France To Cut Carbon Emissions, Russian Energy Influence With 14 Nuclear Reactors (arstechnica.com) 110
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: France is planning to build up to 14 nuclear reactors in an attempt to shore up the country's aging nuclear fleet while also reducing the country's carbon emissions. And while the first reactors won't open for years, the announcement could serve to undercut Russia's attempts to keep Europe dependent on natural gas. President Emmanuel Macron announced the decision last week, saying that state-backed Electricite de France, also known as EDF, will build six new plants starting in 2028, with the option to build another eight by 2050. EDF estimates that six next-generation pressurized water reactors will cost around $57 billion. The first could be commissioned as early as 2035.
The move is a sharp reversal of Macron's earlier pledge to close several reactors over the next decade or so. National politics almost certainly play a role -- the nuclear power sector in France employs around 220,000 people, according to one estimate. "What our country needs is the rebirth of France's nuclear industry," Macron said at a nuclear turbine factory that EDF had just purchased from GE. "The time has come for a nuclear renaissance," he said. Macron also said that EDF will build a prototype small modular reactor, or SMR, by 2030. SMRs are fission reactors that are designed to be built in a factory and transported to their final destination. They generally produce less than 1 MW of power and are intended to be more economical than traditional reactors, which are constructed on-site. EDF will face stiff competition from numerous companies, from heavyweights like Westinghouse to startups like NuScale and Chinese firms like China Huaneng Group, which are pushing to commercialize SMRs.
France's new plans were announced less than two weeks after the EU announced that nuclear power would be considered "sustainable," a decision that was subject to intense lobbying by the French government. It also comes at a time of heightened tensions with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. Russia has flooded the EU with cheap natural gas, leaving the bloc dependent on the country for much of its energy. In 2020, the EU received more than 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which could double Russian exports to the region, appears likely to increase the bloc's dependence. Macron's announcement, while possibly coincidental, could signal that France is interested in taking over as Europe's power center.
The move is a sharp reversal of Macron's earlier pledge to close several reactors over the next decade or so. National politics almost certainly play a role -- the nuclear power sector in France employs around 220,000 people, according to one estimate. "What our country needs is the rebirth of France's nuclear industry," Macron said at a nuclear turbine factory that EDF had just purchased from GE. "The time has come for a nuclear renaissance," he said. Macron also said that EDF will build a prototype small modular reactor, or SMR, by 2030. SMRs are fission reactors that are designed to be built in a factory and transported to their final destination. They generally produce less than 1 MW of power and are intended to be more economical than traditional reactors, which are constructed on-site. EDF will face stiff competition from numerous companies, from heavyweights like Westinghouse to startups like NuScale and Chinese firms like China Huaneng Group, which are pushing to commercialize SMRs.
France's new plans were announced less than two weeks after the EU announced that nuclear power would be considered "sustainable," a decision that was subject to intense lobbying by the French government. It also comes at a time of heightened tensions with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. Russia has flooded the EU with cheap natural gas, leaving the bloc dependent on the country for much of its energy. In 2020, the EU received more than 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which could double Russian exports to the region, appears likely to increase the bloc's dependence. Macron's announcement, while possibly coincidental, could signal that France is interested in taking over as Europe's power center.
French President Macron is just (Score:2)
Re:French President Macron is just (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuclear power has been important to France for decades. This is not the type of commitment that Macron can back out of. While there has recently been some anti-nuclear sentiment in France that swayed Macron the candidate, I think it's clear that once in office he realized it was their best option. Nuclear power has allowed France to have the cleanest energy production of any first world nation. With Germany's retreat from nuclear, France could set themselves up to be the primary power producer in Europe, especially if they export those SMRs. There are good political, economical, and environmental reasons for France to do this and Macron is a pragmatist.
What are you basing your statement on?
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear power has allowed France to have the cleanest energy production of any first world nation. With Germany's retreat from nuclear, France could set themselves up to be the primary power producer in Europe, especially if they export those SMRs.
