stable long-term vision to maintain the industrial tool at the right level
> High Commissioner for Atomic Energy from 2012 to 2018 pointed out, in front of the deputies, "the scientific and technical lack of culture of our political class", according to him "at the heart of the problem" in French energy policy.
> The propensity to consider that the technologies under development – hydrogen as an energy vector, smart-grids – can be, in a climate emergency, technologies to be deployed massively, in the moment, testifies to a profound ignorance of development deadlines.
> Conversely, the procrastination on all decisions concerning nuclear power and the policy of announcements while waiting for concrete decisions to start construction show a staggering ignorance of the intrinsic inertia of heavy industries and the need for a stable long-term vision to maintain the industrial tool at the right level
Wow.
What decay from the excellence of a country that once picked presidents from the Poincare family.
What decay from the excellence of a country that once picked presidents from the Poincare family.
Beyond the political outrage, what's interesting is that France is one of the only countries that makes nuclear safety legislation retroactive. This means that when new measures are decided, all existing reactors need to be upgraded before they can operate. This is not the case in the US for example.
A few years ago during maintenance ops they discovered stress beyond tolerance on heavy steel pieces in some reactors that led to a change in regulation requiring new ways to measure carbon content in those pieces. From what I gathered basically the rule mentioned where measurements would be made to determine carbon content, and of course manufacturers didn't measure anywhere else themselves.
Now the problem is that some of these are >100 tons parts in irradiated zones, it's not as easy as just going in with a carbon meter and taking readings. These have been built decades ago, some in other countries, so the know-how is somewhat lost. Plus they're under heavy industrial secret protection.
From what I gather, EDF is now coming up with simulations based on their understanding of the manufacturing process to prove they're up to code and restart the plants.
A few years ago during maintenance ops they discovered stress beyond tolerance on heavy steel pieces in some reactors that led to a change in regulation requiring new ways to measure carbon content in those pieces. From what I gathered basically the rule mentioned where measurements would be made to determine carbon content, and of course manufacturers didn't measure anywhere else themselves.
Now the problem is that some of these are >100 tons parts in irradiated zones, it's not as easy as just going in with a carbon meter and taking readings. These have been built decades ago, some in other countries, so the know-how is somewhat lost. Plus they're under heavy industrial secret protection.
From what I gather, EDF is now coming up with simulations based on their understanding of the manufacturing process to prove they're up to code and restart the plants.
And yet we allow extravagant malls all over France to light and heat 24/7 with open doors and no accountability. All streets are filled with large high-definition ad screens & computers that cool and heat all day long. Restaurants and bars can just heat the outside terrace air, etc...
And the liberal take has been: This is fine as long as they're paying their bills.
And the liberal take has been: This is fine as long as they're paying their bills.
I have no idea of what you are talking about.
Blackouts are a solution to consumption surges. We are not seeing surges right now so there is no reason to restrict anyone. We can’t store electricity after all. In case of a surge, the commercial sector is the first being hit, long before houses. Plus the issue is mostly heating, lights consume next to nothing.
France electricity is mostly clean by the way.
> Restaurants and bars can just heat the outside terrace air. etc...
That’s been illegal for more than a year.
Blackouts are a solution to consumption surges. We are not seeing surges right now so there is no reason to restrict anyone. We can’t store electricity after all. In case of a surge, the commercial sector is the first being hit, long before houses. Plus the issue is mostly heating, lights consume next to nothing.
France electricity is mostly clean by the way.
> Restaurants and bars can just heat the outside terrace air. etc...
That’s been illegal for more than a year.
> the commercial sector is the first being it
That's not what they announced, the day before an area code will be revealed, and all electricity will be cut (including schools, public utility and telephone towers)
> That’s been illegal for more than a year
There is an exception if terrace area is "covered". Guess what everyone installed in the past year?
That's not what they announced, the day before an area code will be revealed, and all electricity will be cut (including schools, public utility and telephone towers)
> That’s been illegal for more than a year
There is an exception if terrace area is "covered". Guess what everyone installed in the past year?
What they announced is in addition to what’s always done. The commercial sector has always been the first to be cut. Some companies actually have special contracts which mean they can be cut with barely any notice.
If they do large scale blackouts it’s that they can’t manage the load without cutting normal customers so obviously it’s going to hit everyone.
If they do large scale blackouts it’s that they can’t manage the load without cutting normal customers so obviously it’s going to hit everyone.
France's energy production is not as clean as one may think. There is considerable damage to the environment in countries in Africa, where Uranium is mined/extracted. Probably still better than lots of CO2 output, but not actually clean.
