France’s Nuclear Shutdown Hits 50% of Reactors, Squeezing Supply

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

The halt of yet another nuclear unit in France means half of its reactors are now offline for maintenance, keeping power supplies tight in a country that is traditionally one of Europe’s biggest electricity exporters.

Twenty-eight reactors are offline as Electricite de France SA struggles with extended outages after corrosion issues were found at some sites, requiring lengthy checks and repairs. The extra works come on top of already scheduled halts for refueling and regular maintenance, and has brought French nuclear output to the lowest in more than decade for the time of year.

The nuclear fleet is crucial, and can supply more than two thirds of the country’s power, so the halts could potentially worsen Europe’s supply crisis. They’re also having a bigger impact on France’s electricity market than in Germany, which relies more on gas and coal to run plants. France’s daily power prices have averaged about 30% more than in its neighbor this year, and four times higher than in the same period in 2021. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-29/half-of-french-nuclear-fleet-is-shut-for-works-squeezing-supply

This is a reminder of just how old France’s nuclear reactors are. Out of the total nuclear capacity of 61 GW, only 9 GW is less than 30 years old. Just how much longer they can be patched together must be open to question.

Nuclear has still be supplying 62% of France’s electricity this month. France has plans to build six new reactors, but these will take at least a decade to come on stream, and will only replace a small part of the capacity likely to be shut down long before then.

http://energodock.com/france/electricity-shares

4.2 12 votes
Article Rating
141 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ron Long
June 2, 2022 10:09 am

I know it’s selfish of me, but I hope the French wines will be OK.

H.R.
Reply to  Ron Long
June 2, 2022 10:50 am

Meh. I’m not a fan of nuclear-powered French wines, so if the plants stay shut down, I really don’t care.

Bryan A
Reply to  H.R.
June 2, 2022 11:58 am

With regular maintenance, nuclear generation can produce 100% of nameplate capacity over 90% of the time for 50 years with No CO2 emissions.
Griff
Can wind or Solar make the same claim?

H.R.
Reply to  Bryan A
June 2, 2022 1:31 pm

I’m not a fan of solar-panel or wind-powered French wines, either.

I prefer the wines the French make from grapes that are grown in dirt, under the sun, and are watered by rain as much as possible. 😉

(I think your reply was to griff and somehow migrated as a reply to my cheeky comment. I’ve had that happen and it’s one of life’s little mysteries when it does.)

Vuk
Reply to  Ron Long
June 2, 2022 1:46 pm

I was there in early April, when I saw TV images like this I hardly could believe it
Candles protect French vineyards as arctic snap sweeps across Europe
comment image
Chablis, France, Apr 4 .- A cold snap that has swept across Europe and caused temperatures in northern France to tumble below freezing has forced French winegrowers to spring into action and protect blooming buds.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Ben Vorlich
Reply to  Vuk
June 2, 2022 2:19 pm

Saw sometthing on “James Martin’s Saturday Morning” last Saturday when he was talking to an English sparkling wine producer who was using more industrial methods of keeping the vines warm

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Vuk
June 2, 2022 2:51 pm

That is an illuminating photo, Vuk!

I find it difficult to believe that the vineyards were able to secure that many pots during the brief warning period provided by the short-term weather forecast.

I suspect the “generational” vineyards had the institutional knowledge to know that frosts in April were a possibility based on the weather they experienced prior to “global climate change”.

Did any of the news stories in France attribute the cold snap to “climate change”?

Vuk
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
June 2, 2022 3:05 pm

Regular occurrence, winegrowers have stocks of paraffin candles, and often have them spread around vineyards when the buds start appearing, then as soon as late frost is forecast they go and light them up.

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Vuk
June 3, 2022 8:32 am

The French youth won’t know what a paraffin candle is!

Reply to  Vuk
June 2, 2022 8:41 pm

Shows that they (like any grower with a crop extremely sensitive to cold) are always prepared. You don’t look at the weather forecast and run out to the hardware store for 10,000 candles!

Happening now. Happened before. Will happen again.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Vuk
June 3, 2022 2:10 am

candles? more like smudgepots Id suggest

Redge
Reply to  Ron Long
June 2, 2022 11:50 pm

That’s not selfish, Ron, you were clearly thinking of me as well.

Cheers

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Ron Long
June 3, 2022 4:40 am

I don’t know about the wine, but the whines are always forthcoming.

ResourceGuy
June 2, 2022 10:09 am

No matter how bad it gets there will still be protectionist policy, made locally requirements, and deal breaker labor demands. That policy behavior is much more predictable than markets and power sources.

June 2, 2022 10:14 am

For years France played cosy with Russia to thumb their noses at the US. One can’t help but wonder if this situation is somehow tied to events in Ukraine. French civil servants serving as gatekeepers to keep the EU dependent on Russian energy.

Captain climate
Reply to  ferdberple
June 2, 2022 11:45 am

Hey they finally got Chirac’s multipolar world, as France will freeze next winter.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Captain climate
June 3, 2022 8:32 am

Why wait for next winter. Right now 4.29pm 3rd June we are having a hailstorm here in North East Wales with no thunder at all.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ferdberple
June 2, 2022 12:42 pm

‘For years France played cosy with Russia to thumb their noses at the US.’

Examples?

‘One can’t help but wonder if this situation is somehow tied to events in Ukraine.’

From the graph, it looks like their nuclear output fell out the ‘normal’ range last fall, so probably not.

‘French civil servants serving as gatekeepers to keep the EU dependent on Russian energy.’

Why would they do this?

Captain climate
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 2, 2022 1:34 pm

Examples: selling military technology to the Russians, pushing to weaken sanctions, etc. Some of these they backed off, but the French suck as an ally.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Captain climate
June 2, 2022 1:55 pm

Well, at least the French are smart enough to sell their military technology – we just give it away by the hundreds of billions to the likes of the Taliban and the Azov Brigade. Hopefully, the more portable stuff will be destroyed in situ before if finds its way across the US / Mexican border. Re. the sanctions, I think most folks would prefer to pay less for food and energy.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 3, 2022 2:14 am

word online says stingers and other items are already for sale online at bargains prices around the 15k or so range

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 3, 2022 4:57 am

Any idea what the ‘retail’ price was to the taxpayers? Never mind, we just ‘printed’ the money for them.

Smart Rock
Reply to  Captain climate
June 2, 2022 5:38 pm

The French are equal-opportunity arms merchants. Anyone remember Exocet missiles in the Falklands war? Very effective, they were, especially with French technicians teaching how to use them.

