France went all in, but they saturated the energy market by when? They've built a couple since, but after an intense build out during the 70's they haven't had to keep building.
Part of the idea to me is that, if you want to be a nuclear civilization, you need government scale investment in not just building plants but in improving the designs.
You need to stay in for decades, stay evolving, where-as France simply isn't big enough, doesn't have enough demand to keep at building again and again (to the scale that they would iterate on new significantly improved fuel cycles).
America's efforts like the Integral Fast Reactor, a fast reactor with on site pyro processing, seemed so promising. A safe & proliferation-safe way to not just reprocess but to keep burning tons of the transuranics (something France doesn't really do, afaik). But we gave up. The related PRISM designs have been kicking around for decades now, and I think one might even maybe get built, but generally the atmosphere around nuclear feels like it's building old/boring designs & not trying at all to advance. Then externalizing the massive incredibly long lived waste problems.
I haven't done any research in a bit, but India for a while was talking a big game about building out Thorium reactors, at scale, and I distantly recall that seemed to have some potential to be an improved fuel cycle over the basic designs/fuel-cycles we've had for so long.
> They've built a couple since, but after an intense build out during the 70's they haven't had to keep building.
I don't get this. France had 71% of their grid nuclear in 2018. From 1980 until 2000, the only new power installed in France was nuclear. What do you mean "keep building"? Reach 100% nuclear, banning/removing all other forms of energy? Even more than that and export energy?
The main body of Franc nuclear are old reactors which require increasing maintenance and extension of operations license to keep producing. If France planned to keep their nuclear power, a lot more reactors would have to be build quickly. Reality is, there is one reactor in construction and it is long delayed and way over budget. It is supposed to get online this year or next.
But with the costs of that one reactor, it is not thinkable to replace the aging reactors. As a consequence, France needs urgently to develop and implement a plan B.
On the other side, even France sees the increased competition of renewables. This summer they even had to take three nuclear reactors temporarily off grid, because demand for nuclear was just too low.
I like to read the pro-nuclear articles, and the more I read the more I'm convinced they are trying to scam the governments/citizens. In the last 5 years or so they are asking for:
- We want a minimal payment around 80€/MWh because we provide base load. (Average price in Europe this year is 65€).
- We want our obsolete centrals to have their lifespan extended to (depending on the source) 50, 75 or even 100 years. At 80€/MWh guaranteed.
- We want the government to deal with the residues. Maybe we pay half the cost.
- We want the regulators to ease safety requirements, so our building and manteinance costs are competitive.
And now:
- Do you remember we wanted our centrals lifespans extended? Now we want them demolished and replaced, because after 40 years they are old. Government should pay/finance it, even when budgets blow up 5x.
- Do you remember that we wanted to be paid extra for being the baseload? Now we want to be the whole grid, 70% is not enough. At 80€ guaranteed, no competition guaranteed, financed by the state, and if anything goes wrong we won't pay shit.
Part of the idea to me is that, if you want to be a nuclear civilization, you need government scale investment in not just building plants but in improving the designs.
You need to stay in for decades, stay evolving, where-as France simply isn't big enough, doesn't have enough demand to keep at building again and again (to the scale that they would iterate on new significantly improved fuel cycles).
America's efforts like the Integral Fast Reactor, a fast reactor with on site pyro processing, seemed so promising. A safe & proliferation-safe way to not just reprocess but to keep burning tons of the transuranics (something France doesn't really do, afaik). But we gave up. The related PRISM designs have been kicking around for decades now, and I think one might even maybe get built, but generally the atmosphere around nuclear feels like it's building old/boring designs & not trying at all to advance. Then externalizing the massive incredibly long lived waste problems.
I haven't done any research in a bit, but India for a while was talking a big game about building out Thorium reactors, at scale, and I distantly recall that seemed to have some potential to be an improved fuel cycle over the basic designs/fuel-cycles we've had for so long.