Yep. Germany is importing more and more electricity from France as they shut down their nuclear program. These power stations swill supply that demand in the future.
The fun part is that if there's ever a nuclear incident in France it's going to affect Germany anyway.
Re:French President Macron is just (Score:5, Funny)
France should build the nuclear plants right on the French/German border. So Germany has to pay for French power while at the same time suffering all the consequences of a melt down for a reactor that isn't theirs. That's called not having your cake and not eating it too.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the risk of a melt-down is baked into whatever price Germany is paying for the power.
Re: (Score:2)
It is anti-science idiots like you that forced Germany to drop your Nuclear power and now, your emissions are climbing.
More importantly, you should be held responsible for the bio-mass that you buy from all over the world, but mostly eastern USA, as well as the coal that is burned in Poland to provide your electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you simply do some research, instead of repeating bullshit you picked up at bloomberg?
your emissions are climbing. how should something like that be even remotely possible?
More importantly, you should be held responsible for the bio-mass that you buy from all over the world, but mostly eastern USA,
Never heard about that.
Neither that we import any "biomass", nor that the US is exporting any. What would be the point of that? You must live in a different reality than I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany sometimes pays it neighbours to take its surplus electricity with negative electricity prices. It is mostly the wind power that is problematic.
Re: (Score:1)
The fun part is that if there's ever a nuclear incident in France it's going to affect Germany anyway.
Because roughly half the plants are at the French / German border and we never have west wind?
Germany is importing more and more electricity from France as
Plain wrong. Germany is the most important electricity exporter to France. Dumbass
Re: (Score:2)
The fun part is that if there's ever a nuclear incident in France it's going to affect Germany anyway.
Because roughly half the plants are at the French / German border and we never have west wind?
You're aware the Chernobyl accident was first detected in Sweden, right? How far away was that? How does that distance compare to the size of France and Germany?
Germany is importing more and more electricity from France as
Plain wrong. Germany is the most important electricity exporter to France. Dumbass
Let me google that for you:
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You're aware the Chernobyl accident was first detected in Sweden, right? How far away was that? How does that distance compare to the size of France and Germany?
You are just putting water on my mills.
Perhaps you should improve your reading comprehension?
Re: (Score:2)
You're aware the Chernobyl accident was first detected in Sweden, right?
Your point that it was detected far away stands, but I'm pretty sure the first ones to know were in Chernobyl. Years ago, I read an interesting interview with one of the operators that survived. He posted guard outside the reactor building while his soon to be deceased colleagues investigated the anomaly. He still spent months in the hospital.
Re: (Score:2)
You're aware the Chernobyl accident was first detected in Sweden, right?
Your point that it was detected far away stands, but I'm pretty sure the first ones to know were in Chernobyl.
I should have been more specific; obviously the first ones to know were the people on site.
The affected area was most of Europe though: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Quoting from your the answer of your google search: "Right now, Germany imports nuclear power from France when the French need to dump excess nuclear generation at low prices – not in order to prevent blackouts in Germany."
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of "Germany is importing more and more electricity from France" are you trying to refute with this jibber-jabber?
Re: (Score:2)
The quote directly contradicts your implied claim that Germany has to import power because of lack of nuclear power. Looking at the data of the last seven years, Germany always exported more power to France than vice versa . The idea that Germany depends on power imports from France is simply false.
Re: (Score:2)
It is getting boring to always respond to this nonsense with data: Since the beginning of 2022, Germany exported 3.2 TWh to France and imported 0.3 TWh from France.
In the past, nuclear proponents on slashdot sometimes had good arguments (okay, they were always clowns like the one who insisted that radiation is actually good for you), but today's endless repetition of easily debunked nonsense just starts to get annoying.