In fact, the entire arms business has only one rule – the buyer has to pay cash. At present, my Canadian masters are trying to figure out how to keep on selling armoured personnel carriers to the Saudis, while maintaining the appearance of not selling armoured personnel carriers to the Saudis. I’m not sure that Justin is up to the intellectual challenge.

proxima
Reply to  Smart Rock
June 3, 2022 12:56 am

France stopped all weapons’ export to Argentina at the start of the war, even blocked third party sellers like some other south american countries. Besides, the english knew the exocets quite well as France sold those missiles to them too.
And, correct me if I’m wrong, but UK and US were the biggest arm exporters to Argentina before the start of the war.
Anyway, the “blame the french” card always work well with tabloids and stops any other interrogations by mindless crowds.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Captain climate
June 3, 2022 2:13 am

frankly amerika sucks as an ally as well

ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 5, 2022 1:49 pm

He has a point. Look what we did to our Afghanistan allies. We gave the Taliban the biometric means to identify them. We gave the Taliban billions in military hardware with no restrictions on its use. We gave them no warning, and we didn’t help them escape the country.

That’s one example. An extraordinarily ugly one perhaps unprecedented in history.

Kpar
Reply to  ex-KaliforniaKook
June 5, 2022 3:24 pm

Yep, and largely thanks to our own “Thoroughly Modern Milley”.

A political general if there ever was one.

Kpar
Reply to  ozspeaksup
June 5, 2022 3:22 pm

Depends on who’s in charge.

Brandon is a disaster for our citizens AND our Allies.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Captain climate
June 3, 2022 10:12 pm

plus not allowing US forces station in France, as part of NATO, denying over flight for Reagan’s Libya “payback”.

michael hart
Reply to  Frank from NoVA
June 2, 2022 2:53 pm

Greetings from England. As you pass through life, you become accustomed to one unassailable fact. French civil servants act primarily in the interests of one group: French civil servants. Rather like our British counterparts.

rbabcock
Reply to  michael hart
June 3, 2022 5:32 am

That’s true for all civil servants in all countries.

ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  michael hart
June 5, 2022 1:55 pm

Same as here in the US. Except here they are losing that “servant” part and trading it for civil masters.

Kpar
Reply to  ex-KaliforniaKook
June 5, 2022 3:26 pm

Yep. Any time the government decides to fix a problem, the first thing the bureaucrats realize is that their paychecks become the priority.

Hey! How’s that “War on Poverty” thing going?

Vuk
Reply to  ferdberple
June 2, 2022 1:56 pm

Russian nobility hardly spoke Russian, the language of peasants, they spoke French. Perhaps Napoleon made same mistake as Putin in Ukraine, thinking if people speak your language they would welcome your invading army.
When Napoleon captured some 5,000 Russian solders in a European battle he released them, gave them back their guns and flags and they marched back to Russia as heroes.
https://www.rbth.com/history/332300-4-reasons-russian-nobility-spoke-french

Last edited 1 month ago by Vuk
Jack
Reply to  Vuk
June 3, 2022 1:19 pm

Before the french Revolution, almost all the Europe’s nobilities spoke french.
The german King of Prussia enjoyed saying: “I speak french in my court, italian with the ladies, and german… with my dog

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ferdberple
June 3, 2022 2:12 am

for reliable affordable supplies staying with russia is in the EU best interest
importing from usa by boat is plain stupid

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  ferdberple
June 3, 2022 10:08 pm

Shame on both of us for thinking the same thing. No doubt about the nose thumbing, but no, too hard to organize without risks from leaks. The sad part is the whole of Europe is collapsing from doing the wrong thing, at the wrong time, in the wrong way with energy, for 40 years. France had the right response with nuclear, when they “lost Algeria”, but they appear to have failed to update their system.

Kpar
Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
June 5, 2022 3:33 pm

You are apparently correct. France decided to standardize their entire nuke system, using a tried and true US design. ALL of France’s reactors were the same, and a reactor operator from Normandy could run the reactor in Marseilles without skipping a beat. All of them were updated in concert.

The US always wanted the best and newest tech, so every plant was different. Operators had to be “brought up to speed” (often at great expense and delay) on the new plants.

Both approaches had their advantages and disadvantages, but it appears that the French grew complacent in their maintenance protocols- often a problem when something has been so successful for so long.

Tom Halla
June 2, 2022 10:16 am

Failure to tell the greens to sit down and shut up, and deal with the reverse learning curve on building reactors due to their interference is a cause.

niceguy
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 2, 2022 3:46 pm

Failure to explain that not one imaginable “nuclear accident” would cause significant disruption on the biology and animal life of people outside the plant.
Other than the stay at home, evacuation, agitation, media circus, reputation impact, etc. outside. And perhaps mass financial crisis from fear of going outside.
But biology would not suffer. Only psychological impact.

And psychology of crowds is downstream of “science” (incl. “Science” ah ah) so studying the “science” of socio-psychology is quite problematic.

MarkW
Reply to  niceguy
June 3, 2022 8:12 am

I just love the way ignorant people are convinced that nuclear power is going to kill them.

Three Mile Island caused no harm to the environment. The harm caused by Fukushima was barely measurable. Even Chernobyl, outside the immediate area of the plant, only caused a small disruption that was gone decades ago.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2022 10:33 am

“I just love the way ignorant people are convinced that nuclear power is going to kill them.”

Well, some smart people are convinced that the spread of radioactive material as a result of nuclear power accidents is going to harm, and potentially kill, people:

As regards the multiple reactor containment explosions and reactor core meltdowns that occurred at the Fukashima nuclear power plant (with subsequent forced-evacuation from a large area around that site):
“Because of concerns over possible radiation exposure, government officials established a 30-km (18-mile) no-fly zone around the facility, and a land area of 20-km (12.5-mile) radius around the plant—which covered nearly 600 square km (approximately 232 square miles)—was evacuated.”
— source: https://www.britannica.com/event/Fukushima-accident

As regards the reactor No. 4 reactor explosion and core meltdown that occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (with subsequent forced-evacuation from a large area around that site):
The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (aka the “30-Kilometer Zone”)
“. . .is an officially designated exclusion zone around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster . . . The Exclusion Zone covers an area of approximately 2,600 km2 (1,000 sq mi) in Ukraine immediately surrounding the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant where radioactive contamination is highest and public access and habitation are restricted. Other areas of compulsory resettlement and voluntary relocation not part of the restricted Exclusion Zone exist in the surrounding areas and throughout Ukraine . . . Today, the Exclusion Zone is one of the most radioactively contaminated areas in the world . . .”
— source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Exclusion_Zone

“The accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received.”— source: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx 

Not all “ignorant” people are necessarily wrong in their convictions.

