Unlike most technologies nuclear power plant building cost has increased over time (5 times) Mostly among other things (e.g lack of standardization except France), the huge current cost is because of irrational, overengeenered safety specifications. America could trivially build cheap power plants like in 70s and it would still make statistically less deaths than wind or solar and be the most cost effective energy source on earth.
Even taking into account modern occidental power plants, they are still mostly competitive with fossil and destroy other clean energy sources. Source: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/economic-a...
Everybody who works on these regulations realizes how absurd they are. They were driven by political rationals and not technical once.
The most cost efficient way today is to use renewable sources like wind and solar when they produce, and natural gas when they don't. Gas powered generators can on demand easily be turned on or off, and pipe lines makes the import/export very cost effective so it can reach the target market quickly with minimal costs. The combination also allow for partial build up and short time between investment and revenue, while nuclear plants have all the cost up front and take long time to build.
It should not be a major surprise that many new natural gas power plants is currently being built in the US, and in the rest of the world. If I read the articles/numbers correctly it is the most common type of new power plants being built, with the second most common being wind in areas where wind expect to be profitable.
The good news is that natural gas is also replacing coal and oil. The bad news is that they are replacing nuclear. Natural gas is about half as dirty as coal, but half as dirty as coal does not sound that great of a replacement for nuclear.
Russia and China disagree with you. The French and American troubles with building new nuclear plants is more linked to the demise of the state-driven industry in those countries than to some inherent difficulties with nuclear itself.
Plenty of opportunity for cost cutting.
This is incorrect.
The serious design flaw was that the 'stop the reactor reacting' button rapidly accelerated the reaction briefly, but long enough to cause a massive spike.
There were also human errors on the operations side.
Anatoli Diatlov gave INSANE orders that led to the catastrophe. With such a culture were an all powerful chief can send his technicians to gulag if they dare disobeying an accident like this could have happened even with the safest PWR.
With one exception (Flammanville, 11 years over schedule and 400% over budget) no new plants are planned.
No we aren't. The only plant expected to close soon is Fessenheim, but every others are planned to work for at least twenty more years. EDF just started «le grand carénage»[1] which is a big investment plan to make the plants work 10 more years, up to 60. (Which is in twenty years)
Source: my wife works at Dampierre en Burly's plant, which is one of the oldest running plant in France, and is part of this program (starting next year there).
A law («loi TECV») was voted in this direction a few years ago, stating that 35% of the reactors should be closed by 2025, but none of the four leading political parties in France have any will to respect it (including the current government, which is here to stay until 2022…). This law was 100% communication and nobody really believed it when it was passed.
[1]: https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage (in French only though)
My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown. Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France?
As to the 35% target, this is the first time I've read anyone state categorically that none of the plants will be shut down. It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen.
Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed?
Between 50 and 100 billions, yes. Which is between 1 and 2 billions per reactor.
> My understanding has been that it (the refit) applies to the remainder of the fleet after drawdown.
As I told you, even the oldest reactor are planned to be part of the plan,and it even started this year on the second oldest plant (Bugey). The oldest one being Fessenheim, which is the only one that will be closed.
> Has it been funded? Where is EDF obtaining the funds? Isn't EDF itself in need of a bailout from France
EDF has no money issue at the moment (because nobody's is counting the decommissioning, which is a different problem…). They earned 15 billion euros last year, so even if the enhancement plan were to cost 100 billions, it would be paid after 6 years, which is way profitable for something allowing you to run 20 more years.
> It seems strange to have a law passed that everyone agrees to disregard, but maybe that's how things happen.
Unfortunately It happens all the time: evrytime you see a law saying “<something> must be done in 10 years”, it's usually bullshit because the government passing the law won't be in charge at this point, so the next government will just cancel the law…
> Can you point us toward anything firm on which to base a belief that no plants other than fessenheim will be closed?
Do you really think EDF would spend 4 to 8 billions in Bugey if the plant was getting shut down 3 years after the end of the works ?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
You have to account for the externalities of the only cheaper thing out there (fossil fuels).
And then there's this
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...
Unless you're lucky to live next to hydro, or unless you do like China and steamroll over your citizens building massive hydro, there's nothing cheaper, overall, than nuclear.
Nobody ever could! Nuclear power generation, from its infancy, has been outrageously subsidized, both directly (i.e. DoE grants, government funding of waste disposal) and indirectly (industrial-scale refining of fuel as a side effect of the weapons industry). Once those sources dried up it just plain stopped making sense.
At the end of the day it needs to stand on its own to make sense, and it can't, especially when compared to its green (and largely unsubsidized!) competitors. People who really want this to happen need to solve the technical problems and then come back with a plan.
To riff on the title: it's not "anti nuclear" to be anti-pro-nuclear. Make it work first before shouting about it on the internet.
Against new green tech yes, it's a better argument.
Right, so I'll take cheap panels and turbines please. We should stop pushing the luxury reactors. We can't afford them if we actually want to spend the limited funds we have to save the planet.
Why? Why does such a critical piece of civilization NEED to make money on a free market? Why is it absurd to expect governments to help fund power generation like they are expected to fund other infrastructure (and healthcare, in most of the developed world)?
I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.
Sure, that doesn't go against what I said.
> I also disagree with your assertion that there are renewable technologies that compete with the reliability of Nuclear.
Neither can minicomputers compete with the reliability of mainframes, yet we've seen how that went. Reliability can be worked around with engineering. It'll be a messy mix of power sources, storage technologies and distribution networks, but it'll be cheap. Nuclear will keep existing - at the margins.
As a side note, it irritates me how often this is the case for many simple and important (but, apparently, hard) questions, that must have a correct answer.
The real nail in the coffin are the huge uncertainties and capital costs. Suppose projections show that electricity demand will rise by 1000MW over the next ten years so new reactor is built. But what if demand only rises by 500MW? Then you have wasted billions that won't ever be recouped.
I highly doubt they take the unreliability into account in their study. One MW of nuclear is worth much much more than a MW of solar or even worse wind since you can count on it.
I'd mention that there's not a single country in the world which currently succeeds as using solar & wind as their primary electricity generation.
Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If nuclear power megawatts was worth much more than wind power megawatts then why are many new wind farms being built but so few nuclear power plants? It seems to me that those who put their money where their mouth is do not think the superior reliability of nuclear power is enough to make their investments profitable.
Because of the initial investment, private companies already have trouble to project themselves just 5 years into the future and they lack the big picture. That's also why privately managed electricity generation just doesn't work.
> Anyway, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
I'll believe what I see as well, there's not a single country in the world which manages to use wind & solar as their primary electricity source and there's nothing indicating any could in the future.
> These show: advanced nuclear, 9.9 c/kWh ... wind onshore, 5.2 c/kWh; solar PV, 6.7 c/kWh; offshore wind, 14.6 c/kWh; and solar thermal, 18.4 c/kWh.
Two things to note.
1. A better comparative assessment is available here [1], specifically drawing your attention to page 1333.
2. The min/med/max numbers invite questions around the cause of such large disparities, and this leads you to ask what 'advanced nuclear' means in the citation you offered. Many of these very impressive LCOE and gmC/kW figures are for new designs of fission power plants, while we should be factoring in those costs & emissions of current installations that'll be maintained for the next few decades.
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
That is simply factually untrue. You can get cost effective nuclear plants from China or South Korea right now.
The core problem with nuclear has always been that if every reactor is a bespoke thing, it will be expensive. Mass production helps with nuclear as with everything else, that has been true whenever we saw a large expansion of nuclear power.
Trying GenIV reactors on a 'small' scale is simply not possible.
> The big problem is that nuclear is essentially a big government project, and America is very bad at those.
Then go to South Korea and order 50 reactors, give them access to US labor and let them build it.