Re: French President Macron is just (Score:1)
He sold french industries, like Alstom, that used to produce most sensible parts of a nuclear facility to foreign nations (USA, Germany). So the project is about paying other countries for something he could have by paying french workers. This shows that he never had a shirt, middle and long term vision, just randomly follies polls.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you basing your statement on?
Probably simply irrational dislike of nuclear energy.
Nuclear fission energy is a debate where few keep a level head that is drowned in the stench of tribalism. There is also a smal party in the Netherlands that wants to build more nuclear reactors, clearly only because “the leftists” hate it. On it's website, nothing is mentioned for instance on that it's not a fossil fuel and they don't seem to give a compelling reason either.
Pragmatist or Man without choice (Score:2)
1.) centralized huge power plants actually have problems
As France is currently experiencing: https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
and FunFact France is currently importing electricity from Germany. About 30% of their fleet of aging nuclear reactors have been shut down.
France / EDF has missed out on investing in the nuclear fleet nearing end of service life and needs investments to keep the power plants running.
2.) and btw. the export of electricity to Germany is not that big as some people here might make you b
Re: French President Macron is just (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Newer reactors are generally pushing out more power relative to older reactors built on roughly the same site footprint.
So it's possible to retire 14 reactors, build 14 reactors, and still help the rest of Europe transition away from Russian gas with increased energy exports.
Re: French President Macron is just (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How much access to Uranium and other fissionable materials does France have? Or just happy to import from the lowest bidder? Looks like Russia is one of the big players there too (https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/uranium-and-thorium-ore)
I can't deny I am opposed to nuclear energy because of the horrible effects of accidents and the mess of the byproducts and wastes. How much will it cost to cleanup the 14 reactors? The other 40-odd? Will those sites ever be able to be re-used inside 10,000 years?
However, i
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And the nuclear waste? Nasty, horrible, toxic, radioactive soup from hell.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because the fear of nuclear proliferation keeps us from using breeder reactors [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have an answer to that problem, and certainly we need one, but I doubt highly that it's a problem either comparable in difficulty to nuclear fusion, nor as problematic as the large number of deaths caused by fossil fuel consumption.
The secret of the atom is out. It has been for almost a hundred years now. Proliferation may prove to be a concern that can be addressed using technology; however, it also might be one that requires us to rethink whether governments should be given sufficient power to wa
Re: (Score:2)
Most of it either short-lived, or of minimal intensity. Both easy to deal with.
The stuff in between is the only part that's problematic, and, to the best of my knowledge (which I'm sure you'll correct if necessary), it isn't much more problematic than the original uranium ore itself.
Contrast this to the HUGE amount of death routinely caused by fossil fuel consumption, most of it by pollution.
When you look at both sides of the equation, I think the answer seems clear. Fission may not be perfect, but it see
Re: (Score:3)
I can't deny I am opposed to nuclear energy because of the horrible effects of accidents and the mess of the byproducts and wastes.
More people have died from windmills falling over than nuclear reactors melting down per energy generated, and coal plants bring more radioactivity into the environment than nuclear fission plants per energy generated.
https://www.engineering.com/story/whats-the-death-toll-of-nuclear-vs-other-energy-sources
https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/
Re: (Score:2)
France has a long maritime coastline. If push comes to shove, it has access to as much uranium as it wants or needs.
True, seawater extraction will never be the preferred option while cheaper methods are available, but it's very reassuring to have this available as a backstop.
Re: (Score:2)
How much access to Uranium and other fissionable materials does France have?
With access to the sea there's an effectively limitless supply of uranium, there's uranium salts in the sea and more produced all the time through erosion.
Thorium is as common in the Earth's crust as lead, we are not going to run out.
If there's dirt under their feet or water at their shores then a nation is not going to run out of fuel for nuclear power.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure France will be buying much from Australia in the short to medium term. (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/sep/29/australia-tore-up-french-submarine-contract-for-convenience-naval-group-says)
I know nothing of French politics (Score:5, Insightful)
other than the fact its uniquely French. But if this is sincere and realistic, its good policy. And I applaud them.
