Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-25

[Duque de Bragança]

"Other" EU countries still have nuclear plants, however.

Can't find it right now, but I read an article that nuclear power could substitute about 1-1.5% of German gas consumption.

By the way, in the first quarter of 2022, Germany exported more electricity to the EU than the capacity of our three remaining nuclear plants. One reason is that France has like half its nuclear capacity under maintenance.

Yes.
Assuming some minimal competence, I expect the maintenance to be mostly over when the winter Putin-motivated shortages strike. Otherwise, some temporary shortages will be organised (rotating ones). Some energy saving messages have already started to appear, but nothing as in the '70s, yet.

[Zanza]

Exported as a continuation down the line, or resold by German companies?

Imports and exports are done by private (heavily regulated) companies here.

[Zoupa]

Germany is in trouble if the Russians don't then turn Nordstream 1 back on. No cheap Russian gas for their export industries and home heating come winter.

Half of the gas in Nordstream 1 was exported to other EU countries (some of which claimed not to buy Russian gas anymore) and with the liberalized gas market in the EU, this will not just be a German problem...

"Other" EU countries still have nuclear plants, however.

Not to mention the liberalised gas market stops at the Pyrénées, for those without nuclear power. Iberian countries get all their gas from Algeria and/or Nigeria anyways. Italy is also linked to North African gas, so that should mitigate their very heavy exposure to Russian gas.

Central (including Germany) and Eastern Europe is definitively in trouble, with Finland particularly vulnerable among the Nordic countries.

Natural gas accounts for just some 5% of total energy consumption in Finland, a country of 5.5 million. Almost all of that gas comes from Russia, and is used mainly by industrial and other companies with only an estimated 4,000 households relying on gas heating.

[Zanza]

Yes.
Assuming some minimal competence, I expect the maintenance to be over when the winter Putin-motivated shortages strike.

At the pace France is replacing its aging nuclear capacity, it is likely to become a bigger issue in the future.

These are installations from the 70s and 80s, some close to 50 years old by now.

And France does not seem to have the capability to replace them when looking at Flamanville or Olkiluoto. EdF must be nationalized due to its poor financial situation.

Nuclear power seems a dead technology in the West unless there is a huge push towards building much more plants in a standardized way. Let's see if any of those "nuclear renaissance" policies you hear occasionally will actually become reality.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

anti-nucleair sentiment must rank amongst the dumbest things done in the last 40 to 50 years or so. We squandered away a technological lead for nothing.

[Duque de Bragança]

Macron has pushed for a nuclear renaissance, but like most of his policies, at best, the results remain to be seen.

Flamanville seems to be mostly working now, but the privatisation and separation of EDF and GDF, linked before, (gas sold to Suez) made for terrible results.
Not to mention lots of qualified blue-collar expertise lost, which was disastrous for Flamanville (too much low-quality sub-contracting) and the Finnish version Olkiluoto.

EPR definitively had it teething problems.

As for being dead in the West given the gas shortages and price hikes soon to come, I would not bet it. Perhaps in Germany, with the nefarious influence of the so-called Greens.

[Duque de Bragança]

Natural gas accounts for just some 5% of total energy consumption in Finland, a country of 5.5 million. Almost all of that gas comes from Russia, and is used mainly by industrial and other companies with only an estimated 4,000 households relying on gas heating.

I would be more optimistic if their EPR  in Oikiluoto was running as scheduled, but yes there is more than gas. They also have other reactors than EPR-type.

Not to mention that hydro only accounts for 19%, (nuclear 33%) the rest is oil (lots from Russia); coal, from Poland and some imported from Russia... They are still burning peat as well. 

[Zanza]

There are 55 reactors under construction right now in the world. Three in Western Europe (Flamanville, Hinkley Point C and D), two smaller Russian ones in Slovakia, two in the US (Vogtle).

China is building 20, India 8, a couple exports and domestic by Korea and Russia.

Unless there is some serious policy building nuclear plants in significant series, you will constantly run into engineering, supply chain and construction issue that bedeviled the existing Western projects.

If you want to reduce climate emissions by building new nuclear power, it must be much faster then the 10-20 years it took for most of the recent projects.

I am not opposed to nuclear power, but I fail to see the renaissance. I think it is much more likely to be outpaced by renewables that need less upfront investment and have earlier breakeven.

