Comment by ZeroGravitas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ZeroGravitas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

France has no credible plan to replace and/or refurbish the reactors built decades ago by a socialist government cross-subsidizing its nuclear weapons program.

Even their "target" for 2035 is 20% less nuclear than today.

They just had to renationalize their nuclear builder due to it failing to build several reactors on time and on budget.

They signed contracts that put the costs on them if they failed so the French taxpayer is picking up the bill for UK nuclear cost overruns, and even then the UK electricity buyer is probably overpaying compared with offshore wind.

”Paris seeks UK loan guarantee after Hinkley Point nuclear plant costs soar”

https://www.ft.com/content/c1e3bd19-763b-4ea1-b188-d2872cc36...

A French view on the matter:

"There will be no new nuclear power plants in the West"

"There are better options, today (written in 2022)"

https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-new-nuc...

> To a large extent, French skepticism about renewables over the past 20 years was not unreasonable given that the country did not have carbon-spewing (and otherwise polluting) coal-fired plants to replace - it had and has a low-carbon and cost competitive power sector.

> But the long term trends have been up for the cost of nuclear, and down for the cost of renewables, to such an extent that the situation has now almost fully reversed.

> In the past 7 years, offshore wind has gone from >150 EUR/MWh to <50 EUR/MWh - under competitive tenders that see projects being completed within a couple of years of tariff allocation. Solar tenders are regularly won at lower prices, often below 25 EUR/MWh.

> Even their "target" for 2035 is 20% less nuclear than today.

I highly doubt it, French reactors have an average of 40 years of operation, and it is very credible to think it will be extended to 60 years, and I would aim for 80+.

That said, flamanville will go into operation this year and 6 reactors will be built, where each of these reactors realistically will have the power of 1.5 current reactor.

French nuclear power will generate the vast majority of French energy in the future as well, sorry to see you annoyed by that.

Probably a French mistake was to have invested everything in nuclear, not being able to vary easily with peaks. I expect the nuclear share to drop at 50-60 percent in the future to cover the rest with renewables.

But this possible scenario says little about your defeatism and pessimism toward nuclear power, but rather it's a pragmatic approach to the subject.

Regarding Hinkley Point, always the same thing, how boring. I'd like to point out, that the second reactor at Hinkley Point is begin build at a rate 20-30% faster than the first. I expect further efficiencies with the EPR2s.

I'm quoting the French governments target of 50% nuclear, down from about 70% today.

You yourself say:

> I expect the nuclear share to drop at 50-60 percent in the future to cover the rest with renewables.

So what bit are you actually disputing or disagreeing with?

The 6 reactors you mention are I assume the ones with a vague uncosted plan due for first delivery of electricity in 2035-40 (if they meet their timetable!)

> I'd like to point out, that the second reactor at Hinkley Point is begin build at a rate 20-30% faster than the first.

20-30% faster than a project that is (currently!) 50% over time estimated and the most recent delay was announced only months ago.

So they're slower than their promised delivery times even after building several and they celebrate that as a success in their press releases to distract from all the bad news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com