Re: (Score:2)
Macron is up for re-election and is throwing out all kinds of grand plans and initiatives at the moment. How many he will follow through with remains to be seen.
Re:I know nothing of French politics (Score:4, Informative)
That would make sense of it were popular. It isn't.
Actually it is (Score:4, Informative)
That would make sense of it were popular. It isn't.
Public support for nuclear power has increased massively because of the movement to lower CO2 emissions.
75% of French people expressed support for making use of nuclear energy. That sounds pretty popular to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Then good for him for selecting a policy that the majority agrees with, which also strengthens national security and fights off the influence of autocratic oligarchs that pine for the "bad old days" of cold war and systemic oppression of human rights.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's basically because there is an election coming up and the far right is making some progress against Macron.
The far right has been attacking environmental policies lately too. All the usual guff about renewable energy and hippies. This way Macron can try to appease both sides, the ones who care about emissions and the ones who don't want a wind farm near them or any subsidies on their neighbour's solar panels.
This is also a neat way to side-step EU rules against state aid for private companies. Normally,
Re: (Score:1)
It's basically because there is an election coming up and the far right is making some progress against Macron.
Well, no. They are still stuck in the 20-30% range which means if they were unified they'd get to proceed to the second round, where they'd be destroyed 66% to 33% again.
But this time round they're not unified, there are two extreme right candidates and they risk not even getting into the second round.
Of course Zemmour has just got Trump's support, so that increases Le Pen's chance of getting to the second round.
Re: (Score:3)
It's basically because there is an election coming up and the far right is making some progress against Macron.
WHAT !?
And who modded that "interesting" !? What you say is total nonsense. The far right has absolutely zero chance of winning a presidential election in France now. What happens systematically since 2002 is you end up with one far right candidate and one non far right one at the second turn. Then most people vote against the far right candidate and the other one wins by a landslide.
The one who lead the polls at the first turn is nearly sure of winning. The sole challenge could come from Valerie Pecresse,
Re: (Score:3)
other than the fact its uniquely French. But if this is sincere and realistic, its good policy. And I applaud them.
And since it only takes about 6 months to build a nuclear plant, and it easier than building a car, it's hard to understand why they aren't building a thousand of them.
two plants a year? child's play.
Re: (Score:2)
two plants a year? child's play.
On 6 March 1974 France announced that it was going to go to nuclear power for electricity generation. Work was started on the first new reactors the same year. The last of the 56 built came on line in 1997.
That's 56 reactors in 23 years.
Exactly two a year.
Re: (Score:2)
two plants a year? child's play.
On 6 March 1974 France announced that it was going to go to nuclear power for electricity generation. Work was started on the first new reactors the same year. The last of the 56 built came on line in 1997.
That's 56 reactors in 23 years.
Exactly two a year.
So why don't they ramp that up to 10 a year? Seems with relaxing regulations and cutting back on the wasteful process of x-raying parts this should allow France to achieve that goal of power too cheap to meter..
Re: (Score:1)
So why don't they ramp that up to 10 a year?
Because that would be stupid?
Re: (Score:2)
So why don't they ramp that up to 10 a year?
Because that would be stupid?
Why? Seems like all it takes is the will to do it.
Yep (Score:1)
Energy independence sure would be nice.
But, you know, mean tweets ... we have to have our priorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I though that Uranium also came from Russia, but a quick search learned that it is found in Australia and Africa as well.
Cigar Lake and other locations in Canada have large reserves of uranium ore too. There is a lot of uranium in spent fuel that can be recovered after reprocessing but the cost is more than the current market price for mined uranium. Worst case, uranium can be extracted from seawater but the process cost is, again, higher than the world market price for mined uranium.
Re:Yep (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, it's this company called Orano. I wonder who they are?
