Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SeeminglyBlue t1_j6vo15w wrote

Reply to comment by netz_pirat in No coal comeback: Europe’s renewable energy transition is in hyperdrive by Straight_Ad2258

it's still stupid, though. nuclear is the most efficient form of energy we currently have and shelling it in favor of something that doesn't even have 100% uptime (to say nothing of efficiency) is silly.

−1

netz_pirat t1_j6vyrqa wrote

You may want to check the great uptime of nuclear power plants in France.

Or how cheap their new reactor is.

1

SeeminglyBlue t1_j82ybxp wrote

you're misunderstanding. what nuclear needs to be worldwide is a direct replacement for coal (as in, a "backup" energy source) and not renewables (which should power the majority of the grid). it's stupid because they're still using coal for that purpose and ditching the cleaner one until they go 100% renewable (which should have a backup because right now, it's not 100% uptime).

reactors are never cheap anywhere- i never said they were, and they're only gonna get cheaper if we eliminate the social stigma around them and embrace the new tech.

france's reactors are old. look at the gen IV reactors for a better example of what nuclear could (and should) be worldwide.

1

netz_pirat t1_j83p18w wrote

Unfortunately, nuclear does not fulfill this role from an economic perspective.

Cost of nuclear energy is mostly build cost and maintenance, fuel costs are pretty low. So if you have one, you want to keep it at nominal power for as much time as possible, if you just use it as backup, each kwh is insanely expensive.

For coal and gas, it's the other way round. Building them is cheap in comparison, so is maintenance. They only cost money if they run... So they are pretty good backup plants.

Also... You mean the brand new plant of the EPR Type in Flamanville? Construction was supposed to take 5 years, were now at 15 and counting and cost has gone up from 3.3 to 19(!) billion €

1

netz_pirat t1_j83p5e1 wrote

Unfortunately, nuclear does not fulfill this role from an economic perspective.

Cost of nuclear energy is mostly build cost and maintenance, fuel costs are pretty low. So if you have one, you want to keep it at nominal power for as much time as possible, if you just use it as backup, each kwh is insanely expensive.

For coal and gas, it's the other way round. Building them is cheap in comparison, so is maintenance. They only cost money if they run... So they are pretty good backup plants.

Also... You mean the brand new plant of the EPR Type in Flamanville? Construction was supposed to take 5 years, were now at 15 and counting and cost has gone up from 3.3 to 19(!) billion €

1