Nuclear: EDF wants to convert its fleet of EPR model

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
jean.caissepas
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 660
Registration: 01/12/09, 00:20
Location: R.alpes
x 423

Nuclear: EDF wants to convert its fleet of EPR model




by jean.caissepas » 23/10/15, 16:08

EDF plans to eventually replace the current French nuclear fleet by "dozens" of a new model of EPR, announces AFP Friday.

The French group is planning a renewal of the current French nuclear fleet, which should translate the forward deployment of "dozens" of EPR reactors NM (new model), with the possible support of external partners, its CEO said on Friday.

"From 2028, 2030 - this is not an exact science - we will start to settle in France EPR new model. (...) And then 2050, 2055, there will be more (reactors) the current generation. We will EPR NM: we will 30, 35 or 40. We will have dozens that will be the replacement for the current fleet, "said Jean-Bernard Lévy during a meeting with reporters.


Not even afraid...

Link : http://www.20minutes.fr/planete/1715955-20151023-nucleaire-edf-songe-convertir-parc-nouveau-modele-epr
0 x
Past habits must change,
because the future must not die.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79120
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10973




by Christophe » 23/10/15, 18:16

It was predictable unfortunately ... we must keep the French elitism: what would the unfortunate mining engineers without nuclear power?

Otherwise, stay long term in the nuclear is a hoax nameless!

Already the nuclear fuel is limited then how much this will cost conversion with respect to a transition to renewable energy ???

Ps: the nuclear exit was not a Hollande campaign argument ??
0 x
moinsdewatt
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5111
Registration: 28/09/09, 17:35
Location: Isére
x 554




by moinsdewatt » 24/10/15, 14:08

EDF sees a renewed nuclear 2050, ADEME wants to spend

Challenges the 24-10-2015

While EDF announced it will renew its reactors 2050 horizon, a report by ADEME tends to prove that a transition to 100% renewable electricity is possible.
..................

http://www.challenges.fr/energie-et-env ... asser.html[/ Quote]
0 x
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188




by Remundo » 24/10/15, 14:43

EDF had better seriously slow down this nucléeuse die leaving him already colossal slates.

That there residually few dozen GW fissile in 2050, it will be good enough ...
0 x
Image
jeannler
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 5
Registration: 23/10/15, 22:26




by jeannler » 24/10/15, 21:03

Hi,
I was already against the nuclear, the fiasco revealed today, with its former president, felt like a ministrable, we have cost and we will still cost +, but between the political decisions, to pay the military nuclear and the research where everything has been mixed !!!
It semblerai the new EPR + costing us that it pays and even if it works, ex; that sold in Swedish that I do not see a lot of crowing +.
Now in the green energy subsidies on our bill for the benefit of bank consortium and mostly foreign, Y has MARRE I think we tj monopoly.
Yet I think it is a lesser evil than to continue with the existing fleet, as we see the energy, money, time to make the dispersion to prove that we are dismantling things and should acquire common, let me think it looks like Greece as a testing ground!
A+
0 x
Yamatai
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 13/10/15, 10:48
Location: Huismes




by Yamatai » 26/10/15, 09:58

Hello,

I am also quite surprised. Both the extension in us talking for a while but new reactors?

Current reactors are similar to US reactors (same technology Westing House) so basically we follow with strong attention to aging (older a good ten years).

I corrected some bias. The EPR reactor is pending in Finland mainly for engineering reasons. It seems that civil engineering is finally finished.

For fuel must not forget that these are proven reserves. Ie a defined market price. More market price increases more extractable reserves increases.
That's what happened to oil is what will happen to nuclear fuel.

Then all the expense of the reactor, with a neutron fast reactor fuel availability is no longer a problem.
You need "just" a molten salt which is not flammable in air and explosive in water. : Mrgreen:

For the cost of new reactors take seeded sites is not representative. Deadlines are invariably longer because little experience and little training. Then all the elements are broadly on measures without the mass production effect.

Despite everything and do not make me say what I do not say I'm not certain that the new nuclear will also be competitive over time that former or even that worth it discussed this possibility with the possibilities current.

From my point of view must be lasted ancient time to our transition without seeking to build new ones.

I agree with the view of the ENR too subsidized when we take the example of the Cestas project pays for counting an inverter replacement 15 years 25 years for a guaranteed feed-in tariff. It leaves 10 year annuity without risk and all that with the Chinese PV and part of the Hungarian workforce
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 26/10/15, 10:36

It's anything nuclear is financially completed.
Unless we continued with our old reactors until the final explosion.
I do not understand that there are still people to believe in these fables.
EPR 109 euro MWH
PV 70 euros MWH
wind 40 euros MWH
rafistollé 50euros MWH old nuclear
The figures is a ladle and not necessarily in France.
Do not forget that the hydraulic is very important in France 25 GW of power and it seems that we are moving to 30 GW course only to plug the holes that wind power works only 80% of the time but a variable power (21% at rated power) and PV produces some electricity when it rains.