Orano Canada (formerly AREVA Resources Canada Inc.) is a uranium mining, milling, and exploration company headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Orano is a subsidiary of the Orano Group, an international nuclear energy company headquartered in Paris, France with 16,000 employees worldwide.
And who is mining Uranium in Africa?
Orano exploite 2 mines au Niger, quatrième producteur mondial, depuis la fin des années 1960, jouant le rôle de deuxième employeur du pays, après l'État. Le groupe emploie en effet près de 6 000 personnes dont 98 % sont d'origine nigérienne.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Russia is a relatively small source of uranium, Kazakhstan supplies far more and is heavily influenced by Russia but a lot of what they supply also goes *to* Russia which has a sizeable nuclear industry of its own.
Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries also mine uranium, and Canada at least has close relations with France. If they're going to depend on a foreign country for a critical resource, having friendly and politically similar suppliers like Canada and Australia is far preferable to poten
Re: (Score:2)
It also comes from Colorado. But the US doesn't export very much, choosing to keep the vast majority for domestic use.
The fools! (Score:5, Funny)
Don't they know that fusion reactors are just a few years away?
Re: (Score:2)
All this ancient fission technology when Fusion power is going to be in commercial operation in less than 5 years now? https://www.forbes.com/sites/j... [forbes.com]
Those French - it's the Maginot line reprised as technology.
Fusion Hype (Score:3)
...when Fusion power is going to be in commercial operation in less than 5 years now?
Perhaps the reason is that nobody believes outlandish claims like this? The article you linked is 3 years old so they are presumably now only 2 years from commercial fusion and yet a recent BBC article makes surprisingly little mention of them being ready in 2 years for commercial production of power.
What's more, they say that they are going for hydrogen/boron fusion which requires temperatures over an order of magnitude higher than hydrogen/deuterium fusion despite still not having achieved even this.
Re: (Score:2)
...when Fusion power is going to be in commercial operation in less than 5 years now?
Perhaps the reason is that nobody believes outlandish claims like this? The article you linked is 3 years old so they are presumably now only 2 years from commercial fusion and yet a recent BBC article makes surprisingly little mention of them being ready in 2 years for commercial production of power.
And the claim that France will install either one or two reactors a year by 2050 isn't?
That is every bit as outlandish. This is a testament to the indisputable fact that critical thinking skills have eroded to the point where someone can spout utter impossiubilities, and even the pro nuc people, who were at least intelligent, lap it up like god's lips to our ears.
What's more, they say that they are going for hydrogen/boron fusion which requires temperatures over an order of magnitude higher than hydrogen/deuterium fusion despite still not having achieved even this. While I certainly wish them and the other companies trying different approaches to fusion every success barring some unforeseen major breakthrough none of them seem anywhere near fusion power. Would you bet your country's future energy requirements on something like that?
I'm only continuing the humor aspect. I mean - asisde from the fusion angle, anyone that thinks that that number of reactors can be designed,
Re: (Score:2)
...when Fusion power is going to be in commercial operation in less than 5 years now?
Perhaps the reason is that nobody believes outlandish claims like this? The article you linked is 3 years old so they are presumably now only 2 years from commercial fusion and yet a recent BBC article makes surprisingly little mention of them being ready in 2 years for commercial production of power.
And the claim that France will install either one or two reactors a year by 2050 isn't?
That is every bit as outlandish. This is a testament to the indisputable fact that critical thinking skills have eroded to the point where someone can spout utter impossiubilities, and even the pro nuc people, who were at least intelligent, lap it up like god's lips to our ears.
What's more, they say that they are going for hydrogen/boron fusion which requires temperatures over an order of magnitude higher than hydrogen/deuterium fusion despite still not having achieved even this. While I certainly wish them and the other companies trying different approaches to fusion every success barring some unforeseen major breakthrough none of them seem anywhere near fusion power. Would you bet your country's future energy requirements on something like that?