Last edited 29 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 3, 2022 1:56 pm

Wiki eh? Well they got one thing right. Since 1950, nuclear power plants and research reactors around the world have killed only 79 people most of them in Chernobyl. Only one such death in France at a waste fuel rod processing plant. Because they include ordinary industrial accidents undifferentiated, it could have been a forklift accident. Dont forget the study of health in nuclear workers in the US where they were found to have libger life spans than other workers. It would seem the death toll is actually negative.

Apparently there have been more deaths installing windmills and rooftop solar.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 3, 2022 3:28 pm

“. . . killed only 79 people . . .”

Yeah, such a small number that their deaths really don’t matter at all. Got it!

And please tell me and all other WUWT readers all the other things that Wikipedia got wrong, ROTFLMAO.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 3, 2022 10:23 pm

Millions of other Biden voters agree with your reasoning and position on nuclear. Is that reassuring?

Kpar
Reply to  Dennis G. Sandberg
June 5, 2022 3:37 pm

Not to me, nor many other folks who are not educated beyond their power to reason.

“If you don’t read the newspapers, you are uninformed; if you DO read the papers, you are misinformed!”- Mark Twain.

Last edited 27 days ago by Kpar
Jack
Reply to  Tom Halla
June 3, 2022 1:34 pm

Electricité de France spent € 600 millions by the mid last decade in overhaul, maintenance and security upgrading of the country’s oldest nuclear plant, Fessenheim, according to the very last standards. A few year later, on political and electoral grounds, pressured by the greens, the then govt decided to shut it down. EDF refused to comply until the € 600 millions bill was covered back. It was covered… by the french taxpayers and the plant was stopped in 2020. Pure money waste.

June 2, 2022 10:29 am

Author appears to believe the French reactors were “Made in China” like the typical tools he buys at Harbor Freight. Vast majority of US reactors are well over forty and have no significant safety problems. Only reason they are shutting down is that with FREE electricity through government subsidies for Renewable Energy it is hard to sell their electricity. Many were talking of 60 years and even 80 years.
Strange that France even allowed them to have that many maintenance outages at once, are they pushing the Great Reset in France also?

Last edited 1 month ago by usurbrain
Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 2, 2022 12:21 pm

And …” after corrosion issues were found at some sites…”

Someone not paying attention to plant chemistry ?

niceguy
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
June 2, 2022 3:40 pm

I think these are all emergency reactor refill tubings, they have never been used! (other than testing)

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  niceguy
June 3, 2022 11:06 am

Oh, good then, we shouldn’t worry ourselves about corrosion in emergency plumbing that has never been used . . . to date.

/sarc off

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 2, 2022 12:57 pm

In the US reactor operating licenses are granted in 20-year blocks. The oldest running US commercial reactor is a 621 MW unit near Oswego, NY which went online December 1, 1969. It is licensed to operate until December 1, 2029; the extension was granted in 2006, or three years before end of the previous license. Two other reactors at different sites came on line in June 1970 and are licensed to operate until June 2030.

All other reactors commissioned prior to December 1, 1969 have shut down, many well short of even 50 years operation. The bulk of the US fleet came online from the mid 1970s through the 1980s and none of them are licensed beyond 60 years. Unless the NRC is willing to grant additional extensions, US reactors commissioned in the 1970s will cease operation by 2040. A quick glance shows that amounts to 44 reactors. An additional 42 were commissioned in the 1980s and will cease operation by 2050. I am not aware of any prohibition on operating licenses beyond 60 years, but to date there simply have not been any.

France appears to certify reactors in 10-year chunks, which involves retrofitting updated safety features in addition to replacing anything worn or damaged. Because France built a lot of reactors in the 1970s they are all coming up on that 10-year recertification interval and I gather the wear and other damage found has been more than expected.

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
June 3, 2022 10:22 am

 I am not aware of any prohibition on operating licenses beyond 60 years, but to date there simply have not been any.”

And why would any NPP spend near a Billion dollars to get another 20 years with the present administration attitude toward NP? You can shut down the NPP reap the vast amount in the Decommissioning Fund, Contract with a half dozen wind farms and greatly cut expenses and annual checks to the Decommissioning Fund,

The plant I worked at shutdown because the Obama admin forced all military facilities to use Green Energy. Thus the contract we had with the local military selling them electricity from the Base load NPP at $0.03/kWh was canceled after they got a contractor to build and supply “Solar” power for $0.05/kWh. The utility replaced that CLEAN nuclear power with Wind Power. Since the shutdown our electric bill has gone up 20 along with the increase to 30$ of the utility “Name Plate” electricity going up to 30% – about the same as the NPP provided. Along with that we went from an outage longer than an hour about once every other year to about 2 or 3 a year. Isn’t wind power GREAT.

Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 3, 2022 4:06 pm

P.S. I have counted the plants in operation on the NRC Webpage and found 49 that commenced commercial operation before 1982. However, the number is definitely higher because many plants that began construction before 1970 were not “Licensed to Operate” by the NRC before October of 1979 and would not have started up, even with a NRC “License to load fuel” until completion of all TMI II Lesson Learned action items were completed and approved by the NRC. Seriously doubt that all got them done before 1982 thus some of the other 40 plus plants that could have finished actions before 1982. License extensions dates are determined by the date of NRC “LICENSE TO OPERATE” DATE NOT the date of commercial operation.

Plants that are still operating in 2022 that went commercial before 1982 had to have their NRC “License to Operate” punched well before 1982, Not many Plants performed all “Cold” tests, Hot tests, and then loaded fuel in less than three months. Yes some did. I was a startup engineer at one that did.

Point being. these 50 plants and probably 10 or 20 more must have gotten their Second 20 year extension to be operating in 2022. There are others that could have gotten an extension because they never had a “license to load fuel” and their first 20 year clock never started. Some got the extension others ignored it as it was expensive. As I am retired I no longer have access to license dates etc. You are welcome to do your own research.

AndyHce
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 2, 2022 1:07 pm

According to the article about this on Jo Nova
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/06/half-the-french-nuclear-fleet-is-down/
it is the most recently built plants, under a significant design change, that are the problems. Pipes, (carrying steam, coolant or ??) are developing cracks at high rate for uncertain reasons. The pipeing has much longer runs than the older plants and have convoluted shapes. Cracks are developing adjacent to welds where pipes make more extreme directional changes.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 3, 2022 2:17 am

of course they are Macrons one of the WEF mob young leaders

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 3, 2022 11:04 am

Rich Lentz posted: “Vast majority of US reactors are well over forty and have no significant safety problems.”

