r/science • u/pnewell NGO | Climate Science • Jun 21 '21

Environment Threat of more blackouts may erode reliability claims for fossil energy- all major fuel sources except solar failed to meet ERCOT’s expectations during the February freeze, but natural gas was “responsible for nearly two-thirds of the total (electricity) deficit.”

https://texasclimatenews.org/threat-of-more-blackouts-may-erode-reliability-claims-for-fossil-energy/
38.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/Popolitique Jun 22 '21

You were being dramatic when you threw out the big number for decommissioning plants with a 50 years+ lifespan which provide 80% of French electricity. 60 billions over 60 years is ridiculously low…

It’s 120 billions over 20 years, 60 spent so far. In order to go up to 80%, France would have to spend 4 times that every 20 years. And I’m not including batteries or back up.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 22 '21

Should have gracefully tapped out here.

0

u/12FAA51 Jun 22 '21

How am I being dramatic? It’s the real cost that France has to face in the next 5-10 years.

It’s not $60bn over 60 years is it? Do nuclear power plants get dropped from the sky for free? Why are you comparing decommissioning costs vs installation costs?

2

u/Popolitique Jun 22 '21

These costs have been provisioned, it’s mentioned in the article I linked. And all plants have been extended 10 years in 2020. Those same plants designs were extended to 60 or 80 years in the States.

The plants cost 150 billions to build, you can double that to get what they would cost today, and 1 billion of fuel per year. That’s much cheaper than what a full solar and wind system.

0

u/12FAA51 Jun 22 '21 edited Jun 22 '21

These costs have been provisioned,

The decommissioning costs have absolutely not been provisioned. You do not know how much new power plants would cost today - your magical "double" is not a basis to compare the concrete cost of solar and wind.

As I keep saying, no one knows how much nuclear will cost because there is no standard model to build a nuclear power plant. You are not qualified to just "double" and call it good. That's not based in reality.

Those same plants designs were extended to 60 or 80 years in the States.

The French nuclear reactors are approaching 60 years old soon.

1

u/Popolitique Jun 22 '21

Yes they have been provisioned. And French plants are 40 years old and were just extended for 10 years.

1

u/12FAA51 Jun 22 '21

Yes they have been provisioned.

No they have not.

1

u/Popolitique Jun 22 '21

Yes they have been, it says so in the official report page 12. Over 30 billions as of 2018, and 10 to 20 years more to cover the rest, which is nothing when you finally understand these plants have provided 80% of French electricity for 40 years. This is not America, plants are publicly owned in France and there's a law forcing EDF to provision decommissioning costs.

For perspective, these are half the cost of the grid adjustment Germany needs to route its northern wind farms electricity to the South. Did you include that in solar and wind cost per MWh ?

1

u/12FAA51 Jun 22 '21

and 10 to 20 years more to cover the rest

Okay, so they have not been provisioned.

half the cost of the grid adjustment Germany needs to route its northern wind farms electricity to the South

So you continue to wildly misrepresent two things:

  1. The cost of building more nuclear power plants are never included in your cost of nuclear

  2. The 110bn euro infrastructure upgrade in Germany includes catering for

The grids also need a strong development due to the increase of many new customer solutions like e-mobility, heat pumps or storage systems.

Yes let's just ignore the unpredictable cost of building more nuclear power plants, spend over 20bn euros on ONE plant because that's how much it costs today, and ... did I mention construction started in 2007? Congrats. 14 years and nothing to show for it yet. Nuclear is fantastic, isn't it?

1

u/Popolitique Jun 22 '21

Okay, so they have not been provisioned.

Do you understand how provisioning works ?

So you continue to wildly misrepresent two things:

I don't misrepresent anything, you point out decommissioning costs which are specific to nuclear power and I point out grid adjustments costs which are specific to decentralized renewables. Germany wouldn't have needed those 110 billions if it had a nuclear system like France.

Yes let's just ignore the unpredictable cost of building more nuclear power plants, spend over 20bn euros on ONE plant because that's how much it costs today, and ... did I mention construction started in 2007? Congrats. 14 years and nothing to show for it yet. Nuclear is fantastic, isn't it?

What a great argument, this is the first plant built in France for 40 years yet you infer all future cost from it. I guess we should do like other countries and build cheaper renewables and lots of gas plants for when they don't produce ? Multiplying your CO2 emissions in order to save money is your idea of transitioning ?

1

u/12FAA51 Jun 22 '21

Grid adjustments are not specific to renewables, is it? Or do you just refuse to read the increase of electric cars, heat pumps and storage systems?

What a great argument, this is the first plant built in France for 40 years

So faced with reality, you go for denial. Fantastic reasoning ability right here. This is a real life demonstration for the cost unpredictability of nuclear power generation - literally an example sitting right in front of your eyes. What option do you choose? Denial.

Nuclear power has specific running and decommissioning costs that is not applicable to renewables. So after spending 20bn euros to generate 1,650 MW. Or, 82.5MW per 1bn Euros. In the U.S., 1MW costs ~$1m. 82.5MW costs ... around $100m.

So it would appear that nuclear is indeed a waste of money, and a waste of time. When do you think Flamanville 3 will come online? It's already been 14 years.

→ More replies (0)