I'm only continuing the humor aspect. I mean - asisde from the fusion angle, anyone that thinks that that number of reactors can be designed, built, certified and placed in service in that short a time is kinda displaying the same thinking as the 5 year commercial fusion thing. Yeah, we can build the power plants. But that pace is ridiculous.
This new age of demand for grifters and the collapse of critical thinking skills does not bode well. The demand for instant fixes without regard to reality is seen all too often.
If you think that the rash of substandard components is an issue now, just wait https://oilprice.com/Alternati... [oilprice.com] https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML141... [nrc.gov] https://www.dnaindia.com/india... [dnaindia.com] https://www.powermag.com/franc... [powermag.com] don't think I'd be all that hot on living next door to one of these plants.
So let's build them fast and furious - nothing could go wrong.
Except the French have done this before. Dangerous, maybe. Funny? Unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
We have the option of modern-generation nuclear fission today, and it is much safer than any other base-load option that currently exists.
Recent developments in fusion technology are encouraging, but they don't guarantee that economically viable power generation will result in 2 years, 5 years, or ever.
When and if that changes, it's very likely to displace everything else, including fission.
But it makes no sense to await that point, and meanwhile keep on running nasty old crap (not just old-generation fissi
Re: (Score:2)
Because this isn't a video game where at the beginning of your turn you finish researching nuclear fusion, and can spend money to just instantly have a working full-scale fusion reactor in your city at full output.
Even if we had net-positive stable fusion power tomorrow it would still be 20 years before we have designs on commercially-viable generating stations that would be safe to operate. Enrico Fermi and his team assembled the Chicago Pile in 1942 which was the first artificial self-sustaining nuclear
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, over 99.9999% (probably a lot less) of that energy never hits our planet. Add "area facing the Sun that's on vacant land" and it goes down even more. And of that percentage, only a fraction gets converted into electricity. I'm not saying solar power isn't possible, I'm saying that using the whole Sun as a source of power requires "Dyson Sphere" level of technology and we're so far from that level that it's not even funny.
Re: (Score:1)
sure, if only solar power could be collected and used in space, or collected in space and beamed to Earth with existing tech... oh wait it can.
Anyway I said multiple Earth civilizations, not claiming ours needed that amount of energy. We have enough energy hitting the planet to more than power our civilization, and that energy could be collected and stored with existing tech.
Re: (Score:2)
Just think, there are people like you, but with money, who believe that nonsense. Commercial fusion power won't happen before 2050, if ever.
We already have a functioning fusion reactor in the sky that puts out more energy than a thousand Earth civilizations could ever use.
I was being sarcastic AF. So I'll drop to my actual beliefs now. I don't believe that we'll have commercial fusion power ever - at least not practical power. I believe that we can eventually sustain a reaction for something considered a "long" period of time. Let's say hours, before the heat and neutron flux require a rebuild. But I believe that the parasitic power loads will always be there, scaling up with the length of time the thing is running. As well, there will probably be the need for many fusion c
Re: The fools! (Score:3)
Fusion power is like the rabbit in my front yard. It might look close, but just try pursuing it and see how fast it hops away.
Re: (Score:2)
Donny Darko's rabbit.
28 nuclear reactors!! (Score:5, Funny)
That makes 28 new nuclear reactors, with the other 14 announced two days ago [slashdot.org]!
Re: (Score:3)
Think of how much energy could be saved by de-duplicating stores on Slashdot.
BeauHD must not be reading the site if he doesn't even scan the headlines from yesterday.
Random question, what happened to McMann and his sock puppets? They normally have some copy/paste ready to go within minutes of any story even tangentially related to energy gets posted.
Re: (Score:2)
He is partying in his basement with cheap Russian vodka about the fact that France is building 14 - 28 (I hope they did not miscount?) new nuclear reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
That makes 28 new nuclear reactors, with the other 14 announced two days ago [slashdot.org]!
