Sure, because they want to diversify, and they too have anti-nuclear groups.SageBrush wrote:France is always brought up by the pro-nuclear group but they either do not know or decide not to mention that France is not building any new plants and is replacing those at end of service with renewables. This, despite the fact that they have invested truly huge sums into a nuclear industry that they try to export to other countries.GRA wrote: That is the case now, but wasn't always so, both France and the U.S. having increased capacity at a higher rate for a longer time with nukes than anyone has yet achieved with renewables.
Yup EDF has definitely been showing how not to do things with the current gen.SageBrush wrote:Does HInkley ring a bell ? France is smart enough to not eat its own dog food. From Wikipedia:That would be $8.2 USD per watt for yanks, although it does not include insurance, O+M, waste disposal or site remediation. As a nuclear proponent I'm sure you can estimate the cost of these undisclosed costs ? By the way, Hinkley Point C was announced by the government in 2010 and is "expected" to go online in 2027. All the other 7 nuclear plants also announced in 2010 are shelved as the UK has wisely pivoted to off-shore wind.Hinkley Point C nuclear power station (HPC) is a project to construct a 3,200 MWe nuclear power station with two EPR reactors in Somerset, England. The proposed site is one of eight announced by the British government in 2010, and in November 2012 a nuclear site licence was granted. On 28 July 2016 the EDF board approved the project, and on 15 September 2016 the UK government approved the project with some safeguards for the investment. The plant, which has a projected lifetime of sixty years, has an estimated construction cost of between £19.6 billion and £20.3 billion. The National Audit Office estimates the additional cost to consumers (above the estimated market price of electricity) under the "strike price" will be £50 billion, which 'will continue to vary as the outlook for wholesale market prices shifts'. Financing of the project is still to be finalised, but the construction costs will be paid for by the mainly state-owned EDF of France and state-owned CGN of China.
SageBrush wrote:Oh, and the stable of nuclear plants currently operating in the UK ? Not a one of them is expected to reach the end-of-life schedule originally advertised due to safety issues.
Sure, because we have added many safety requirements since they were designed and the cost of upgrading them is often not justifiable given the relatively short remaining life. Which says nothing about what a modern, safer plant could cost, although we know from the examples you've cited and some others that costs can easily spiral out of control through the combination of incompetence, corruption and litigation I've mentioned.
Speaking of other "plants that won't reach their intended lifespan, wind, especially offshore, has had major problems. Kentish Flats wind array had to have all its turbine gearboxes replaced within I think it was 18 months of installation, owing to corrosion problems. I imagine that may have thrown the LCOE calcs out more than a little:
https://www.bbc.com/news/10390377Thanet Offshore Wind Farm gearbox faults 'solved'
Sounds like some Teslas.. . . At the Kentish Flats, turbines have had serious maintenance problems and some are on their fourth gearbox. . . .
Then there was the problem with the attachment of the turbine towers to their bases:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-offsh ... H720100423Flaw hits hundreds of EU offshore wind turbines
None of this is to suggest that wind, PV etc. aren't worth doing, but any new tech is going to have unknown problems that develop, which tends to turn the rosy predictions of their promoters as to the cost and speed of their replacement of the existing tech into optimistic fantasies - Sweden's still waiting for willow tree farms to replace all of their nukes. IIRR that plan's a decade or two overdue, and has long since been abandoned.
Oh, just to repeat, I'm not a nuclear proponent, I'm a reluctant nuclear supporter given that I don't believe we can both replace the existing fossil-fuel generating capacity while simultaneously expanding it considerably to do many of the things (e.g. land transport, domestic heating etc.) that we now mostly do with fossil fuels, in a very restricted timeframe while using only VR. I've read the claims of both camps. I find the arguments of those who say we need to hold our noses and support nukes for now as the best among bad options while we transition to be more persuasive. I'd love to be proven wrong.