Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
Reality. Gas plants can be planned and built a a few years. Nuclear in Alberta would be at least decade, if you ever got to the building phase, which I question if that is even possible these days. I know gas is not ideal, but it's not like we have a load of options.
|
Yup, at least a decade to get permitted, another decade to build, and most nuclear goes waaaaaaay overbudget. By that point, you're starting to be too late for the timeframes we need to get to net-zero within as well.
I'm not anti-nuclear in that I like that it's clean baseload energy and I can see a place for it. But it's timeline (decade+ to build if we start today) doesn't help and the tendency to go billions over budget/timeline is worrisome (but hey, if we're going to spend billions of public money, better off doing it on nuclear than a pipeline to nowhere or NWR refinery).
These aren't problems you can't solve, but they're definitely things to watch out for.
Could you imagine the blowback on a plan going 10 yrs and 10B overbudget? (oh wait, that's basically NWR boondoggle)
Quote:
That puts Flamanville 10 years past its original due date. One of the more alarming causes for delay is a break in the “main secondary system penetration welds,” which has contributed to a budget that’s bloated from a planned $3.9 billion to $14.6 billion.
In July, “France’s Court of Auditors slammed the Flamanville build, saying EDF had vastly underestimated its cost and timetable for completion,” Montel reports: “The EPR reactor was originally expected to start commercial operation in 2013 and cost EUR3.3 billion. However, the project has been beset by delays and cost increases. Last October, EDF said necessary repairs to the reactor's main secondary system penetration welds will further increase the cost of constructing the Flamanville EPR to EUR12.4 billion. The loading of fuel into the reactor has also been further delayed until the end of 2022.”
|
https://www.popularmechanics.com/sci...xpensive-mess/