Ah but one article was about building 14 nuclear reactors more for green reasons and now it is more about Russia... I think... I didn't really read them in detail, they did make it to my screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, This seems to be getting worse by the day and management doesn't seem to care.
To be more financially efficient, Slashdot could post stories which they make sure are new on Monday then repost them every day in a loop for the rest of the week and the site would be about the same as it has become nowadays. Nobody would notice a difference.
Wow, another 14 reactors? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. This is additional bloviation from an incumbent politician running for re-election tying that announcement into the concerns of the day - Russia getting ready to invade a neighbor - in an attempt to show just how smart and forward-thinking he is.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not. This is additional bloviation from an incumbent politician running for re-election tying that announcement into the concerns of the day - Russia getting ready to invade a neighbor - in an attempt to show just how smart and forward-thinking he is.
Or it's just another dupe by Slashdot.
Who writes these articles? (Score:2)
The very first reactor MAY be ready in 2035. A quick, back of the napkin, calculation shows that is at least 13 years from now. I can just hear the Russians shivering in their galoshes. Their global domination plans are totally ruined now!
While I'm happy that France is going to try this, the idea that somehow this does anything to Russian influence before construction has broken ground or is even funded, is absolutely silly.
It's almost as though Ars Technica is now using an AI to pull out buzz words of
Re: (Score:2)
But it does have an effect. Russia can now only afford to lean so hard knowing that France's need for their gas has an expiration date. Lean too hard and there ios nasty blowback coming .
Re: (Score:2)
France does not import much gas from Russia ....
No idea where that stupid /. "Russia gas dependency" meme is coming from.
The world is completely dependent on petrol from Arabia and around - seems no one cares about that.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably from the big ass pipeline being built to send Russian gas to Germany?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and?
What has the pipeline to do with France? Not much. Why would France be depending on it? Why would Germany? A pipeline is a pipeline. Do you really think anyone in Europe is making himself dependent on Russia? You are delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm delusional because Russian gas flowing through a pipeline to Germany doesn't make Germany dependent on Russian gas? And everyone knows every molecule of gas going through that pipeline stays in Germany (who isn't dependent on it and could care less about it according to you), and absolutely doesn't get distributed to the rest of Europe in any way. And certainly not France, who shares a border with Germany!
If Europe doesn't need it, why was it built? Was it a thousand kilometers of make-work for pi
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm delusional because Russian gas flowing through a pipeline to Germany doesn't make Germany dependent on Russian gas?
Exactly.
And everyone knows every molecule of gas going through that pipeline stays in Germany (who isn't dependent on it and could care less about it according to you)
the amount of gas going through the pipeline per year is roughly 20 - 100 times the amount of gas Germany uses per year. Are you really that dumb?
and absolutely doesn't get distributed to the rest of Europe in any way. And
Re: (Score:2)
The world is completely dependent on petrol from Arabia and around - seems no one cares about that.
I guess you missed the whole electric car thing then?
Actually, the U.S. is a net exporter of petroleum, but we don't hear a lot about that because it blows up the whole narrative of "having" to raise prices at the pump whenever someone farts in the desert.
I think the summary meant to say (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power plant speccs are given in MWh/GWh electricity.
If you want to know thermal, you either know the formula how to calculate it (hint, just roughly double it and add 10%) or it is given in a site note.
Re: (Score:2)
PWRs and BWRs are typically about 35% efficient - a reactor producing 1GW of electricity gross will be producing about 3GW of heat. They actually operate at quite a low temperature, relatively speaking (about 350 deg C) compared to a gas turbine generator burning natural gas (ca. 2000 deg C) hence the low efficiency figure.
There are more efficient power reactors in use today, like the British AGRs which use CO2 for cooling and heat transfer. They manage about 40% efficiency, operating at over 400 deg C. Som
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, that is interesting. Never realized the temperatures of the steam is that low.