Most uranium comes from Kazakhstan. Australia and Canada are also major producers. Namibia produces some, but far from the majority. This isn't exactly a "western countries dumping environmental problems in Africa" story.
The uranium used in France comes in part from Niger. The mines in Niger are operated by Orano, a mining company whose main shareholder is also France. There have been controversies about France using foreign aid to pressure the Niger government for more favorable mining contracts.
So is the Uranium extraction story better in those countries? I think that would then be the next question.
In Australia at least most of it comes from a copper mine that happens to intersect a uranium vein, so as long as the demand for copper exists its extraction is essentially environmentally free
Olympic Dan is the fourth largest copper deposit and the largest known single deposit of uranium in the world.
I don't think it's particularly bad per GWh of energy produced. You just don't need that much uranium. Compare coal (still being actively mined and burned for energy!), natural gas, exotics for batteries/solar.
Any source at all?
(Good luck finding one that supports your position).
FWIW: yes, mining is bad. But uranium is unbelievably energy-dense and the amounts are ridiculously small compared to any other source of energy. All things considered, nuclear causes fewer emissions per MWh than most solar panels (which are not radioactive but still need heaps of metals and semiconductors). Also, there is no contest with coal, oil, and gas, which is the thing that is actually used when you don’t have nuclear energy available.
(Good luck finding one that supports your position).
FWIW: yes, mining is bad. But uranium is unbelievably energy-dense and the amounts are ridiculously small compared to any other source of energy. All things considered, nuclear causes fewer emissions per MWh than most solar panels (which are not radioactive but still need heaps of metals and semiconductors). Also, there is no contest with coal, oil, and gas, which is the thing that is actually used when you don’t have nuclear energy available.
https://invidio.xamh.de/watch?v=ioRtzOWm07A
Here you go. But really, if you had done a simple search of something like "france uranium africa" you would likely have found this yourself. If you only ever search for things supporting your position, but not the opposite position, you are prone to being in a bubble, never seeing contradicting information.
Here you go. But really, if you had done a simple search of something like "france uranium africa" you would likely have found this yourself. If you only ever search for things supporting your position, but not the opposite position, you are prone to being in a bubble, never seeing contradicting information.
Greenpeace documentary
Mining can be done poorly, it isn’t bad, everything rigid we have comes from mining of some form.
No energy production is clean. Actually, I'd be curious to compare the damage to the environment caused by uranium extraction vs producing batteries and solar panels.
Nuclear and solar panels are about the same. Better than wind and hydro. But all of these are very similar, and are miles better than fossil fuels. It’s difficult to have accurate projections for batteries because the technology that can be used at these scales is not clear (though he vast majority of them need cobalt, which is a huge issue on several levels).
Indeed, there is no clean energy, it's all relative. I'd like more people to realize this.
> There is considerable damage to the environment in countries in Africa, where Uranium is mined/extracted.
That's equally of not more true of renewables like solar and batteries that require large amounts of rare metals.
That's equally of not more true of renewables like solar and batteries that require large amounts of rare metals.
Doesn't change the fact, that it is not actually clean, does it?
What are you talking about? Did you forget to update your talking points when everything you're complaining about changed?
Stores, including malls, are mandated to shut down lights and screens after hours. Christmas lights and the Eiffel tower shut down at 22:00. Restaurants and bars have been forbidden from heating up terraces for more than a year.
Stores, including malls, are mandated to shut down lights and screens after hours. Christmas lights and the Eiffel tower shut down at 22:00. Restaurants and bars have been forbidden from heating up terraces for more than a year.
Same stuff in Germany. We ask households to save energy, but at the same time store windows and malls and whatnot are lit up all night long. Maybe it needs a separate higher energy price for businesses to change that behavior.
While I'm sure there's a ton of possible places for commercial use to optimize that aren't being done yet, stores leaving signs on all night was banned by the EnSikuMaV back in August.
They should come to my city then and start fining businesses for violating that.
Covid taught us that Germany loves to pass laws that it does not enforce at all. Germans are astonishingly compliant, but it still sucks to follow the law only to enable those who don't.
Half of Germany has asthma, I guess, which is why they do not need to wear masks properly in public transport. Who would have guessed, that the pandemic brings so many health problems? The amount of asthma patients must be what they are talking about when they say "long covid". How else can we explain people's behavior?
It is really ridiculously selfish how people act here. As if one couldn't see, that they did not properly fit their mask to the back of their noses in so many cases, if they wear a mask at all. Or those people, who continuously lift their mask when breathing out ... How much must one not understand?