Well, I have it on good authority that one of the major “safety problems” with aged nuclear reactors is the cumulative damage caused by neutrons releases by the fission reactions occurring in the core, which leads to major material weakening of critical plumbing and structures in and near the core.

“High-energy neutrons damage and degrade materials over time; bombardment of materials with neutrons creates collision cascades that can produce point defects and dislocations in the material, the creation of which is the primary driver behind microstructural changes occurring over time in materials exposed to radiation. At high neutron fluences this can lead to embrittlement of metals and other materials, and to neutron-induced swelling in some of them. This poses a problem for nuclear reactor vessels and significantly limits their lifetime . . .
“The mechanical effects of these {neutron-radiation induced} mechanisms include irradiation hardening, embrittlement, creep, and environmentally-assisted cracking. The defect clusters, dislocation loops, voids, bubbles, and precipitates produced as a result of radiation in a material all contribute to the strengthening and embrittlement (loss of ductility) in the material.[12] Embrittlement is of particular concern for the material comprising the reactor pressure vessel, where as a result the energy required to fracture the vessel decreases significantly . . . Environmentally-assisted cracking or, more specifically, irradiation-assisted stress corrosion cracking (IASCC) is observed especially in alloys subject to neutron radiation and in contact with water, caused by hydrogen absorption at crack tips resulting from radiolysis of the water, leading to a reduction in the required energy to propagate the crack
— source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_radiation (my bold emphasis added)

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 4, 2022 10:16 pm

Wiki is actually okay on non woke-politicized info. Nuclear is not one of them. The point I was making above (I didn’t think it needed elaboration) was that nuclear is the remarkably safe with under 100 deaths in 72 yrs. And most of those deaths were in Chernobyl – bare-bones, cheap design. Natural gas, oil, wind, solar and hydro have multiples of this toll and coal has many thousands a year (China accounts for the lions share).

I’m surprised that a prominent commenter and author on the sceptic side buys into the anti nuclear so ardently in the face of the good safety record, and yet fiercely battles for truth in the climate ‘war’. I’m going to assume you had a bad day.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 5, 2022 7:49 am

“The point I was making above (I didn’t think it needed elaboration) was that nuclear is the remarkably safe with under 100 deaths in 72 yrs.”

That statement needs a massive amount of “elaboration”.

First off, there are uncountable deaths-yet-to-come as a result of long-term effects (mainly cancers) that will occur in persons exposed to intense radiation during nuclear accidents of all kinds.

Second, you may not like Wikipedia’s reporting on, and summarizations of, nuclear accidents but I need only point out that Wiki has that admirable trait of (most often) heavily referencing/basing its articles on cited independent sources.

For the benefit of all WUWT readers, Wiki provides a summary article on the history of nuclear accidents and both the to-date actual and the predicted total death tolls as a result nuclear accidents of all types, not those just at NPPs, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_by_death_toll . This single article, about 4 pages long when printed out in portrait orientation on 8.5 x 11″ paper without the listing of references, lists 45 separate references that take another 2+ pages to print out. Personally, I would call that a “well-researched” article.

This article summarizes 126 undisputed deaths so far related related to “nuclear” accidents of all kinds, with hundreds to thousands more in the “disputed” category.

Moreover, this Wiki article documents a 2005 UN prediction that a further 4,000 people might eventually die as a result of radiation exposure during and subsequent to the Chernobyl power plant accident.

The same article also cites the following quote from a specified reference source regarding the Kyshtym disaster, which occurred in Russia in 1957, and is rated as the third most severe nuclear incident after Chernobyl and Fukushima:
“in 1992, a study conducted by the Institute of Biophysics at the former Soviet Health Ministry in Chelyabinsk found that 8,015 people had died within the preceding 32 years as a result of the accident” (my bold emphasis added).
Nevertheless, this information is placed into the “disputed” category.

There is no way that you can sugar-coat the above with your claim that “nuclear is remarkably safe with under 100 deaths in 72 yrs”.

Last edited 28 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 5, 2022 1:53 pm

Gordon, so your two examples of the terrible dangers of nuclear power are old Soviet plants, one in 1957! Give us an analysis of French, German, US, Canadian, Korean, and yes Japanese plants. Fukushima deaths were all Tsunami ones.

You didn’t comment on my remark concerning longer lifespans for nuclear workers. I believe it was a study done for the US Navy about 50yrs ago. I know the anti nuke folk have buried this thorough study deeply – perhaps you never heard of it.This, and selecting two old outlier Soviet nuclear disaster examples to shore up your anti-nuke stance is precisely how political climate operates.

It undermines confidence a reader might have in articles you write (I have found most of your offerings to be very convincing, though, I must say). Re ‘well researched’ Wiki, the entire crisis climate industry is well researched, too, in the same way. They quote each other and from John Cook’s 97% consensus science study data, we learn there were 13,000 climate science papers published during a 10yr period! 1300/yr!!! Yeah it’s easy to have a big bibliog. Indeed Cook’s study must be unassailable on those grounds!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gary Pearse
June 5, 2022 2:32 pm

Gary, you posted:
“. . . your two examples of the terrible dangers of nuclear power are old Soviet plants, one in 1957! “ and
“. . . selecting two old outlier Soviet nuclear disaster examples to shore up your anti-nuke stance . . .”

Have you forgotten so soon? It was YOU that made the unvarnished claim “. . . nuclear is the {sic—GD} remarkably safe with under 100 deaths in 72 yrs.”

Here, I’ll even do the math for you: 72 years prior to 2022 is 1950. And 1950 is seven years before the year 1957. So, isn’t your use of the term “outlier” just so much misdirection? Or maybe you’re just a fan of revisionist history?

And, following others, I actually made reference to the 1957 Kyshtym disaster being rated as the third most severe nuclear incident after Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima (2011).

As for your secondary comment:
You didn’t comment on my remark concerning longer lifespans for nuclear workers.”
This is correct. I did not, because you failed to provide a reference/link to such, other than you “believe” it was a Navy study done about 50 years ago . . . which incidentally might qualify it as an old outlier report, wouldn’t you say?

Jack
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 3, 2022 1:36 pm

Very probable.

Kpar
Reply to  Rich Lentz
June 5, 2022 3:40 pm

I made an above comment on the French nuclear industry that is relevant.

Duane
June 2, 2022 10:32 am

The French will figure it out – they’re the world’s leading producer and consumer of electrical power generated by nukes.

Meab
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 12:41 pm

Why do you keep making stuff up, DuhWayne? The US is first in total nuclear electricity production, China second, and France third. The US produces about twice as much nuclear power as France. France has a higher percentage of nuclear but they’re far smaller.