[Sheilbh]

Although in fairness to Hinckley Point 10-20 years is about the standard timeframe for any major (or, indeed, minor) infrastructure in the UK not just nuclear

[Duque de Bragança]

Unless there is some serious policy building nuclear plants in significant series, you will constantly run into engineering, supply chain and construction issue that bedeviled the existing Western projects.

Something like the French state did from the '60s to the '80s? Does not seem in the realm of impossible. It's not like the oil shocks were anticipated correctly in the '70s.

Now Macron may not be the best one to lead such a dirigiste/colbertiste effort (the horror!), French-style, but then he is the one who claims there is not a French culture, so hardly a reference.

I am not opposed to nuclear power, but I fail to see the renaissance. I think it is much more likely to be outpaced by renewables that need less upfront investment and have earlier breakeven.

In practical and recent terms, the German renewable system means relying on coal and gas, not just because Germany is not exactly sunny save perhaps for the Agri Decumates, so colour me skeptical.
With people demanding more and more A/C, even in temperate if not cool climates, energy demand will not just be high in winter anyways (personal rant I hate excessive A/C for the sore throats in summer end of rant).

Go tell that to Macron, he is the one who came up with renaissance (recycled it for the French name of his European coalition).

As for know-how being lost during the 20 years or so (1990 to 2010 roughly) when not many nuclear plants were made that's hardly a surprise.[/quote]

[Zanza]

Something like the French state did from the '60s to the '80s? Does not seem in the realm of impossible. It's not like the oil shocks were anticipated correctly in the '70s.

Yes, like that. It's not impossible, I just don't expect it to happen.

In practical and recent terms, the German renewable system means relying on coal and gas, not just because Germany is not exactly sunny save perhaps for the Agri Decumates, so colour me skeptical.

Let's see. I predict Germany will reach 80% renewables before any of those promised 8-10 new French reactors is online. But both will take time, so unless Languish is still around by 2030 we will never know.

[Duque de Bragança]

Yes, like that. It's not impossible, I just don't expect it to happen.

Same for me for the German swith to renewables.

Let's see. I predict Germany will reach 80% renewables before any of those promised 8-10 new French reactors is online. But both will take time, so unless Languish is still around by 2030 we will never know.

Apples and oranges, France does not need those 8-10 reactors as urgently as Germany needs to go cold turkey on Russian energy (next winter).
Yes, by 2040 the current nuclear plants will have to be substituted.

It will obviously take time; it would have been much quicker had Germany stayed onboard nuclear and not copped out for demagogy and corruption reasons.
As a matter of fact, Siemens was part of the early EPR design.

PS: pessimistic about languish or expecting the apocalypse? 

[The Larch]

Nuclear power seems a dead technology in the West unless there is a huge push towards building much more plants in a standardized way.

I've been saying that every time there are talks of a nuclear renaissance. The failures of Olkiluoto and Flamanville (by comparison Hinkley Point is a success story!) have buried it, as well as Nukegate in the US, together with a few of the biggest names in the industry. Nuclear in the west, absent a massive state intervention, is dead and getting slowly buried, and not due to tree huggers or any other boogeyman, but by hard finances and the industry's own failures.

France is indeed in quite the pickle, with an aging bunch of nuclear stations that will need to be replaced in the short term (17 of its reactors, a third of France's total, will be decomissioned by 2025, according to past plans), and no clear new nuclear tech with which to do so. In this context EdF's nationalisation doesn't seem like a good omen, unless they plan on going full dirigist.

[Duque de Bragança]

I've been saying that every time there are talks of a nuclear renaissance. The failures of Olkiluoto and Flamanville (by comparison Hinkley Point is a success story!) have buried it, as well as Nukegate in the US, together with a few of the biggest names in the industry. Nuclear in the west, absent a massive state intervention, is dead and getting slowly buried, and not due to tree huggers or any other boogeyman, but by hard finances and the industry's own failures.

The so-called "hard finances" fails to take into account strategic interests such as energy independence. Given the prices paid by the end consumer in Germany (bad personal memories of energy bills) I am not too convinced, even taking out the energy independence argument.