In absolute terms I wouldn't say that Germany is very compliant. Maybe 50% compliant in public transport, if I count the people who really wear FFP2 masks properly, as is the rule. There are even signs there and frequent announcements, that you must wear an FFP2 mask in public transport.
Compared with other countries I see, that people in Japan and South Korea have more insight and behave less selfish, more caring about the person next to them than they do in Germany. But that is merely a media impression I got from some news reports and interviews of people on the streets, which might have been highly selective. So comparatively Germany might be above average of compliance with the law, but I don't think Germany is on a very high level in that regard.
It is really ridiculously selfish how people act here. As if one couldn't see, that they did not properly fit their mask to the back of their noses in so many cases, if they wear a mask at all. Or those people, who continuously lift their mask when breathing out ... How much must one not understand?
In absolute terms I wouldn't say that Germany is very compliant. Maybe 50% compliant in public transport, if I count the people who really wear FFP2 masks properly, as is the rule. There are even signs there and frequent announcements, that you must wear an FFP2 mask in public transport.
Compared with other countries I see, that people in Japan and South Korea have more insight and behave less selfish, more caring about the person next to them than they do in Germany. But that is merely a media impression I got from some news reports and interviews of people on the streets, which might have been highly selective. So comparatively Germany might be above average of compliance with the law, but I don't think Germany is on a very high level in that regard.
I can talk only about Berlin but many furniture stores have started to switch all lights off at night. Even the Ikea sign isn't lit anymore.
I guess the take on that is, that there is no good regulation for it. If it can be one way in one city, for some of the shops, and different for other cities or other shops, then the measures/policies are not really reaching the target. Apparently one cannot rely on people doing the right thing, especially not, when they are in some kind of loosely associated group like a business, where no one feels responsible at the end. It might be a topic which needs intervention by the state to get the desired effect.
In the US industrial & large electric consumers often pay a cheaper $/Kwh price. But they also have additional peak demand surcharges.
We also ask businesses to save energy: https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/E/ensikumav.pdf
But unfortunately, this is not really enforceable because non-compliance is not illegal afaik.
But unfortunately, this is not really enforceable because non-compliance is not illegal afaik.
Same in Denmark. A shitload of storefronts lit up at night.
If malls waste it like that it means that the electricity is too cheap and still plenty.
I bet that a lot of it it's subsidized in good old French tradition.
I bet that a lot of it it's subsidized in good old French tradition.
FWIW https://energygraph.info/d/cM9gMNZ4k/availability-timeline?o... has a timeline of the various french reactors, and shows that some (tricastin 3, 4, cruas 3, budget 4, belleville 2) were restarted during november.
I assume the part of the bars which is after the green (“update”) dashed line is previsional.
It shows that more reactors should be restarting in the next few days although several (most notably all 4 N4 still) will remain offline over winter. And Cattenom 1 and 3 are apparently not planned to restart before late feb / early march.
There’s also an overview dashboard which is just… sad: https://energygraph.info/d/q7IpAJHVz/overview?orgId=1&refres...
I assume the part of the bars which is after the green (“update”) dashed line is previsional.
It shows that more reactors should be restarting in the next few days although several (most notably all 4 N4 still) will remain offline over winter. And Cattenom 1 and 3 are apparently not planned to restart before late feb / early march.
There’s also an overview dashboard which is just… sad: https://energygraph.info/d/q7IpAJHVz/overview?orgId=1&refres...
So the issue is that many of their nuclear plants require long maintenance downtime simultaneously? That seems like something that could have been foreseen.
Yes and no. The 10 years maintenance was foreseeable, but during that they discovered a stress corrosion issue, initially on the (somewhat beleaguered) N4 plants but which turned out to be a lot more widespread than that.
It’s also chicken-decisions coming home to roost: maintenance delays due to covid, poor maintenance conditions leading to strikes, and training of new maintenance staff had apparently been slashed because an expected shift to renewables means you apparently don’t need to train staff to maintain 50+ nuclear plants expected to run for decades more.
It’s also chicken-decisions coming home to roost: maintenance delays due to covid, poor maintenance conditions leading to strikes, and training of new maintenance staff had apparently been slashed because an expected shift to renewables means you apparently don’t need to train staff to maintain 50+ nuclear plants expected to run for decades more.
> maintenance delays due to covid
Due to the response to Covid, not due to Covid itself.
Due to the response to Covid, not due to Covid itself.
Maintenance had been postponed during the corona crisis. What had not been foreseen was the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the associated general energy crisis in Europe.