Do not worry Rossi will get us out there that's real nuclear!
Some thoughts on a site that seems "relatively neutral":
http://www.techniques-ingenieur.fr/actu ... trole-884/

But do not worry Rossi will get us out there that's real nuclear!
0 x
User avatar
Did67
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 20362
Registration: 20/01/08, 16:34
Location: Alsace
x 8685




by Did67 » 26/10/15, 11:35

We immediately see the twisted "arm wrestling" behind the scenes!

Hardly the government passed a law in which the share of nuclear in I do not know what horizon (far enough), must be reduced to 50% ...

... Than we EdF announces convert the existing fleet in EPR, so keep nuclear production at its current level [the new EPR compensating Fessenheim].

And explain that this is not a contradiction, since the power consumption is supposed to increase by as much!

However, everyone knows that we will not be able to get out of the squaring of the circle "less nuclear power + more erratic renewable energy + not returning to the era of the candle" without reducing our consumption (the famous "Negawatts")!

Especially the tendency to négawatts EDF locks there!

If only all consumers wanted to join hands and save each 20% of the current (usually unnecessary or easily substitutable via the significant consos deferrable: washing machine, dishwasher, freezer ...) ...

And EDF would bankrupt!

NB: To finance this conversion of power plants, EDF, too indebted, will have to appeal "to the market" - and even to its historical competitor Engie!

Fuck guys, save some money and let's have a little laugh! At 20 million households, we can do it! It would be a nice high class "class action"!
0 x
raymon
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 901
Registration: 03/12/07, 19:21
Location: vaucluse
x 9




by raymon » 26/10/15, 12:32

Fuck guys, save some money and let's have a little laugh! At 20 million households, we can do it! It would be a nice high class "class action"!


Yes of course to save money, but the solar, wind, hydropower is cheaper than nuke on my roof and solar 3kwc there then it could very easily there be a 15wc price lower than the nuke. I speak prefried money that low doses.
Although heating with recess that is the cata:
https://www.google.fr/search?q=convecte ... 23&bih=519
0 x
Yamatai
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 12
Registration: 13/10/15, 10:48
Location: Huismes




by Yamatai » 26/10/15, 14:14

I do not know the price of the EPR that will not be seeded but from a mass production.

109 MWh is a Hinkley seeded price point is an EPR but that will still be modified from those Taishan Flamanville or Finland.
In this series will be a little less, but how much?

Photo yes to 70 but sold in the best case yet in Cestas over 100.
And the in-batted in particular is 200 I think.
Then at that price remains filled with the intermittent storage or other means of production.
How much is the intermittency management cost?
I do not think that the proliferation suffice unless you have to superconducting power lines or it must be demonstrated to me.

Wind power in 40? It is rather around 50 but it probably continura to decreased a little with the economies of scale (larger machines).
http://www.enr.fr/userfiles/files/Broch ... e%20VF.pdf
It still remains intermittently supplemented at what price?

The former nuclear non rafistollé not be pushed either, it will be between 55 and 60 but not intermittent.

Hydropower is good but the supply is intermittent and too variable from one year to another. The difference is that storage is quite simple part.
25 GW of installed power but "only" 75 TWh per year in the best case (14% of annual consumption).
With the stress of a production more in spring than in winter (snow melt). So clogged intermittency without STEP is not possible.
The STEP is a yield of 70%, a need for a stream in the case of mountain STEP (evaporation compensation by the principle of the saturated vapor pressure) and flooded surfaces. It is still the only current means capable of stored huge amounts of energy.
The future of this STEP is perhaps the seaside STEP. Provided it is possible (bazaar Civens example).

https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/ ... 014_VF.pdf

P118 hydraulic producible EDF (20GW on 25GW).

The wind does not forget that the power is proportional to the cube of speed. But it is always more constant than the sun that can potentially produce max 10% power solar midday to peak when it rains (diffuse radiation).

All that to say yes I want renewable, but I also want a price, taking into account storage for a real price.

Yes I am ready to have even more expensive renewable sources in other circumstances they are not used to rent some financial.

And yes it is absurd to build new nuclear power in the state (not fission fusion) because the withdrawal will be even longer.

High prices encourage the négawatts, low price of the waste. The solution requires the rate increase?
I do not know many people willing to invest without a return on investment.

The energy market will be as long as there pipé grant a means of production whatsoever. But if that EDF withdraws part of the market the current price will rise is mechanical.
Shortage = high prices
But in this case we forget immediately the idea of ​​public service also.
It will enable new players started to produce (few do) and not just bought, resell, cashed the difference.

15 KWp at 200E per MWh no thank you I still prefer a power station like Cestas at "only" 100E per MWh

Good afternoon :)
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 273 guests