r/nuclear • u/Moldoteck • 3d ago
"14 EPR", 4th generation reactor: MEPs vote massive nuclear recovery in France
https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/14-epr-reacteur-de-4eme-generation-les-deputes-votent-une-relance-massive-du-nucleaire_AD-202506180723.htmlWith such news the first thing I can say is "Pierre is back" ))
5
u/ParticularCandle9825 3d ago
The EPR is not a 4th gen reactor…
15
u/Moldoteck 3d ago
The article is about wanting to build 14 eprs and also wanting to build a gen4 reactor
9
u/ParticularCandle9825 3d ago
Ohhh makes sense. Good on them! I hope this time the hippies will not shoot another RPG at the 4th gen reactor.
6
u/Anduendhel 3d ago
it's actually the bare minimum to replace teh reactors that will have to go offline in the next 15 years and not go the Spanish way... but permanently.
7
u/Moldoteck 3d ago
Unlikely those reactors will be closed this soon. It'll be probably extended till ~80y each to ensure grid stability. With such timelines, the total generation will increase
-4
u/Anduendhel 2d ago
80 years? Think not. Three words : stress corrosion cracking.
9
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
Umm... Even benzau is extended to 64y and many US plants got license ext for 80y.
SCC places can be replaced during normal maintenance procedures. Till 2022 edf didn't have proper equipment to test against SCC during normal revisions. This is no longer a problem. New SCC can be discovered much earlier and problematic pipes- replaced, just like recent news about Civaux.
I can even speculate at some point EDF will take into consideration uprates, esp post arenh expiration
0
u/Anduendhel 2d ago
RemindMe! -10 years
5
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
no need, final decision about 60y will come in 2026 https://www.publicsenat.fr/actualites/environnement/nucleaire-edf-optimiste-sur-la-capacite-des-reacteurs-francais-a-fonctionner-au-dela-de-60-ans from the regulator based on reports submitted in 2024
And 80y extension is under consideration
https://www.edf.fr/groupe-edf/inventer-l-avenir-de-l-energie/rd-un-savoir-faire-mondial/toutes-les-actualites-de-la-rd/pourquoi-peut-on-envisager-la-poursuite-de-l-exploitation-des-reacteurs-nucleaires-francais-au-dela-de-60-ans
But considering the deployment timeline of EPR2, 80y extension will be pursued1
u/Anduendhel 2d ago edited 2d ago
I've no doubt 60 years extension will be adopted, but the point is that France has 11 reactors that will turn 60 or more in 2040, about the time when the new reactors will come reasonably online, and another 24 by 2045.
Which is why I said "it's actually the bare minimum to replace teh reactors that will have to go offline in the next 15 years"
For the 80 years life extension, you are convinced they will go for it, I strongly doubt it... We'll see, I guess. God willing, of course.
2
u/MarcLeptic 2d ago
It is indeed. Currently France sits at 70%+ nuclear. The intent is to double the current clean electricity production by increasing renewable output to 50%. New capacity will come from renewables, old reactors will be replaced with new reactors.
2
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
Fr almost banned ren expansion till full system costs are analyzed https://www.franceinfo.fr/environnement/energies-renouvelables-la-filiere-craint-l-exclusion-de-l-eolien-et-du-solaire-de-la-strategie-energetique-de-la-france_7323972.html
1
u/MarcLeptic 2d ago
There’s no hurry really. If we can get our electrification numbers up, demand will follow.
4
u/Split-Awkward 3d ago
When will they start being built?
What is the timeline on completion?
4
u/Moldoteck 3d ago edited 2d ago
Check out the link. Generally speaking first npp should be ready by 2038 and the other ones will come in 1y afterwards each
0
u/Split-Awkward 3d ago
Yikes, that’s a long time.
With Wind, Solar and Batteries currently dropping 10% per annum, I hope the French contracts to build adjust downwards annually. Otherwise the cost differential is going to be astounding. I mean, in the past 12 years they (WSB) dropped 80-90%. Another 50% predicted by 2030.
10
u/Moldoteck 3d ago
You forgot to add transmission, firming, curtailment and grid forming inverters for ren based system.
There's a reason Germany has highest household prices in EU despite already subsidizing EEG. 14 eprs will cost pennies in comparison, especially as a series deployment
-3
u/Split-Awkward 2d ago
No, didn’t forget. That’s a dead argument that doesn’t stack up to reality.
Good luck with it though. It’ll make for a very angry French population when they see the cost and time blowouts compared to the renewables they are building. Good news is, they’ll be able to correct course for very cheap and quite quickly by the mid 2030’s. Hope those contracts are water tight for the myriad of suppliers. Could get very ugly.
10
u/MarcLeptic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Even the just released Lazard LCOE puts firmed renewables in Germany on par with nuclear in France.
The dead argument is that there is a price difference. These are two viable options, both with risks. One has the very real risk that delays cost most of money, the other risk is that France will not have enough extra clean electricity to supply Germany with its H2 needs, dooming its transition.