> What had not been foreseen was the Russian invasion of Ukraine
The Russian reaction to the eastward expansion of NATO right up to Russia's borders has been foreseen and warned about since the 90s, including by top level US officials such as George Kennan and William Burns and by informed & insightful commentators such as John Mearsheimer. [1,2]
The Russian government made very clear protests in December of 2021 (the last in a long line of such protests) that they felt existentially threatened and would have to act.
> and the associated general energy crisis in Europe
Many people also warned about how stupid the sanctions that Europe imposed on Russia were, with the very high risk that they would harm European states (and their peoples) much more than Russia itself. One person I remember making such warnings in advance or concurrently was Philip Pilkington in UnHerd. [3,4,5]
[1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/many-predicted-nato-expansio...
[2] https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...
[3] https://unherd.com/thepost/sanctions-wont-hurt-russia/
[4] https://unherd.com/thepost/oil-and-gas-sanctions-hurt-the-we...
[5] https://unherd.com/thepost/gas-embargoes-will-hurt-europe-mu...
The Russian reaction to the eastward expansion of NATO right up to Russia's borders has been foreseen and warned about since the 90s, including by top level US officials such as George Kennan and William Burns and by informed & insightful commentators such as John Mearsheimer. [1,2]
The Russian government made very clear protests in December of 2021 (the last in a long line of such protests) that they felt existentially threatened and would have to act.
> and the associated general energy crisis in Europe
Many people also warned about how stupid the sanctions that Europe imposed on Russia were, with the very high risk that they would harm European states (and their peoples) much more than Russia itself. One person I remember making such warnings in advance or concurrently was Philip Pilkington in UnHerd. [3,4,5]
[1] https://www.cato.org/commentary/many-predicted-nato-expansio...
[2] https://theconversation.com/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-w...
[3] https://unherd.com/thepost/sanctions-wont-hurt-russia/
[4] https://unherd.com/thepost/oil-and-gas-sanctions-hurt-the-we...
[5] https://unherd.com/thepost/gas-embargoes-will-hurt-europe-mu...
Yes, clearly, NATO expansion means Russia must invade... a non NATO member? Meanwhile the actual border state of Finland joins and... not a peep? Depleting vast amounts of key personnel and equipment all along the very line you claim was the source of danger?
No, Russian propaganda will variably claim NATO, Nazis and Jews are responsible, depending on what bigger fool they are trying to address. Well, one bit!
No, Russian propaganda will variably claim NATO, Nazis and Jews are responsible, depending on what bigger fool they are trying to address. Well, one bit!
I know there is a seemingly endless stream of people who are going to make 'Russian propaganda' allegations under any substantive comment that goes against the dominant Western media narrative, with facile and shallow rebuttals of points made. But this is a very serious topic and every serious person should stop and think before they engage in such behaviour. The Russian propaganda charge here is especially stupid when I only referenced the views of US Americans and Britons, including :
1. George Kennan - "best known as an advocate of a policy of containment of Soviet expansion during the Cold War" [1]
2. William Burns - United States Deputy Secretary of State (2011-2014), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency since 2021 [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Burns
1. George Kennan - "best known as an advocate of a policy of containment of Soviet expansion during the Cold War" [1]
2. William Burns - United States Deputy Secretary of State (2011-2014), Director of the Central Intelligence Agency since 2021 [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Burns
Can serious person use Occam's razor? The explanation for war in Ukraine is that Putin wants to stay in power, plain and simple.
Occam's Razor tells us that the Russians acted to 1) stop the constant bombing and cultural suppression of the Russian speaking people in the east and south of Ukraine that had been ongoing since the US backed coup in 2014 and 2) to finally move against the build up of forces and weapons that the US had been pouring into Ukraine since the coup to trigger a war on Russia's border that they hoped would lead to the destruction and dismemberment of the Russian state itself (the openly stated goals of the US).
(In parenthesis, I will also note the very silly but oft-repeated mistake of conflating Putin with Russia in the comment above. Russia does not act on the whims or personal ambitions of Putin; indeed, Putin stays in power largely by responding to the needs and desires of the Russian people, and the pressure inside Russia for him to act against the existential threat building on the Russian/Ukrainian border has been very strong and he has faced criticism for not acting earlier.)
(In parenthesis, I will also note the very silly but oft-repeated mistake of conflating Putin with Russia in the comment above. Russia does not act on the whims or personal ambitions of Putin; indeed, Putin stays in power largely by responding to the needs and desires of the Russian people, and the pressure inside Russia for him to act against the existential threat building on the Russian/Ukrainian border has been very strong and he has faced criticism for not acting earlier.)
