France's most powerful nuclear reactor connected to grid after 17-year build

www.lemonde.fr France's most powerful nuclear reactor connected to grid after 17-year build

The opening of the European Pressurized Reactor in Flamanville comes 12 years late on the initial schedule.

Summary

France’s Flamanville 3 nuclear reactor, its most powerful at 1,600 MW, was connected to the grid on December 21 after 17 years of construction plagued by delays and budget overruns.

The European Pressurized Reactor (EPR), designed to boost nuclear energy post-Chernobyl, is 12 years behind schedule and cost €13.2 billion, quadruple initial estimates.

President Macron hailed the launch as a key step for low-carbon energy and energy security.

Nuclear power, which supplies 60% of France’s electricity, is central to Macron’s plan for a “nuclear renaissance.”

Nuclear Energy @feddit.nl

France's most powerful nuclear reactor connected to grid after 17-year build

www.lemonde.fr /en/france/article/2024/12/21/france-s-most-powerful-nuclear-reactor-connected-to-grid-after-17-year-build_6736344_7.html

32 0

You're viewing a single thread.

260 comments

At least this one is on the coast so it can still run when the rivers dry up.
But holy shitsnacks 3½ times slower than planned and 4 times more expensive. No wonder no new nuclear power plants have been built in a generation when the ones coming online now were all delayed by a generation.
- Some anti nuclear groups do everything they can to slow down nuclear builds, putting as many road blocks in the way as possible. Then when it's slow they say: see, building nuclear plants is slow!
  
  Did the anti nuclear people inflate the cost fourfold, too?
  
  Yes, impeding something is ultimately an increase in cost. That's how it works.
  
  The only miscalculation of the cost by -four times- was due to protest of anti nuclear protestors, according to you?
  Source pls?
  
  Source for what you said?..
  
  I was reacting to what /u/DaviddoesLemmy and /u/ryedaft were saying.
  You need to take the two parent posts in consideration for my argument.
  
  Are you suggesting that delays don't impact the cost? Or that the impact of those delays doesn't account for the 4x budget overrun?
  I think it's only one factor in the budget overrun, but still worth mentioning.
  
  I'm not saying that. But saying that the only cause the project went over budget was over those protests is equally ridiculous, no?
  
  True, but I never said that. It was once cause.
  
  No that was the confusing aspect. /U/rottingleaf began a counter argument that kind of skewed your point. At first I thought it was you. But it became confrontational soon.
  I just wanted to put a mild argument in that if it went over budget by that far there must've been other reasons.
  
  If you are paid $1 an hour and it takes 6 hours that is $6
  If you work 12 hours that is $12
  12>6
  The problem with nuclear is that as a bombing target it has a greater impact than a solar farm. Having said that it was once a goal for every Canadian to have a reactor in their basement
  
  Politics are part of the system though. But if strategic supply of oil, gas, coal from undemocratic regimes was simply off the table, constitutionally forbidden and all that, I think nuclear energy would suddenly become more competitive. Because the financing of such groups would suffer.
- 4 times budget sounds more than it is. You have to underbid to actually get contracts for construction and then it also depends on what was actually missing in the specification.
  Big projects are never on budget because the budget is just an arbitrary number of lowballing the best case estimate
  
  Also any project that takes longer than the initial estimate will be overbudget, not only because you are paying local workers for longer (fairly good for the economy) but simply because inflation has happened more since the project started.
  
  Yeah, also financing cost for equipment and material sitting around which usually comes as a cost to the contractor.
  
  ... but we make decisions about economic viability on that basis??
  
  My state has been building a new interstate highway in segments for the last 1.5 decades and for the segment nearest me the main construction contract was awarded to a major french company. The french company thought the project was an upfront full payout, but the state had it set up as a piecemeal payment system based on hitting specific objectives. Upon finding this out the company halted all work and abandoned the job until the state took over the project 18 months later.
  This reminds me of that.
  