Duane
Reply to  Meab
June 2, 2022 1:54 pm

Nope, nowhere near. US share of power generated by nukes is only 20%, France has been at greater than 67% for decades. No other nation comes anywhere close to that.

The only thing that matters and is relevant is percentage not total power. France cannot make a policy to quadruple its population or its land area.

Why do YOU keep making up stupid inane arguments like the one you just made?

SMH

Dave Fair
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 2:30 pm

Duane, why did you ignore Meab’s final sentence? Do you like picking pointless fights and hurling gratuitous insults?

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 3, 2022 8:16 am

Apparently Duane doesn’t know the difference between an absolute number and a per capita number.

meab
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 5:16 pm

By your argument, DuhWayne, Slovakia is more expert than the US in nuclear technology because they have a larger percentage of nuclear. Ukraine, Hungary, Bulgaria, Belgium, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Armenia, and 6 others too because “the only thing that matters .. is percentage”. This despite the fact that many of these countries, including France, got much of their nuclear technology from the US.

God, you are an idiot.

Last edited 1 month ago by meab
Bryan A
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 5:29 pm

Duane
The USA is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, accounting for more than 30% of worldwide nuclear generation of electricity. The country’s nuclear reactors produced 843 TWh in 2019, about 19% of total electrical output for the country and almost 2.2 times what France produced.

Nuclear power is, since the mid 1980s, the largest source of electricity in France, with 379.5 TWh generated in 2019 about 47% of the total U.S. generation.

Bryan A
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 5:31 pm

You probably consider the U.S. to be the largest Carbon Polluter as well even though China produces almost Double the CO2 emissions

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Duane
June 3, 2022 10:38 pm

Me thinks Duane may be a liberal. The reasoning, Yikes!

Rud Istvan
June 2, 2022 11:00 am

The situation is interesting. The original design life of the old standard reactors was 40 years. In Feb 2021 EDF was granted a 10 year extension to 50 years subject to a number of conditions including inspections. It is those inspections that are turning up the stress corrosion piping problems requiring repairs to achieve the extra 10 years. Not unexpected when the original design life was 40 years and EDF is there.
Going to be very problematic in EU next winter, because each reactor takes several months to repair. France was the biggest EU electricity exporter. And Russia is curtailing natgas. And under Biden green policies (cancelled ANWAR, cancelled public land drilling/fracking, cancelled already awarded GoM leases), US cannot ramp natgas and LNG for EU despite his EU promise otherwise. Henry Hub natgas just hit $9/mbtu!

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 2, 2022 12:50 pm

Good summary, Rud. As most realize, even a quick reversal of FJB’s idiotic domestic policies won’t provide much short-term relief. However, a quick reversal of FJB’s idiotic foreign policies would likely bring immediate relief.

Duane
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 2, 2022 1:59 pm

Biden did exactly nothing to depress production of oil and gas in America – get your facts straight. The US is the world’s largest producer of oil and gas, period. Nothing has been taken off line except production capacity abandoned by the producers, not by the government, in the wake of history’s largest and deepest collapse in energy demand – due to COVID, which of course occurred on Trump’s watch, not Bidens. It’s far easier to shut down production than it is to ramp it back up. Even so we are producing an all time high of oil and gas right now, under Biden.

The point being, Presidents have exactly zilch to do with oil and gas production. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Markets and technology control both demand and supply. Presidents just say stuff. They don’t even pass laws – that’s strictly on Congress.

Amazing how otherwise seemingly intelligent people actually believe that Presidents have this little rheostat on their desk in the oval office that controls both supply and demand!

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 2:24 pm

Duane, I have my facts straight. You don’t, and could learn a thing or three from the energy sections of my ebook Blowing Smoke.

The Reader’s Digest version for you is:
Trump achieved US energy independence by fracking oil and gas primary source shales. But fracked wells have steep decline curves. For oil, less than 10% of initial output in 4 years. For gas, down to 20-25% in four years. Essays in the Ebook provide numerous real examples (graphed) by shale play. So without new fracked wells, total output declines rapidly. Which is what Dementia Joe has effortlessly achieved, by means I already noted.

And private land fracking cannot ramp easily because of Dementia Joe’s environmental restrictions on adding the necessary pipeline infrastructure. For example, he nixed an already permitted nat gas pipeline from the Marcellus Shale to the East Coast running a half mile deep under the mountain hosting the Appalachian Trail on public land, even tho the trail would not affected in any way.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2022 11:59 am

Duane believes that government policies can’t affect the market.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 2:38 pm

I see, Duane. It was someone other than Brandon that shut down the KXL pipeline, put moratoriums on FF exploration, canceled leases, slow-walked mandatory lease sales & etc. His and Democrat legislators’ statements about running FF companies out of business and the government-wide efforts to cut off investments in FFs had no impact on investors’ perceptions of risk?

TDS and Leftist ideology are not pretty and stunt ones ability to perceive reality.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 3, 2022 10:51 pm

Thanks, well said, there it is. Duane, where is your response?

meab
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 2:49 pm

DuhWayne,

1) Biden stopped conducting routine oil and gas leases on Federal lands. It took a court order to force him to resume lease sales and he’s still dragging his heels.
2) Biden shut down ANWR production.
3) Biden not only killed the Keystone XL (pipeline from Canada), he put new requirements on US pipeline construction (FERC requirements that any new projects must meet climate change thresholds) stranding oil assets.
4) Biden’s EPA put new restrictions on oil and gas methane emissions, making it costly and time consuming to produce the added paperwork to produce oil and gas.
5) Biden said that he’s going to kill petroleum, causing many brain-dead dimocrats in the financial industry to divest investments in oil and gas production, thus making financing any oil related projects harder.

FJB.

It’s really true that you dimocrats live in an echo chamber. You believe whatever nonsense the lame-stream media feeds you.

Last edited 1 month ago by meab
Derg
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 3:12 pm

Back on the meds dude.

rd50
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 4:25 pm

Duane, please remember what President Obama declared.
” I have pen and a cell phone “. Just take it from there.
On his first day in office President Biden used his pen and cell phone to declare no more coal, oil, natural gas or nuclear. Simply wind and sun will be used to generate energy.

Mohatdebos
Reply to  rd50
June 2, 2022 7:01 pm

The Biden Administration just topped Obama’s stupidity. After dramatically reducing Federal land available for oil and natural gas exploration and production, and raising royalty rates they announced today that they will substantially increase land available for solar and wind, and reduce rental rates by half.