Occam's razor is the idea that, in trying to understand something, getting unnecessary information out of the way is the fastest way to the truth or to the best explanation (c) wiki
The explanation about dictator's desire for power(now also life) is more simple than geopolitics and cultural suppression.
And about the needs of the Russian people: I don't remember Russians having a debate about starting a full scale war. Maybe Putin thinks its what they need but if there was a real debate we can safely assume people would prioritize having in-house toilets and a million other things that are suddenly became not so important.
The explanation about dictator's desire for power(now also life) is more simple than geopolitics and cultural suppression.
And about the needs of the Russian people: I don't remember Russians having a debate about starting a full scale war. Maybe Putin thinks its what they need but if there was a real debate we can safely assume people would prioritize having in-house toilets and a million other things that are suddenly became not so important.
You are 'applying Occam's razor' to a fiction, not reality. Anyone can dream up a fiction (or take one supplied to them) and then draw a simplistic conclusion from it.
I'm applying explanation to a fact. "Fiction" is not the right property to categorize explanations, the right one would be "probability". So yes, anyone can dream up an explanation and then judge if one is more probable than the other.
If anything can be learnt here it is
A.) that many things cannot be easily foreseen which includes record draughts and the Ukraine conflict.
B.) It makes sense to have a diversified energy mix where no single source is used predominantly.
A.) that many things cannot be easily foreseen which includes record draughts and the Ukraine conflict.
B.) It makes sense to have a diversified energy mix where no single source is used predominantly.
> A.) that many things cannot be easily foreseen which includes record draughts and the Ukraine conflict.
I don't know. These record draughts are directly tied to climate change and I have known since the 90's that the Pentagon and the UN knew climate change would bring wars, population displacement et resources problems. I think that's where we are.
I don't know. These record draughts are directly tied to climate change and I have known since the 90's that the Pentagon and the UN knew climate change would bring wars, population displacement et resources problems. I think that's where we are.
Droughts (lack of rain) in case others don't understand the typo.
You think that the war in Ukraine was caused by climate change? Can you expand on that?
Can't forsee covid though, nor the war in Ukraine
Without these two things we most likely wouldn't have blackouts
Without these two things we most likely wouldn't have blackouts
>What had not been foreseen was the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the associated general energy crisis in Europe...
>Can't forsee covid though, nor the war in Ukraine...
No-one in the corridors of power in the EU or UK, apparently.
If you plan for these events you'll quickly stop all imports and exports because you'd have to be self sufficient 24/7
> No-one in the corridors of power in the EU or UK, apparently.
The whole conflict is just the other party calling bluff. But both the West and Russia have invested so much neither is going to settle. So they up the stakes and get dragged downwards. The only thing left is to complain that “it’s unfair the the US is profiting”.
The whole conflict is just the other party calling bluff. But both the West and Russia have invested so much neither is going to settle. So they up the stakes and get dragged downwards. The only thing left is to complain that “it’s unfair the the US is profiting”.
As a European, it's not our problem. Ukraine isn't an EU member.
But we need electricity and industry.
But we need electricity and industry.
You might be right, but that’s not where the EU is at right now. You can’t see people protest in the EU capitals, can you? At least not the extent where the governments have to cut the aid.
And those pesky Norwegians.
USA, Europe, China, India, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and South Korea should just raise $1 trillion towards the sharing of nuclear reactor tech & know-how and renewables tech. Each government should raise another $1 trillion in debt to fund labor that will R&D, build and install more nuclear and more renewables 24/7 so that within 10 years from now we're carbon neutral. We have the technology to deploy and the labor sources available worldwide to create new productive jobs doing this right now, so what exactly is in the way?
Technology (Generation III+) is already shared with France, India, Finland, UK, Japan, China. Generation III+ are likely the most efficient/safe nuclear reactors at the moment. Ideally we would start to build hundred of them, so we could electrify our societies (including heat, transport, industry), and so we could transition faster to low carbon emissions world.
The main international cooperation seems to be for the nuclear fusion with ITER. "ITER has already been described as the most expensive science experiment of all time,[24] the most complicated engineering project in human history,[25] and one of the most ambitious human collaborations since the development of the International Space Station (€100 billion or $150 billion budget) and the Large Hadron Collider (€7.5 billion budget)".
The main international cooperation seems to be for the nuclear fusion with ITER. "ITER has already been described as the most expensive science experiment of all time,[24] the most complicated engineering project in human history,[25] and one of the most ambitious human collaborations since the development of the International Space Station (€100 billion or $150 billion budget) and the Large Hadron Collider (€7.5 billion budget)".