  The french company thought the project was an upfront full payout, but the state had it set up as a piecemeal payment system based on hitting specific objectives.
  I pretty much just don't believe you.
  "How & when will we get paid" is a core component of tenders even for contracts worth a few thousand dollars. I'm incredulous that a contract worth many millions could be awarded without anyone realising that payments were provided in stages.
  What you're describing sounds much more like a disagreement over a variation. Whatever aspect of the project was going to cost more than anticipated so the contract needs to be varied. Service acquirer refuses to vary, contractor refuses to absorb the cost.
  
  You might be right. It's a memory from 5-6 years ago and when I did some further digging in response to your comment, I couldn't find any news stories that explained the exact reason why the company halted work but I did get a major detail wrong in finding that it was a Spanish company and that they were already on the brink of insolvency.
- As others have mentioned, it isn't for a practical reason. Nuclear is not that difficult to build. Look at China. Certain groups (funded by dirty energy companies) have pushed an idea that nuclear isn't safe and had more and more bureaucracy and regulations pushed onto it. Sure, some is needed, as it's also needed for other sources. Nuclear has been strategically handicapped though because they know it'd destroy their business if it's able to compete on a level playing field.
  
  The most unimaginably, but historically stupid thing was "green" activists protesting against nuclear power and for coal and gas.
  And yes, nuclear power is very efficient. What makes it most efficient is the ability to very quickly regulate output, the improved logistics, and smaller reliance on beheading, culture-erasing, genocidal, revisionist savages getting everywhere.
  
  Turning a reactor on and off is not as easy. They're designed as baseload power that is meant to run continuously. SMR are the ones that are quick and responsive but those are always a couple of years away.
  
  The ones in service right now are mostly/all designed that way, but that's a design decision rather than an inherent limitation. They cost basically the same to run whether they're at maximum output or minimum, so they're most cost-effective as base load and if you need responsive output, you can probably build something else for less money. If you ignore that and build one anyway, you only need fast motors on the control rods and the output can be changed as quickly as throttling gas turbines, but there's no need for that if you know you're just building for base load.
  
  changed as quickly as throttling gas turbines
  Nuclear power plants aim to finely balance the reaction between delayed criticality - a very slow exponential increase in the level of radioactivity, and marginal sub-criticality - i.e. a very slow exponential decrease in the level of radioactivity.
  To get faster exponential growth in power output than delayed criticality is physically possible - past delayed criticality is prompt criticality. However, fast exponential growth of radioactive output on time scales so short that machines cannot react is not something you ever want to happen in a civilian nuclear application; only nuclear weapons deliberately go into the prompt critical region, and an explicit aim of nuclear power plant design is to ensure the reaction never goes into the prompt critical region.
  This means that slow exponential changes is the best the technology can do (and why plants need active cooling for a period of time even when shutting down - see Fukushima when their reactors were automatically shutting down due to the detection of an earthquake, but their cooling power infrastructure got flooded while they were decreasing their output).
  I think the most promising future development will be more renewable capacity coupled with better long-distance transmission and batteries (ideally sodium when the tech is ready).
  
  You're not throttling between 0% output and 100% output, as that takes weeks or months, and instead throttling within a limited range at the upper end of the output power. Because a nuclear reactor puts out so much power compared to a combined cycle gas turbine, going down to 80% power has a comparable impact to totally shutting down a gas turbine. It doesn't need to be instant to be used for dynamic load - throttling a gas turbine isn't as it takes time for the heat exchanger to warm up or cool down after increasing or decreasing the fuel flow, and time for the first turbine to speed up or slow down after the flow of the Brayton-cycle coolant changes, and then more time for the second heat exchanger to heat up/cool down and more time for the Rankin-cycle turbine to speed up or slow down as the flow of steam changes, and only then is the new desired output power achieved.
  Wikipedia puts the average emission time for delayed neutrons at fifteen seconds, which while ludicrously slow compared to a bomb, is really fast compared to the day-night cycle that represents most dynamic load variance in a country with plenty of renewables or heavy industry that doesn't operate at night time, so there's plenty of time for the power output to respond as long as you're restricting the range that it's operating in.
  
  That said, now that solar and wind are cheaper, conservative politicians are finally pushing for nuclear, because 17 more years of building at 4 times the budget means more fossil fuels in the meantime compared with spending those government funds on solar and wind.
  