We will need nuclear in the long term. It's not like renewables (wind or sun) can substitute it totally due to their intermittent nature and extremely difficult storage, but anything to reduce dependence on unstable regions and/or dictatorships is good to take, of course.
We will need both actually, according to GIEC.

Olkiluoto works now, the nuclear part, following some EPR teething problems but Siemens (former EPR project partner...) delivereda faulty steam turbine so it's stopped for now.

France is indeed in quite the pickle, with an aging bunch of nuclear stations that will need to be replaced in the short term (17 of its reactors, a third of France's total, will be decomissioned by 2025, according to past plans), and no clear new nuclear tech with which to do so. In this context EdF's nationalisation doesn't seem like a good omen, unless they plan on going full dirigist.

Operative keywork past plans. From Flanby's times when he needed the local greens. Guess what, Macron flip flopped, again. Current plans:
https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220210-announcing-new-reactors-macron-puts-nuclear-power-at-heart-of-carbon-neutral-push

France will build at least six new nuclear reactors in the decades to come, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday, placing nuclear power at the heart of his country's drive for carbon neutrality by 2050.

ADVERTISINGMacron said the new plants would be built and operated by state-controlled energy provider EDF and that tens of billions of euros in public financing would be mobilized to finance the projects and safeguard EDF's finances.

"What our country needs, and the conditions are there, is the rebirth of France's nuclear industry," Macron said, unveiling his new nuclear strategy in the eastern industrial town of Belfort.

Promising to accelerate the development of solar and offshore wind power, Macron also said he wanted to extend the lifespan of older nuclear plants in the world's most nuclear-intensive country to more than 50 years from more than 40 years currently for certain reactors, provided it was safe.

The announcement comes at a difficult time for debt-laden EDF, which is facing delays and budget over-runs on new nuclear plants in France and Britain, and corrosion problems in some of its ageing reactors.

The nuclear blueprint cements France's commitment to nuclear power, a mainstay of the country's postwar industrial prowess but whose future was uncertain after Macron and his predecessor had promised to reduce its weight in the country's energy mix.



Macron's thinking has been reshaped by the European Union's ambitious goals for carbon neutrality within three decades, which put renewed focus on energy forms that emit fewer, or zero, greenhouse gases than fossil fuels, including nuclear.

Surging energy prices and concerns about Europe's reliance on imported Russian gas have also persuaded French officials of the region's need for more energy independence.

EDF estimates the cost of six new reactors at about 50 billion euros ($57.36 billion), depending on financing conditions.

The first new reactor, an evolution of the European Pressurised Reactor (EPR), would come online by 2035, Macron said. Studies for a further eight reactors beyond the initial half-dozen new plants would be launched, he added.

France will also increase its solar power capacity tenfold by 2050 to more than 100 gigawatts (GW) and target building 50 offshore wind farms with a combined capacity of at least 40 GW.

Energy U-turn

Macron's decision to extend the lifespan of existing plants marked a U-turn on an earlier pledge to close more than a dozen of EDF's 56 reactors by 2035.

Nuclear safety still divides Europe after Japan's Fukushima disaster in 2011.

"Certain countries have made the extreme choice of turning their back on nuclear energy. France has not made that choice," Macron said.

Green energy campaign group Association negaWatt accused Macron of "deepening France's addiction" to nuclear.

'Same argument as 50 years ago'

France lobbied hard for nuclear to be labelled as sustainable under new European Commission rules on green financing.

If the new EU taxonomy rules are approved, it should reduce the cost of financing nuclear energy projects.

Macron said the state would assume its responsibilities in securing EDF's finances, indicating that the government may inject fresh capital into the 84% state-owned firm.

The state will assume its responsibilities in securing EDF's finances and its short- and medium-term financing capacity," Macron said.

EDF's EPR reactors have suffered a troubled history. EPR projects at Flamanville in France and Hinkley Point in Britain are running years behind schedule and billions over budget, while EPR reactors in China and Finland have been hit by technical issues.

Separately, EDF this week revised lower its output forecast for its nuclear fleet to 295-315 TWh compared with 361 TWh last year, in part due to extended reactor shutdowns due to corrosion problems in several reactors. If the level drops below 300 TWh, it would be at its lowest since 1990.

Compounding EDF's difficulties, Macron, who faces a re-election battle in two months and is striving to head off public anger over rising energy bills, has ordered the utility to sell more cheap power to rivals – a move that is will knock about 8 billion euros off EDF's 2022 core earnings.

EDF's share price is down 18% so far in 2022.

EDF confirmed on Thursday it would buy a France-based nuclear turbine unit from General Electric as the utility looks to bundle nuclear activities deemed to be strategic.

Still, cancelling or putting on hold Astrid and 60-70 years of research in 2019 was a bad idea, but hey that's Jupiter for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)

The off-shore wind farms generate less discontent than inland ones, very polarising (irrational if you ask me).

[The Larch]

I've been saying that every time there are talks of a nuclear renaissance. The failures of Olkiluoto and Flamanville (by comparison Hinkley Point is a success story!) have buried it, as well as Nukegate in the US, together with a few of the biggest names in the industry. Nuclear in the west, absent a massive state intervention, is dead and getting slowly buried, and not due to tree huggers or any other boogeyman, but by hard finances and the industry's own failures.

The so-called "hard finances" fails to take into account strategic interests such as energy independence. Given the prices paid by the end consumer in Germany (bad personal memories of energy bills) I am not too convinced, even taking out the energy independence argument.

That's why I said that it would need a massive public intervention, given that nuclear can't cut it in the open market. In any case nuclear doesn't make you energy independent, you still need to source uranium from possibly unsavoury places.

We will need nuclear in the long term. It's not like renewables (wind or sun) can substitute it totally due to their intermittent nature and extremely difficult storage, but anything to reduce dependence on unstable regions and/or dictatorships is good to take, of course.
We will need both actually, according to GIEC.

I doubt nuclear is that essential long term, given all its issues. It's only due to the energy crisis provoked by the war that it will finally get the backing it industry has been looking for for ages. Those arguments against renewables are old and tired, they've been for years the cheapest and fastest rising source of energy in Europe, and without the massive public backing that nuclear requires. They won't be the only source, but their share of the energy mix should still be higher.

Olkiluoto works now, the nuclear part, following some EPR teething problems but Siemens (former EPR project partner...) delivereda faulty steam turbine so it's stopped for now.

Only 12 years late and 8 billion € over budget, yay Olkiluoto! 

France is indeed in quite the pickle, with an aging bunch of nuclear stations that will need to be replaced in the short term (17 of its reactors, a third of France's total, will be decomissioned by 2025, according to past plans), and no clear new nuclear tech with which to do so. In this context EdF's nationalisation doesn't seem like a good omen, unless they plan on going full dirigist.

Operative keywork past plans. From Flanby's times when he needed the local greens. Guess what, Macron flip flopped, again. Current plans:

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20220210-announcing-new-reactors-macron-puts-nuclear-power-at-heart-of-carbon-neutral-push

France will build at least six new nuclear reactors in the decades to come, President Emmanuel Macron said on Thursday, placing nuclear power at the heart of his country's drive for carbon neutrality by 2050.

Extending the lifetime of existing nuclear plants is the logical thing to do, by far the easiest and cheapest solution in the short term, but it's also a bit of a kick the can down the road kind of plan unless you start doing the mid-long term solution right then. There's also the risk of any of the plants not being able to have its lifetime extended, but they know better than anybody else if it's realistic to expect them all to be extended or not.

As for announcements of new plants I don't really know what to think, earlier this year he had already announced 14 new ones, now he's talking about 6 new ones. Are those 6 part of the 14? On top of them? In any case, the French state is going to have to write lots of cheques in the coming years if they want to open so many new plants, given the costs involved and how they are going to have to underwrite lots of them, as there's so little appetite in the market for nuclear energy.

Still, cancelling or putting on hold Astrid and 60-70 years of research in 2019 was a bad idea, but hey that's Jupiter for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor)

No idea about that particular project, research is always necessary, so unless that particular model was determined to be a dead end it's a bit of a pity. In any case unless they've completely dismantled it I imagine it can be reactivated.

Anyway, debating about a Gen IV reactor when Gen III ones haven't been able to make it is more theoretical than practical.

The off-shore wind farms generate less discontent than inland ones, very polarising (irrational if you ask me).

Unless you ask fishermen... 

Over here inland wind farms are starting to get controversial due to saturation, but for decades tons of them were built with very few issues.