France is not alone in this. In a way it seems Europe in general is headed for a challenging winter when it comes to energy supply.
I wonder where this will lead.
I assume that once larger parts of the population start feeling the effects of these energy shortages, some dynamics might change.
At the moment, most do not seem to take much notice or care, not that I blame them. Life can be stressful enough as it is.
I wonder where this will lead.
I assume that once larger parts of the population start feeling the effects of these energy shortages, some dynamics might change.
At the moment, most do not seem to take much notice or care, not that I blame them. Life can be stressful enough as it is.
at the same time, gas supplies are at an all time high.
The main issue seems to be absolutely atrocious timing of nuclear reactor maintenance. (which is just bad luck).
> I assume that once larger parts of the population start feeling the effects of these energy shortages, some dynamics might change.
I sure as hell hope that the dynamic will increase in providing ukraine with the weapons required to end of the war far more quickly. From a geopolitical standpoint, making sure russia does not win this war or end it in a stalemate is absolutely vital for European stability.
Also, it could lead to further defence integration in europe. (this has already been fast tracked once the war started).
The main issue seems to be absolutely atrocious timing of nuclear reactor maintenance. (which is just bad luck).
> I assume that once larger parts of the population start feeling the effects of these energy shortages, some dynamics might change.
I sure as hell hope that the dynamic will increase in providing ukraine with the weapons required to end of the war far more quickly. From a geopolitical standpoint, making sure russia does not win this war or end it in a stalemate is absolutely vital for European stability.
Also, it could lead to further defence integration in europe. (this has already been fast tracked once the war started).
In what way will Ukraine winning (whatever that means) help us in terms of energy?
Best case scenario is a revolution in Russia leading to a new democratic free country that immediately withdraws from Ukraine, starts selling gas and what not for needed cash and goodwill, sends war criminals to The Hague, etc.
Of course that's highly unrealistic. There is very little chance of a peaceful settlement between today's Russia and today's Ukraine (what Ukraine wants - its territorial integrity and probably reparations and war crimes investigations, is simply incompatible with the very nature of Putin's regime and situation), thus there's very little chance for Russian gas to flow as it did before any time soon. Hopefully by the time it's again possible it would have been replaced by alternatives.
Of course that's highly unrealistic. There is very little chance of a peaceful settlement between today's Russia and today's Ukraine (what Ukraine wants - its territorial integrity and probably reparations and war crimes investigations, is simply incompatible with the very nature of Putin's regime and situation), thus there's very little chance for Russian gas to flow as it did before any time soon. Hopefully by the time it's again possible it would have been replaced by alternatives.
> Of course that's highly unrealistic.
That's very realistic, actually. We just need Germany to send the man.
That's very realistic, actually. We just need Germany to send the man.
Russia is already going broke. They could be forced to resume gas sales by financial need.
It's a shame that so much of the developed world just defaults to designs that require heating/cooling. Historically, we did a lot more passive solar -- often for the cooling part prior to AC, and then defaulting to wood burning stoves or whatever was standard tech for providing heat in a given era -- and it's a shame we have decided to pursue electricity-eating options rather than upping our game on passive solar design as the world has grown wealthier and more populous.
(Yes, I read the article. Yes, I realize this is temporary for France.)
(Yes, I read the article. Yes, I realize this is temporary for France.)
Developers will build the cheapest thing they're allowed to by code. While old world low energy homes were fairly custom, we know how to build low energy buildings and homes. The passive house standard [1] discusses repeatable low energy usage homes. The problem is that these designs are expensive. Developers build cheap houses that are only comfortable for use with lots of HVAC usage at low prices. People buy these cheap homes and then use energy to heat and cool. This places pressure on governments to keep energy prices low, which spurs higher consumption, and the cycle continues.
It doesn't help that most areas with jobs in the Anglo world are very expensive lots to build new housing. When the lot itself is so expensive, local governments will be loathe to mandate too much by code and make housing even less accessible. If France is better at reigning costs in, they should work on bringing their building codes up to lower energy standards.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
It doesn't help that most areas with jobs in the Anglo world are very expensive lots to build new housing. When the lot itself is so expensive, local governments will be loathe to mandate too much by code and make housing even less accessible. If France is better at reigning costs in, they should work on bringing their building codes up to lower energy standards.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house
More suffering all because one man is being allowed to be a tyrant.
I know little about France except I thought they were well regarded by pro-nuclear folks for building a standardized system of duplicate nuclear power plants around the country that all used the same model/parts/system. I guess that didn't work out.