  Certain groups (funded by dirty energy companies) have pushed an idea that nuclear isn't Safe
  Nuclear isn't safe. You should still not pick mushrooms in parts of germany because it isn't. It's an inherently dangerous technology, which you can only try to mitigate.
  Nuclear has been strategically handicapped though because they know it'd destroy their business if it's able to compete on a level playing field.
  Nuclear can only work because it is heavily subsidized. If it had to compete on a level playing field, not a single plant would ever have been built in history, as they are uninsurable on the free market and no investor would touch them with a stick without huge government guarantees.
  It's the most expensive form of power generation there is, and in 2024 with renewables as good as they are it is just plain unnecessary to sink resources into this dead end.
  
  Nuclear isn't safe.
  By amount of power generated, compared to other sources, yes, it is, and it's safer now than ever in the past. The only source of power safer is large-scale PV.
  https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charted-safest-and-deadliest-energy-sources/
  https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
  If you want to disagree, provide some sources. Sure, some disasters have happened, but even those haven't been as bad as portrayed and the risks have been significantly mitigated, to the point where it's practically impossible to happen again outside of very specific circumstances. The fact you can't eat mushrooms in some places in negligible compared to the entire world being damaged by coal and other dirty energy.
  Nuclear can only work because it is heavily subsidized.
  This is total BS. It's only unprofitable for a few reasons only nuclear has to deal with. They have a lot more regulations and stuff they have to pay for. For example, all nuclear waste is contained and stored by nuclear power generators (in the western world at least). They have to pay for this. No other power source has to pay this cost. They just release the waste and it's a negative externality everyone else has to deal with, but not them.
  For a visualization of this, check out this graph from wikipedia:
  
  (Edit: embed didn't work for me at least, but this one.)
  The cost of Nuclear went up over time, despite the technology advancing. Why? Because more regulations were passed to force it to cost more. That's the only reasonable conclusion. It didn't get more difficult to perform nuclear fission. It should, at minimum, be cheaper than coal and offshore wind.
  
  Hey, you left out this Wiki page
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_power_accidents_by_country
  
  At least 57 accidents and severe incidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and over 56 severe incidents have occurred in the USA. Relatively few accidents have involved fatalities, with roughly 74 casualties being attributed to accidents and half of these were those involved in the Chernobyl nuclear disaster.
  Yeah, this doesn't say what you think it says. More people fall off of rooftops installing solar panels than casualties are caused by nuclear accidents.
  
  When people fall off a rooftop, you don't have to make an exclusion zone around it for hundreds of years.
  
  And you don't need to for most nuclear accidents either.
  
  I think that's the point here. OP is claiming that nuclear is overburdened by regulations, which normally protects people. But when they go wrong or aren't followed, it changes the map.
  
  That OP is me. Yeah, you're right. Some are required. The same for any other power source. Coal, for example, constantly sprays radioactive waste into the sky, and they aren't burdened by it. Nuclear is singled out, and that's because it's a risk to existing industries. It isn't so burdened out of actual need.
  
  That's why I'm hoping for the smaller modular designs that can be certified and studied very well.
  
  Well I ain't going to simp for nuclear, oil, gas or coal.
  
  If you're anti-nuke, you're probably already simpling for oil, gas, and coal.
  
  Fuck nuclear.
  Fuck oil.
  Fuck LPG.
  Fuck coal.
  Edit: wow, so many simping for the four above.
  
  Also, fuck solar and wind because the waste they require right? Fuck batteries because they cause a lot of pollution to create!
  I can say fuck all kinds of things. At least I pretend to have a reason. You can't even be bothered to do that.
  
  Solar and wind don't produce anywhere as much waste. And the land involved can be easily repurposed, unlike ex-nuclear sites which cannot. Not without bilions being spent and years in clean up investment.
  Hey, here's an opinion for you: fuck you. Was that pretend? I will never support nuclear.
  
  you're half based, half NoO wE mUsT tRaNsItIoN wItHoUt LoWeR pOlLuTiOn MaTeRiALs
  
  Should I kiss the atom instead?
  
  A nuclear booster's excuse dichotomy:
  If someone says, "nuclear isn't safe," respond "nuclear is heavily regulated and perfectly safe!"
  If someone says, "nuclear is comically expensive," respond "that's only because of regulation!"
  
