Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by xenonite on Monday March 01, 2021 @04:48AM
(#26301133)
Regarding the decommission of the nuclear plants in Germany: I don't understand why they are shutdown early, because the major CO2 investment happens during construction. So wouldn't it make sense to leave the active nuclear plants running until their original retirement date, and rather shutdown the coal plants early?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by bjourne on Monday March 01, 2021 @05:02AM
(#26301220)
That's more or less what they are doing. Most of the reactors that have been shut down were built in the 1970s when safety standards weren't as strict as they are today. https://cnpp.iaea.org/countryprofiles/Germany/Germany.htm That is, the reactors were over 40 years old and were reaching their end-of-life dates anyway. Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective.
Essentially, this is what the nuclear phaseout entails; old plants are decommissioned and governments refrain from subsidizing the construction of new ones.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by revax on Monday March 01, 2021 @05:32AM
(#26301400)
>Upgrading them to conform to modern safety standards isn't cost-effective.
Why that? In France nuclear power plants are kept to the newest safety standards. Everything in a nuclear power plant can be replaced apart from the reactor vessel and the containment building.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by bjourne on Monday March 01, 2021 @06:23AM
(#26301684)
Because many of them were built before TMI and Chernobyl, in the 70's using designs from the 60's. It's similar to how maintenance on a car from the 70's probably isn't worth it.
Nuclear isn't working very well in France either. The reactor in Flamanville had an initial projected cost of 3.5 billion euros which has now ballooned to 12.4 billion euros and the project is over a decade late. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclear-idUSKBN24A... The French are also preparing to transition away from nuclear as more plants are being decommissioned.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by dispat0r on Monday March 01, 2021 @08:13AM
(#26302418)
You're arguing in bad faith. Yes the new reactors are expensive and late but also a new class EPR. There is also no plan from France to transation away from nuclear.
Re:Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)
by bjourne on Monday March 01, 2021 @10:14AM
(#26303465)
Ok, so the delays and cost overruns at Flamanville were caused by a new reactor type (and this wasn't factored into the original budget estimates I presume?). What were the cause for the delays and cost overruns at Hinkley Point, Olkiluoto, and Vogtle? France aims to reduce nuclear's share of its electricity output from 75% to 50% by 2035. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-edf-idUSKBN1ZK0RL We will see what happens, but given the record-low electricity prices and the Flamanville fiasco, France's nuclear phaseout may go even quicker.