Jtom
Reply to  Duane
June 2, 2022 7:38 pm

Just to pile on, which you richly deserve, Biden’s actions and promises to shut down oil and gas production resulted in investors not investing in new production.

Even oil and gas companies have stopped their R&D. For example, Pioneer Natural Resources Co., which operates as an independent oil and gas exploration and production company. The firm engages in hydrocarbon exploration in the Cline Shale. It focuses on the operation of the Permian Basin, Eagle Ford Shale, Rockies, and West Panhandle projects. They have announced no more R&D. Financing is too expensive because of the risk Biden presents. They are paying off their creditors, then giving the rest to shareholders. They will pump until it’s no longer profitable then close up shop. They are liquidating.

Biden did that.

MarkW
Reply to  Duane
June 3, 2022 8:19 am

Duane, in what passes for your mind, cancelling drilling and exploration has absolutely nothing to do with how much oil and gas is being produced?
Or are you just so desperate to support the man you voted for that you are willing to make a complete fool of yourself?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Duane
June 3, 2022 12:37 pm

Duane, you posted: “The point being, Presidents have exactly zilch to do with oil and gas production. Zero, zip, nada, nothin. Markets and technology control both demand and supply. Presidents just say stuff. They don’t even pass laws – that’s strictly on Congress.”

Well, I guess you never heard of Executive Orders that can be issued by Presidents.

Fact: “Both executive orders and proclamations have the force of law, much like regulations issued by federal agencies, so they are codified under Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations, which is the formal collection of all of the rules and regulations issued by the executive branch and other federal agencies.” (source: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/ )

Fact: On his first day in office, President Joe Biden, via Executive Order, cancelled the permit for the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline . . . you think that might have had an effect on “oil and gas production”?

Fact: On January 27, 2021, only seven days after taking office, President Joe Biden, via Executive order, directed the Secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters. (source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/27/biden-suspends-oil-and-gas-drilling-in-series-of.html ) . . . you think that might have had an effect on “oil and gas production”?

Fact: On March 31, 2022, President Joe Biden stated “I’m authorizing the release of 1 million barrels per day for the next six months — over 180 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is a wartime bridge to increase oil supply until production ramps up later this year. And it is by far the largest release from our national reserve in our history.” (source: https://www.outlookindia.com/international/biden-orders-release-of-1-million-barrels-of-oil-per-day-from-us-strategic-reserve-for-six-months-news-189523 ) . . . you think that might have had an effect on “oil and gas production”?

You want to reply, now that your ignorance has been clearly and factually documented?

Last edited 29 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
June 3, 2022 10:59 pm

Well, sounds like Gordon’s not very “woke”(to say the least). Comprehensive and impressive.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Duane
June 3, 2022 10:48 pm

I posted earlier that Duane “may” (tongue in cheek) be a liberal. Duane is a dark blue liberal that doesn’t care about facts, only the liberal version of “the truth”.

Dennis G. Sandberg
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2022 10:44 pm

Russia and Germany will be all kissy face in a few months, by the time cold weather arrives. Necessity makes for strange bedfellows, or words to that affect.

Andy Pattullo
June 2, 2022 11:14 am

Get our your yellow vests mes amis. And across the channel we can be absolutely sure that the government of the day has done nothing to account for the fact their neighbor won’t necessarily be there to ship power to the UK when their own suppliers can’t measure up.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
June 2, 2022 2:41 pm

This time around yellow vests and protest signs might be replaced with body armor and lethal weapons.

Captain climate
June 2, 2022 11:44 am

Fortunately, the French never wait to fix a problem until the last second when something blows up. Amirite?

pigs_in_space
June 2, 2022 11:46 am

Francois Hollande the nutter previous president known for going round to his lovers on a scooter at night…
Said it was official policy to reduce French nuclear capacity, and go for unreliables.

Looks like he got his way.
Seems the scooter was fossil fuel powered tho!
Another french president that couldn’t think past the size of his c..ck!

Bryan A
Reply to  pigs_in_space
June 2, 2022 12:03 pm

Can’t see 3″ in front of his face??

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bryan A
June 2, 2022 2:44 pm

Maybe he was a member of the dinky do club: “I’m so fat that my eyeballs can’t see my toes, but my dinky do.”

Tarrasik
Reply to  Bryan A
June 3, 2022 8:33 am

It’s hard to see what’s hiding under your nose.

Climate believer
Reply to  pigs_in_space
June 2, 2022 12:11 pm

The current moron Macron has done a complete 180° after pronouncing in 2019 the imminent closure of 14 reacteurs, now wants to build 14 and pleading that EDF prolong the life of all the others to over 50 years.

F-ing moron!

If he’d just stop wasting money on very expensive unreliable windmills in the sea, he could build at least another 10 reacteurs that would produce more power, whatever the weather, for another 60-80 years!

Did I mention he’s a f-ing moron!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Climate believer
June 2, 2022 12:17 pm

The group(s) I wouldn’t want to be are those he’ll sell down the river so he comes out
smelling like a rose. “Viva la Macron!” is his motto!

Last edited 1 month ago by Old Man Winter
niceguy
Reply to  pigs_in_space
June 2, 2022 2:20 pm

Hollande promised to close nukes but did nothing, he was busy managing his fossil scooter.
Macron OTOH acted on Hollande’s promise.

Stephen Richards
June 2, 2022 12:17 pm

This looks a test of the Macron 50% shut down of nuclear over the time of his presidency. Fessenheim took a while to shut because of protest and power supply. I had a fairly heated discussion with some french friends who thought it was a good idea.

Peta of Newark
June 2, 2022 12:35 pm

Its OK, there’s been a double whammy of goodness for the Ooh La La French.

  1. The French inter-connector is fixed (It was down to only 2GW)
  2. The residents of Number 10, London, Saudi Anambia Of Wind UK have switched off their electric wine-bottle opener AND the all-electric Prosecco Fizzing Machine.

The UK thus now has some spare elekrikerty and can send some over to our lifelong Gallic friends.
The result can be clearly seen in this moment’s Energy Number,
0.7GW of solar and 2.4GW of wind enable the UK to export 2.6GW to France *plus* another 1.1GW to Belgium and Holland combined

Ain’t the maths of Climate Change simply fantastic and we can also immediately see how 30 Million electric cars ## can pull nearly 20GW, *when* they are allowed to during Off-Peak periods – such as now.

## Assuming 10,000 miles annually and about 2 miles per kWh = an average demand of 9GW

UK Energy 02 Jun 22 orig.JPG
Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Bryan A
Reply to  Peta of Newark
June 2, 2022 2:28 pm

Electric cars will only ever be charging On Peak because their projected load increases will shift On Peak times to overnight when No Solar is available

Walter Sobchak
June 2, 2022 1:20 pm

This is why we need to mass produce reactors in factories on assembly lines using standardized interchangeable parts. And we need hundreds of them. STAT!