  You're pretending I said something I didn't. It's perfectly safe because of all the safeguards in place. Some regulations are needed, but it's over-regulated. Anyone who doesn't have their head in their ass can see this. Nuclear power generators have to contain all of their fuel (and pay in advance for the privilege), meanwhile coal spews radioactive material everyone at no cost to themselves. Does that seem reasonable?
  Nuclear has caused very few deaths and little damage relative to most other power sources. It is safer than ever and only getting safer. It's a fantastic base-load power source. If you factor in storage to green energy (which I approve of too) it becomes even more expensive than nuclear. Nuclear doesn't need storage as it can ramp up at any time. Green energy is great for peak-demand during the day, but when it's not available or not sufficient, nuclear is an ideal option to make up for it.
  
  You should still not pick mushrooms in parts of germany because it isn’t.
  My gullible cabbage-eating friend, mushrooms are mostly safe to eat even around the Chernobyl station itself.
  I mean, not now probably, there are landmines and rotting corpses and what not. But before 2022 they were.
  And if you'd read something on the subject, you'd know it. Don't be like flat-earthers and homeopathy proponents. Also "half-life" is not just a video game.
  Nuclear can only work because it is heavily subsidized. If it had to compete on a level playing field, not a single plant would ever have been built in history, as they are uninsurable on the free market and no investor would touch them with a stick without huge government guarantees.
  That's not how it happened historically. Nuclear energy became more and more expensive due to regulations explicitly intended to press it out entirely. Just slowly.
  People feared nuclear bombs and transferred that fear onto nuclear energy. It's irrational.
  
  Nuclear is subsidized? I think you've got that backwards. Renewables are HEAVILY subsidized in many places (rightfully so), nuclear isn't.
  Nuclear would be, in fact, the cheapest form of generation if you factor in storage which is a requirement for a functional grid based on renewables, and aforementioned regulatory handicaps weren't in place.
  A grid based on nuclear for the base load (the always-on stuff like various industries) + renewables is a far better solution than dragging on fossil fuels for longer and longer, or trying to make 100% renewables work with gigantic amounts of expensive storage.
  
  Those mushrooms are pretty much completely safe to eat, but sure, keep burning coal instead.
  
  The guy probably doesn't know burning coal causes radioactive pollution too. All the time, not in emergencies, unlike with nuclear power.
  
  I'm sorry, where in his post did they mention coal?
- No wonder no new nuclear power plants have been built in a generation when the ones coming online now were all delayed by a generation.
  I encourage you to take a look at any infrastructure project.
  Going over budget and past deadlines is normal.
- The hope of these new small modular reactors is they can cut the time down.
  Less land, mass manufactured in a factory and shipped to location.
  That should help with estimated costs being closer to real costs.
  Even if they're still expensive, being able to better plan and predict things is huge.
  
  Except that's all been tried and promised before. The concept of SMRs is nothing new. It's been tried again and again, every few years since the 1970s. It's never panned out, and the promised savings from mass production of small reactors never materializes.
  
  It might have been promised for awhile, but we're finally at the point of certain plans getting government approvals. It takes time. We might start seeing some finally start to get built in the 2030's
  Edit: This ones says 2029 operational, but see, it wasn't even certified until 2023, and this is the first SMR certified in the USA. Its taken forever to get SMRs certified.
  https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nrc-certifies-first-us-small-modular-reactor-design
- It doesn't help when all the senior employees from last time you built a reactor have retired and anyone who hasn't retired was pretty junior the last time around. For projects where you have to get everything right the first time, so can't just try things to see what works, it's devastating to stop doing them if you ever might need to start again.
  
  Yeah, that's the whole joke.
- The full price is still less than 1/4 of Doge Coin’s market cap.
- 4 times for expensive is not too bad, big projects usually overrun. It's even God considering the time overrun, which is shocking.
- In my mother's hometown, they finally decided which architect would redesign the townhall after it's roof burnt down. Five years ago. And this is a rich town. France is fucking useless at getting shit done fast. It's depressing really. This plant finally getting built is a fucking miracle!

260 comments