BTW it's only 18 months until the Olympics at Paris 2024 and unless someone is going to drop a bunker-buster on baby-hitler-wannabe, his war on Ukraine is still going to be happening
I know little about France except I thought they were well regarded by pro-nuclear folks for building a standardized system of duplicate nuclear power plants around the country that all used the same model/parts/system. I guess that didn't work out.
BTW it's only 18 months until the Olympics at Paris 2024 and unless someone is going to drop a bunker-buster on baby-hitler-wannabe, his war on Ukraine is still going to be happening
What’s the reason that nuclear is so unreliable recently in France?
A bit of everything, 5 have been stopped due to cracks: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_corrosion_cracking
A few are having their once in a decade maintenance check
Some are waiting for maintenance which were delayed due to covid
We didn't train enough maintenance workers because everyone was talking about shifting out of nuclear in favor of renewable (we're using American contractors now afaik)
So mostly bad decisions and poor management, it's a political issue more than anything else, it worked fine since the 70s to more or less a decade ago
A few are having their once in a decade maintenance check
Some are waiting for maintenance which were delayed due to covid
We didn't train enough maintenance workers because everyone was talking about shifting out of nuclear in favor of renewable (we're using American contractors now afaik)
So mostly bad decisions and poor management, it's a political issue more than anything else, it worked fine since the 70s to more or less a decade ago
You forget to mention a key point: these maintenance workers were on strike and they were also part of the problem.
Why were they on strike?
The lack of power suggests it would have been worth a significant bonus for them to work, if it was money they wanted.
The lack of power suggests it would have been worth a significant bonus for them to work, if it was money they wanted.
At this point? It doesn't matter why they are on strike. They are always on strike.
Since WWII, the train company SNCF has been on strike -every- year. Except during covid because there was no train to be on strike from. Good luck getting a train for christmas, it's canceled. Same thing here. It's a crucial moment? It's very important for the french people? Go on a strike and ruin everything.
I live in France and I have no sympathy for these strikes. At least the Yellow Vests were striking on a Saturday. Everybody were pissed, but only on Saturdays!
Since WWII, the train company SNCF has been on strike -every- year. Except during covid because there was no train to be on strike from. Good luck getting a train for christmas, it's canceled. Same thing here. It's a crucial moment? It's very important for the french people? Go on a strike and ruin everything.
I live in France and I have no sympathy for these strikes. At least the Yellow Vests were striking on a Saturday. Everybody were pissed, but only on Saturdays!
Nothing is "unreliable recently", the mess is decade old, simply when EDF was private, after have acquired public made energy systems, they reduce investments to the minimum creating the present mess. Once the damage was so big they can't mask it again they left, leaving the mess to the public.
The public, who is abetter, have managed to push some excuses to avoid finger point any private friend and so reveal the mess all at once.
The public, who is abetter, have managed to push some excuses to avoid finger point any private friend and so reveal the mess all at once.
This is a made up history - EdF was never private, the state was always majority owner, by law limited to no less than 70% [1].
[1] https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/inves...
[1] https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/inves...
In the summer they had lots of cooling issues due to low water, if I remember the news correctly.
The article speaks of "ongoing or delayed maintenance, or corrosion problems" as the next reason for the problems.
The article speaks of "ongoing or delayed maintenance, or corrosion problems" as the next reason for the problems.
They had to limit the output of warmer water in the stream because it was so hot already there was no margin left.
Short answer: Lack of investment caused by incompetent politicians, supported by public opinion. Lot of French are anti-nuclear.
Wikipedia says the plants are managed by EDF, a private company. Ordinary asset management would have prevented known problems, so there must be a few things that went wrong at the same time.
A "private company", owned to 85% by the French state, taking price policy orders from the French state, getting regular cash injections from the French state to not go bankrupt.
EDF being a public company owned by the state means that it gets hurt by two things:
* It has to make money, instead of being a utility that the state provides, so decisions have to be taken in accord with all shareholders.
* When it does make these decision, well, politicians have been selling off EDF piece by piece on the right, and sacrificing it to get votes from the green party on the left.
All in all, incompetent fucks with a 5 year foresight running it like a pawn on a chessboard, happily sacrificing it to get a meager advantage.
* It has to make money, instead of being a utility that the state provides, so decisions have to be taken in accord with all shareholders.
* When it does make these decision, well, politicians have been selling off EDF piece by piece on the right, and sacrificing it to get votes from the green party on the left.