Oh yes and we need to drill and frac. Here and now. And build refineries and LNG plants.

I have a little list of those who won’t be missed, and Brandon is the first name on it.

JohnC
June 2, 2022 1:23 pm

This can also affect the U.K. as France supplements U.K. electricity supply and vice versa.

griff
Reply to  JohnC
June 3, 2022 7:43 am

The max is 3GW… and currently that’s going from UK to France a lot of the time

pigs_in_space
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 10:59 am

more from the lying pig called Griff!
Summer energy demands have f-all to do with it.
It’s the low energy demand period for the northern hemisphere you f..ckwit!

What most people are concerned about is winter, which of course is why motorways or autobahns have non stop road works in summer, and nuclear reactors can afford to have some down time, before the winter high demand…..

And of course when places like the UK and Germany become dependent on French nuclear electricity, cos they closed their’s down! duhh!!

Meab
June 2, 2022 1:23 pm

As usual, Bloomberg did a poor job. They don’t qualify as journalists as they’re always pushing a narrative. In this case, their false narrative is that nuclear reactors are unreliable.

According to the ASN (France’s nuclear regulator) there are 30 nuclear plants now shut down. Of these, stress corrosion has been found in piping welds of four, one is shut down for its intensive scheduled 10 year inspection, and 7 others have been shut down to inspect for the same flaws found in the 4 reactors. 18 are shut down for routine maintenance but that’s usually done in the spring and fall when electricity demand is low.

Right now, only four are known to be down for extended, unplanned maintenance, although that number could rise.

These flaws have not been found in other similar Westinghouse reactors -they are thought to be related to the change in piping geometry made when a small subset of Westinghouse reactors were Frenchified. The problem is unlikely to get much worse.

michael hart
June 2, 2022 2:43 pm

I’ve read someplace that old nuclear reactors actually produce the cheapest electricity on the market, for US models at least.

They have already amortised their original construction costs and are easily maintained to continue longer than the original estimations.

Mohatdebos
Reply to  michael hart
June 2, 2022 7:11 pm

That is probably not correct. Nuclear plants have low costs when they are producing at capacity. However availability of heavily subsidized unreliable electricity from wind and solar is making it hard to produce at capacity. That is why many of the older nuclear plants are shutting down before their license expire in the U.S.

griff
Reply to  michael hart
June 3, 2022 7:41 am

But the cost of dismantling?

Old UK reactors now being decommissioned will take till 2088 to completely remove

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 8:26 am

The cost of decommissioning was built into the operating costs. This has been explained to you many times.

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 2:07 pm

And then there’s these monstrosities…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rHkWMQMECZ0
All that rebar (needing coal to manufacture)
All that concrete (400+ square yards)
All being left in the ground after decommissioning
All to generate 2MW of Weather dependent unreliable energy

Bryan A
Reply to  griff
June 4, 2022 9:31 am

Another thing to consider is the overall material burden vs energy production.
Those massive concrete turbine tower foundations are for generators that produce 2MW each (average turbine size). A single Nuclear Unit will produce 1,100MW so you need to have 550 concrete foundations installed to have an equal nameplate capacity. Then there’s capacity factor where the Nuclear Generator will be producing energy almost 92% of the time while the wind turbine will, at best, produce between 33%-36% of the time. This, over the course of a year, to produce the same amount of energy you will need not 550 concrete foundations but over 1400 concrete foundations

observa
June 2, 2022 5:50 pm

In Oz it’s all coal’s fault-
Failure of coal leaves us stuck with gas as a very expensive transition fuel (msn.com)
Just dial up all those windmills and solar panels then eh climate changers?
Wind Energy in Australia | May 2022 | Aneroid

ozspeaksup
Reply to  observa
June 3, 2022 3:03 am

yeah talk about doublespeak the coal plants theyve forced to shut down early that they wont maintain and that theyve pushed banks to NOT finance are the ONLY reliable powersource we have
the few gas units are running at prices of HUNDREDS of $ a kj up from 5 to 7$ norma; as we morons are flogging our gas OS while leaving us at risk of shortages meaning rationed gas for homes and factories etc talking of closing the doors
and the cretins the sheepies just elected reckon we need more greenpower to fix this??

LdB
June 2, 2022 6:13 pm

Where is Griff and his HVDC interconnectors … we told him what could possibly go wrong 🙂

Meanwhile 6 Million UK homes are facing power blackouts this winter as warned by UK politicians … all I really hope is Griff is one of them so the lesson is given to those who need it.

Last edited 1 month ago by LdB
Jtom
Reply to  LdB
June 2, 2022 7:52 pm

It will be a decade too late for some, but there may be a light at the end of the tunnel for the UK.

Rolls-Royce, which manufactures nuke power plants for subs, as well as many other things, is developing Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) that supply power to up to a million homes. Major components are to be prefabricated then shipped to the site and assembled. All would be identical, and have a small footprint. Cost is about 1 billion USD, each. Most importantly, it has the backing of the British government. First installation is expected around 2029.

griff
Reply to  Jtom
June 3, 2022 7:40 am

Great things… but 5 by 2035 will deliver only 2.3 GW!

and cost ‘reduces’ to £1.8 billion by 5th unit…

Last edited 1 month ago by griff
MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 8:28 am

That’s cheap compared to the cost of wind and solar capable of producing the same amount.
Construction is also a lot faster.
As an added bonus, the power is actually available when you need it.

griff
Reply to  LdB
June 3, 2022 7:38 am

Those HVDC connectors are providing electricity to France!

Redge
June 2, 2022 11:48 pm

Thank goodness we Brits have wind and solar:

Screenshot 2022-06-03 074812.jpg
griff
Reply to  Redge
June 3, 2022 7:38 am

Yes, thank goodness, or our bills would be even higher. Renewables companies have to pay back the cash they get over their strike price – and gas is now way over renewables strike prices.

Redge
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 7:43 am

Griff

You’re an idiot

It’s not often I say things like that because I don’t like to offend people, but in your case, it’s warranted.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 8:29 am

So the most expensive form of power is reducing your costs?
Is there nothing so stupid that you won’t repeat it ad infinitum?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 9:16 am

“It is not yet true that renewables are cheaper than the main fossil fuels once intermittency is taken into account.”

” Simply ignoring the need for back up in claims about renewable costs will not make them go away.”