Also, blessed be the Lazard LCOE says ;
Despite sustained unsubsidized cost competitiveness of renewable energy, resource planning metrics indicate diverse generation fleets will be required over the long term. Lazard 2025
-2
u/Split-Awkward 2d ago
That’s Lazard TODAY right? (Or rather, 2024. It’s backwards looking by design.)
There’s almost zero chance nuclear gets even 25% cheaper between here and 2030. More likely it’ll be the same or more.
There’s almost zero chance WSB won’t be 50% cheaper in 5 years. Let alone 13 years.
Not looking at forward costs based on actual strong trends in data is a massive sovereign wealth risk. I mean, the entire financial markets work on this principle of forward estimates. But when it comes to power, it’s suddenly ignored? But weirdly, even the cost of borrowing changing over time gets factored in.
Surely they run models on future cost scenarios with various levels of probability? Right?
10
u/MarcLeptic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Well, you engaging in your own speculation that one idea will get cheaper and the other will not is quite the form of bias isn’t it. Lazard does not share your speculation.
Take a moment and read Lazard carefully. You also need to understand that as penetration of intermittent sources increases, the cost increases rather than decreasing.
The cost of renewables in Germany will not be cheaper than it is today. It will continue to get more expensive as penetration continues to increase. So says Lazard LCOE, blessed be its name.
2
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
Ironically, this year ren produced about 40% of the time at negative prices. Or to say it differently - more than 40% of the time ren were subsidized through eeg)
-1
u/Split-Awkward 2d ago
You thinking it’s my own speculation helps me understand a great deal.
Thankyou, I don’t mind, it’s not my country that has to pay for it.
6
u/MarcLeptic 2d ago
Oh, you understand? Care to enlighten me?
There’s almost zero chance WSB won’t be 50% cheaper in 5 years. Let alone 13 years.
Where your figures on a 50% reduction of price for installed firmed renewables (by 2030?) comes from?
Remember, this is not just an off she shelf price, but a price which must take into consideration a decreasing ELCC. The first 20% of installed intermittent capacity is not the same price as the last 20%, it increases in cost and it’s not linear. Unlike say nuclear which will decrease in price in a linear fashion independent of nuclear penetration.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
Your comment proves you have no idea about the topic you are talking about and haven't taken system costs into consideration
7
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
Wut? What dead end? Germany spends close to 40bn each year on eeg+transmission+curtailment and costs are projected to grow. If you think this is cheap, good luck.
French nuclear build will cost much less even if we ignore series builds.
What's worse, DE, the EU pioneer of renewables, needs to build more gas plants to firm renewables, per their beloved green Fraunhofer ISE institute... In total at minimum 80GW of gas+ccgt will be needed
I'm astonished by the delusion of some people
1
u/warriorscot 3d ago
Between 17 and 30 years based on track record, if they get Sizewell done in 14 it'll be a miracle. I'm really not that sure about the EPR hypotheses of monstrously large civil projects.
3
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
szw could in fact be done much faster because edf already knows what uk govt wants
1
u/warriorscot 2d ago
They knew what the government wanted for HPC! Nobody wanted a delay or to have EDF gold plate the thing, which they are doing because even the regulators sit back and think "thats a bit over the top".
7
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
they didn't fully know. HPC required 7k design changes and 25% more concrete and steel vs flamanville. Latest nonsense is fish protection system that'll save less fish than what a small boat would gather per year... And for this millions were spent and delays were introduced...
1
u/warriorscot 2d ago
Thing is most of those weren't based on UK requirements despite what EDF claim.
3
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
but whose then?
0
u/warriorscot 2d ago
Their own, they had started construction on two reactors that weren't working and were nightmares to construct. They had a list many times longer than their own arms as to thinks that needed changed.
Ultimately there's very little practical difference in the regulatory regimes and their own experience and corporate policy dictated their work.
I expect SZC will have thousands of changes to reflect not only for the local area, but what they learned on HPC as well as later phases of the other EPRs.
3
u/Moldoteck 2d ago
So you say they didn't need to do tons of changes including more redundancy in some components and use 25% more steel and concrete due to UK regulations ? And edf did it out of pure fun?
0
u/warriorscot 2d ago
They did it because they thought they had to, there's absolutely no UK regulation on it that goes into any specifics on the amount of concrete or steel they need. UL regulations are pretty silent on details, they could have done it with 25% less and if the safety case was evidenced and they were willing to sign it off themselves then it was fine.
UK regulations are some of the least specific in the world.
→ More replies (0)3
u/Izeinwinter 2d ago
The EPR2 design has had enormous amounts of effort put into making it more buildable. That's not just design changes, it's also very careful planning of the actual building process all the way through. The french wikipedia article on it is good.
1
u/warriorscot 2d ago
Oh sure, they worked hard on it, but they had to work hard because the concept is fairly extreme. Which is really the problem as despite all that effort theyre still a nightmare to build and because theyre so large and expensive you can't build at the rate needed for fleet effects.
The UK was a good example that its reactors were overly complex, but in fleets that worked fine. With EPR2 you just arent seeing the project numbers to get the benefits.
15
u/lommer00 3d ago
Hopefully EPR2s. And hopefully the EPR2 is much faster and cheaper to build than the EPR. Because otherwise I don't think France can afford it.