All in all, incompetent fucks with a 5 year foresight running it like a pawn on a chessboard, happily sacrificing it to get a meager advantage.
"Électricité de France S.A. (literally Electricity of France), commonly known as EDF, is a French multinational electric utility company, largely owned by the French state." - from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...
Investment in what? The plant is still running, no? Do they need more plants, repairs to existing, or upgrades to existing? How do I dig further?
> Do they need more plants, repairs to existing, or upgrades to existing?
All of these... but no political will because "nuclear bad, renewables good".
All of these... but no political will because "nuclear bad, renewables good".
Well, what is there to say given the state of Flamanville 3? Currently sitting at ~ €13 B compared to the initial estimate of €3.3 B. With a tentative start date for end of 2023.
All the while EDF is being nationalized. Should more money have been spent in even deeper pits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
All the while EDF is being nationalized. Should more money have been spent in even deeper pits?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
> Should more money have been spent in even deeper pits?
If we want electricity in a world without less fossil fuels, I'd say yes.
EDIT: renewable can't be the only solution. They are cheap only because they are built on top of existing nuclear/fossil solutions.
If we want electricity in a world without less fossil fuels, I'd say yes.
EDIT: renewable can't be the only solution. They are cheap only because they are built on top of existing nuclear/fossil solutions.
Renewables already fill that gap at vastly lower costs. Unless you specify that you're one of the about a million people living north of the arctic circle, then sure, do whatever you need.
[deleted]
> At the moment, half of the country's reactors are offline because of ongoing or delayed maintenance, or corrosion problems. The new generation of power stations has yet to be built.
Meanwhile, in Germany, pushing renewable energies is frowned upon and people are saying "look to France, they're doing nuclear, THAT would save us, too".
(Even more) Strange times ahead.
Meanwhile, in Germany, pushing renewable energies is frowned upon and people are saying "look to France, they're doing nuclear, THAT would save us, too".
(Even more) Strange times ahead.
This is a pretty good sign they either the people we are electing aren’t doing their job
, don’t actually care about their job or they’re just overwhelmed and or incompetent.
There has to be better oversight into what our tax payer money is going towards and for me personally, this is a prime example of where it’s not going in the right place?
There has to be better oversight into what our tax payer money is going towards and for me personally, this is a prime example of where it’s not going in the right place?
After Fukushima nuclear accident, France green party shot on French nuclear plants, it was the new cool thing to push for sustainable only energy and bring down our nuclear industry. Newly elected socialist president stared at the green party so he also pushed against. 10 years later we have no plumbers, no welders, old plans, no gas. And more to come : because of Ukraine war and increasing EV, electrical power consumption is anticipated to reach peaks and cause outages. Thats what you get when politicians only consider their popularity, ignoring what experts used to warn.
No one takes the Green Party seriously in France. They won a few cities because the socialists are a mess and people wanted to punish Macron but generally speaking they are only useful as the butt of jokes. It’s not a serious political party in any way.
I wonder how this will affect people's circadian rhythms and subsequent health benefits, prime time for a study.
Its funny how this is just a usual night in Indian cities where electricity cut happens daily - people will adjust and will be fine there is no need to panic, just put on more blankets and dont sleep naked
Is France now run by Texan Republicans?! Mon dieu!
daVe23hu(2)
My monthly electric bill, alone here in France, is 10-12€ https://imgur.com/grQqOdm (no heating and a good sleeping bag, lycra, socks for keeping the heat, no fridge (even in summer, no need for me), just a fan in summer, there's no discomfort, this simplicity is enjoyable, just saying this in case it can inspire more people
Do you work remotely?
yes, 100%
Awesome then. How do you manage to keep the bill that low?
Very few dependencies: a rice cooker, my laptop + phone, hair cutter, lights, fan in summer, washer very occasionally. No fridge (currently outside is the fridge, but not even in summer, I don't need one), no hot water and no heating besides natural heating (sun and my body and good clothes like lycra, sleeping bags)
What's bad for France here is that nuclear plants basically need to run all the time to be even remotely economical - I read recently the EdF is losing billions and billions this year. Personally I think the situation is a lot worse then what they're admitting. They keep saying all year everything is fine, but then miss deadlines. The futures market was already going really high earlier in the year, but it affected the surrounding countries as well. Recently though it exploded in France only after they again pushed some deadlines back. Even Macron came out recently and said they need to remove roadblocks for renewables and be faster to give permits, which was a pretty big change in rhetoric compared to the usual "we'll build new nuclear plants".
I think the next years are going to be renewables heavy in all of Europe, and people will be surprised how quickly things will change.