“It is not true that we can bask in cheap offshore wind. On the contrary two inconvenient facts remain. First, whilst intermittency was not much of a problem when there was very little wind capacity the system it now very much is. Second is those subsidies still have to be payed and now make up almost one quarter of energy bills”

“In the old fossil fuel – nuclear system total capacity requirements were of the order of 70 – 80 GW. For a system where wind sometimes can produce all energy demand and sometimes very little, that firm capacity has to remain in place, plus the wind turbines too. We need a great deal more capacity to meet any given demand. That has to be paid for by someone.”

Extracts from “The first net zero energy crisis – someone has to pay” by Professor Dieter Helm, Professor of Economic Policy, Oxford University on his blog 7th Jan 2022.

Note, Professor Helm has spent many years researching energy policy and I would wager he knows a heck of a lot more about it than you do griff;

http:www.dieterhelm.co.uk/energy/the-first-net-zero-energy-crisis-someone-has-to-pay-2/

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Andrews
peter schell
June 3, 2022 5:23 am

How long did it take France to build its original fleet of reactors? I find it hard to believe that in a country that is all in on Nuclear that it would take a decade to bring a plant online. The reason it takes so long in other countries is because of activists. Both in private and political, who do everything they can to throw roadblocks in the way.

If they could build a plant in five years, or less, forty years ago, I find myself at a loss to understand how it could be possible with a proven design and modern fabrication and construction methods that it would take twice as long today.

I would at least hope they would start construction of all six plants fairly close together so they would all be ready around the same time.

Last edited 1 month ago by peter schell
griff
Reply to  peter schell
June 3, 2022 7:37 am

There are no substantial roadblocks in France from activists etc: the entire problem is EDF just can’t deliver… continual quality/safety and planning/management fails.

Redge
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 7:48 am

There are no substantial roadblocks in France from activists etc:

I repeat, Griff, you’re an idiot, an ill-informed idiot

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 8:30 am

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
No protesters in France? That has got to be one of the stupidest things you have ever written.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 11:05 am

Griff happens to know everything about France, except he has never been there.

I’m in France now and the closest NPP is little more than 40kms from here. It’s a monster.
It keeps the lights on in LYON a large city and most of the rest of the region.
WTF is this about EDF not delivering??

blabbering mouth as you do in ascii just makes you look a cretin!

griff
June 3, 2022 7:35 am

This is the second time this has happened… and like last time they’ll rely on German and UK electricity to make up the shortfall (much of it renewable).

France has plans to build six new reactors, but these will take at least a decade to come on stream..’ Well EDF is STILL building the Flammanville reactor, still not operational till at least next year, 11 years late and 5 times over budget. I wouldn’t pin your hopes on it…

In theory nuclear is a good solution – but nobody can deliver it on time or on budget, or even finance it, as UK shows, these days

Redge
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 7:47 am

In theory nuclear is a good solution

Theory!

Nuclear has been a good solution for decades.

The only reason we don’t have more nuclear is that greens, like you, put huge obstacles in its path whilst giving wind and solar a free pass.

If it wasn’t for the greens we’d be well equipped to weather the storm.

Bryan A
Reply to  Redge
June 3, 2022 2:16 pm

Wind and solar can CHOP and/or INCINERATE bats, birds and raptors at will without reprisal but Nuclear can’t be built if there’s a spotted owl or salamander residing within miles of the site

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 8:32 am

Amazing isn’t it. In griff’s world, HVDC lines are capable of delivering power, even when there is no power available.
It wasn’t long ago that griff was telling us that it didn’t matter that wind and solar were unreliable because they would use the HVDC connection to make up the difference.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2022 3:17 pm

That’s cause they run on Battyery juice

Last edited 29 days ago by Bryan A
pigs_in_space
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 11:09 am

what a f..ckwit!
NUCLEAR POWERS MOST EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS IN FRANCE.

Next time you think of taking a TGV – you know those high speed trains they don’t have in England, think about all those neutrons going about their busy business hammering fission out of uranium.

Sure thing wind and solar are not gonna power any trains in France which is why they don’t break down like they did in England when a big wind farm suddenly went off line – or you have amnesia too??

Jack
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2022 11:28 pm

Green light was given to start Flamanville online by the end of 2022.

Jasonn
June 3, 2022 10:19 am

That’s just insane in light of the spike in energy costs and the strategic vulnerability associated with the supply origins for Europe.

June 3, 2022 10:24 am

Is this a huge weakness of democracy – no one plans long term? Term between elections = age of the universe? How is it possible that it’s now taking them by surprise that most of their nuclear stations are near end of life? Is it really impossible to manage capacity logically with timely plant replacement? The sky darkens with returning chickens 🐓

Gary Pearse
June 3, 2022 1:32 pm

“as Electricite de France SA struggles with extended outages after corrosion issues were found at some sites,”

To me, this signals ‘corrosion’ in proper maintenance protocols due to ‘budget stress’ and deterioration of worker diligence which mirrors a society and culture under unremitting stress. Recall the heavy rainstorm flood that destroyed the town of Kordel in Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany drowning 100 or so residents. Weather forecasters predicted it 3 days in advance, the local reservoir dam was near its top and normally authorities would have run the water levels lower to accommodate the rain. They did nothing! They blamed climate change.

Bridges collapsing a decade ago in USA that were predicted to be at risk by inspectors, a river with toxic industrial waste diverted into town water supply in Flint Michigan, drunken brothers in Ontario, Canada who faked analyses of drinking water, infecting hundreds with ecoli …. unhappy citizens are bad for your health and theirs.

June 4, 2022 6:04 am

The Monday Morning “Engineers” need to look at the history of Stress Corrosion. There is still a lot that engineers do not know, and they will find more. New types of Fission Reactors are going to provide the conditions for many more new types of “Stress Corrosion.” I identified a case of Stress Corrosion back in 1980 when we were trying to determined the cause of tube leaks at the tube wall that lead to a new set of stress conditions, temperature and water chemistry conditions that caused a new type of stress corrosion. It would be impossible to determine in advance what is going to cause Stress Corrosion or embrittlement for the myriad of conditions a PWR/BWR reactor system is subject to.

From my comment on “Blumberg Hydrogen Leaks, June 1, 2022

One thing I clearly remember from my Nuclear power experience is that about every three or four years from 1964 through 2010 when I retired, they discovered another type of corrosion/embrittlement of the coolant system on the reactor vessel, piping and fuel rods. And there were many years of research before 1964. Each one of those discoveries cost the Nuclear Power Industry BILLIONS! To assume this will not occur with any new brainstorm is very naive.

Last edited 29 days ago by usurbrain
%d bloggers like this: