I agree with the statement that “between 40 and 100% is straightforward and needs no specific design changes” it’s not wrong. But to be clear a minimum of 40% is nowhere near enough if someone wanted to go close to 100% nuclear. He then mentioned one of several such changes needed in France which does go outside that range and again I agree with what was said. He even mentioned that France regularly goes below 40% output, but below 10% has much more serious issues. Again nothing I disagree with.
I am not sure how you think it’s a refutation of my point?
You can’t just discount export from nuclear and count import as non-nuclear
I didn’t. They do export some non nuclear generation, but the majority is nuclear which you can verify by looking at the generation during times of export. ~20% nuclear is just what the actual number is. Similarly, they import almost zero nuclear power simply based on when generation occurs and when new power is brought online by the countries involved.
No
Feel free to dig into hard numbers such construction costs, liability for accidents, and funds set aside to pay for decommissioning and where they came from etc. You obviously feel strongly about this so I can only assume you have exact numbers and a nice economic breakdown.
It takes some doing including digging into Areva‘s finances before and after it’s restructuring (bailout) etc.
It takes some doing including digging into Areva‘s finances before and after it’s restructuring (bailout) etc.
Why the hell would you dig in Areva's finance on that topic? Look at EDF's finance instead for the past 40 years instead, because that's where the money is. Area's situation is a project management and strategic failure, but they aren't relevant to the discussion because they aren't electricity producers.
I am not sure how you think it’s a refutation of my point?
Well, you argued that:
They do export some non nuclear generation, but the majority is nuclear which you can verify by looking at the generation during times of export.
RTE's[1] disagrees with you … I don't know where you get your ideas from but they simply don't align with facts.
That’s why nuclear isn’t load following in practice.
and
The more expensive bit relates to both design changes to deal with reactor poisoning
Which I refuted: nuclear is indeed load following, and you don't need to make design changes to make it so.
Comments
I agree with the statement that “between 40 and 100% is straightforward and needs no specific design changes” it’s not wrong. But to be clear a minimum of 40% is nowhere near enough if someone wanted to go close to 100% nuclear. He then mentioned one of several such changes needed in France which does go outside that range and again I agree with what was said. He even mentioned that France regularly goes below 40% output, but below 10% has much more serious issues. Again nothing I disagree with.
I am not sure how you think it’s a refutation of my point?
I didn’t. They do export some non nuclear generation, but the majority is nuclear which you can verify by looking at the generation during times of export. ~20% nuclear is just what the actual number is. Similarly, they import almost zero nuclear power simply based on when generation occurs and when new power is brought online by the countries involved.
Feel free to dig into hard numbers such construction costs, liability for accidents, and funds set aside to pay for decommissioning and where they came from etc. You obviously feel strongly about this so I can only assume you have exact numbers and a nice economic breakdown.
It takes some doing including digging into Areva‘s finances before and after it’s restructuring (bailout) etc.
Why the hell would you dig in Areva's finance on that topic? Look at EDF's finance instead for the past 40 years instead, because that's where the money is. Area's situation is a project management and strategic failure, but they aren't relevant to the discussion because they aren't electricity producers.
Well, you argued that:
RTE's[1] disagrees with you … I don't know where you get your ideas from but they simply don't align with facts.
and
Which I refuted: nuclear is indeed load following, and you don't need to make design changes to make it so.
[1]: https://www.rte-france.com/eco2mix/la-production-delectricit...
Trying to hand wave away something as not X even if X is completely dependent on it is political hogwash.