Edit: Added english article. Thanks for the downvotes.
[0]https://www.grs.de/en/news/situation-nuclear-power-plants-fr...
In German: [1]https://www.iwr.de/news/stromausfall-edf-abgeschaltete-atomk...
Edit: Added english article. Thanks for the downvotes.
[0]https://www.grs.de/en/news/situation-nuclear-power-plants-fr...
In German: [1]https://www.iwr.de/news/stromausfall-edf-abgeschaltete-atomk...
And, of course, they investigated why this happened, and it was because of anti-nuclear politics.
A Whole power plant with multiple reactors was closed to appease Germany, for example.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/interview/french-mp-...
And enough water IS available for cooling. The output was only reduced in some power plants because the temperature difference between river inlet and river outlet was too big, which could cause issues to animals in the water. This was less than 0.2% of the total electricity produced by nuclear in 2022. There is an easy fix though: cooling towers.
I don't think France's nuclear situation is as dire, but it does expose some of nuclear's weaknesses: need for fresh water, and maintenance (which was overdue).
Edit: it was downvoted but seems to have come back up.
Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself anti-nuclear according to any of the standard anti-nuke arguments, and was extremely pro-nuclear power in the US in the 2000s. However the experiences of advanced economies with very high productivity and labor costs (France, US, Finland) have completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear in the future, as the tech doesn't work that well and is very expensive. Even the country very best at construction, China, is only planning another 50GW or so, which is a tiny tiny fraction of any other new energy source that they are investing in. And if the best in the world at large construction projects is only putting in a token effort, I don't know why we in the US, who suck at large construction, should attempt more boondoggles. And in researching the history of nuclear, I find that it has always been this way, not so great. I think it only gets ardent supporters these days because of its prominence in SF.
Happened a few times only in 2022 because of covid + an issue affecting many plants being discovered as far as I know. Now being fixed. Otherwise worked pretty well for decades.
NREs being extremely often at <50% capacity, even practically zero in windless nights, is expected behavior.
The reason they're relying on German coal right now is because they stopped building new nuclear plants because gas was too cheap, there was too much geopolitical stability for it to be strategically advantageous and it was not politically attractive to spend money on. None of these are arguments against nuclear, but the results of short sighted decisions. Nuclear is only more expensive than gas if you don't count the effect on climate, the dependence on oil producing nations, the health effects of airborne particles.
France has like 80% nuclear power, and most of the nuclear plants are actually underutilized! Why would France not use the plants at 100%? Because electricity is kind of fungible, except at massive scales where it totally isn't, and you can't "just" have power generated in the south be used in the north.
Nuclear is more expensive than gas, but once again it is worth pointing out that it is more expensive than solar and wind! Does this mean that we can replace all of the reactors with solar or wind? Obviously not. But if you're sitting there trying to produce energy in places that are not as close to the existing reactors, building energy production facilities that don't take decades to build (for "building big things takes time" reasons) and can work without a constant inflow of water (which is a practical and real concern for these power plants).
Because more electricity is needed in during certain times, like during the day or when it's winter.
This is less of a problem in other places that have less nuclear power setup because they can be used to cover the baseline. Now, EDF is turning off reactors over the weekend cuz the power isn't needed, and in periods of high demand EDF doesn't actually have the capacity, because they don't have much peak generation!
Building more nuclear plants to cover peaks would make everything even more expensive, And decomissioning reactors entirely would cause their own massive issues because, again, electricity generation is not fungible.
One would (correctly!) point that most renewables don't help with peak generation either, and you would be right. But if you're planning on decomissioning a nuclear power plant, replacing some of that capacity with renewables at least gets your operating costs down. And energy storage solutions that are more fungible... well... you walk and chew bubble gum. Use what you have, and build what makes sense. Just in 2023 your choices for clean power generation for energy storage are vast.
It's a complex topic, and I appreciate the more detailed responses about the french situation.
Edit: Let me add the fact, that France seems to have trouble training enough personnel for these highly complex plants, rightfully so to protect the environment from the dangers of radiation. Considering the demographics of Europe in general, that is a troubling development for maintenance of these power plants decades into the future.
You are excused.
In my opinion even though indeed you present facts neutrally, your choice of facts seemed intended to make it seem as though nuclear reactors being turned off is somehow something generally a problem with nuclear reactors.
In the same line of reasoning as before, if France and the rest of the world had continued their investment in a thriving nuclear industry then getting new talent might not have been such a pressing issue.
>(Montel) French utility EDF is unable to self-finance the construction of new nuclear reactors due to its EUR 65bn debt and so needs state funding, CEO Luc Remont told a hearing of France’s lower house on Wednesday.
https://www.montelnews.com/news/1511372/french-state-must-fu...
Meanwhile Germany and the US is making billions by auctioning the right to build off-shore wind.
> Germany’s first dynamic bidding process, covering four offshore wind zones with a combined capacity of 7 GW, has generated EUR 12.6 billion in proceeds, according to the Federal Network Agency.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/12/breaking-germany-rak...
> U.S. Offshore Wind Power Auction Nets Record $4.37 Billion
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-offshore-wind-power-auction...
I have a hard time seeing France as a success story to emulate today. Choosing nuclear was the right choose to gain energy independence in the 70s, today the equivalent choice are renewables.
The wind farms are awesome, and I'm super happy that the current economic and geopolitical climate and the technological advancements are making them possible and financially attractive to build. But in the end success is measured in TWh delivered. And France has been delivering 300TWh+/y of clean electricity for 40 years straight. And the 7GW that's gonna deliver ~20TWh/year is cool, but we need a whole lot more of it before it can be deemed as much a success as France's nuclear endeavour has been.
Today the equivalent choice when rebuilding our energy systems are renewables.
Case in point, already in 2021 renewables delivered more TWh globally per year than all existing nuclear [1], we are still early in the buildout. The tender in 2024/25 for German north sea wind auctions will be ~10 GW. [2]
[1]: https://imgur.com/JYMNAWR
[2]: https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insight...