Why Nuclear Must Be Part Of The Energy Solution (2018)

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]

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.

[ Parent | on HN ]