Vive la France (Score:2)
Energy self sufficiency reduces the chances of political bullying. ie Germany
Re: (Score:2)
Maginot Line (Score:2)
SMRs don't make sense (Score:1)
The only way to make SMRs more profitable than full-sized reactors is to skimp on safety and security. Per-unit costs necessary to make reactors as safe as possible (like inspections) cost much the same amount no matter the size of the reactor. Increasing the number of installations means increasing the number of installations which must be secured. SMRs have been tried several times and never actually even worked right, but even if you solved that problem they still wouldn't make sense. Constructing them a
SMR generation capicity? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 1MW comment about SMRs is probably a typo for 1GW since most real reactors being built these days are designed to produce 1GW-plus of electrical power, although there are one or two builds that only will produce 300MW or 450MW when complete.
Small Modular Reactor designs are typically sub-100MW, sometimes a bit more but usually a lot less. The proposed Rolls-Royce "SMR" is theoretically capable of outputting 440MW. At that rating it's probably aimed at replacing Britain's existing AGRs which produce betw
At best 14 reactors (Score:2)
Macron said six reactors with an option to build 8 additional others. 14 is the maximum number the French nuclear industry can build according to RTE which has consulted the French nuclear industry. RTE stands for Reseau de Transport d'Electricite,, the entity that manages most of the French grid. They could ramp up production but after 2050 if all goes to plan.
And even 14 reactors plus an extension of many others still means a reduction of the nuclear part of their electricity mix. Not because they wanted
Flamanville 3 (Score:1)
Way to go France (Score:3)
Europe needs to get off FF, and the idea that Russia's nat gas is a real solution, is a total joke.
alternatives (Score:5, Informative)
One impetus behind the revival of nuclear is that Europe recently commissioned studies examining how much wind and solar they will need to fully replace existing energy sources and satisfy future needs. The answer was that they will need to mow down every living tree in Europe to cover the entire landscape with wind turbines and solar panels.
So Germany and France are running in opposite directions with that finding.
Germany is enthusiastically pursuing the "we need to destroy the environment to save it approach," having commenced destruction [wattsupwiththat.com] of about 5,000 acres of pristine 1,000 year-old forest to put up wind turbines.
Wind and solar have terrible space efficiency and those are hard limits established by the density of the energy in the environment. It is a definite impossibility to engineer your way around that. Then, also, the intermittency problem of those requires spending several times the GDP of your nation on batteries.
France is going 180 degrees the other direction by choosing the smallest possible energy footprint. The power density of nuclear is a zillion times higher than wind and solar.
Fission works now and has feasible potential for orders-of-magnitude improvements in price per kWh. Unlike with wind and solar, there is a lot of room to engineer big improvements. Advanced small modular reactors mean not every reactor is a one-off design built on-site, but instead comes off a factory production line, greatly reducing design, manufacturing, licensing and construction costs. Passively safe designs rule out the possibility of meltdowns. Experimental seawater harvesting if fissionable materials continues to improve, with the possibility of a virtually endless supply of fuel. Even just modernizing conventional reactor design has reduced the number of parts to about 1/4 of a 1970s design. Wave reactor research continues to advance, improving the recyclability of fuel. Estimates are that with wave reactors and sea water harvesting we have enough fissionable materials on earth for about a billion years at current energy consumption levels, which might be enough time to get fusion reactors to breakeven.
Re: (Score:2)
we have enough fissionable materials on earth for about a billion years at current energy consumption levels, which might be enough time to get fusion reactors to breakeven.
I'll believe it when I see it. Fusion power has been "only a billion years away" for over four billion years now.
Witty French (Score:2)
"The humorous story is American, the comic story is English, the witty story is French"--Mark Twain (b. 1835)
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation Needed]
You are wrong. France already has plenty of capacity for breeding weapons-grade plutonium, which uses very inefficiently short fuel cycles or else your plutonium is ruined for weapons purposes. These are for electrical generation.