Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

xaina222 t1_iuc6c18 wrote

Not France ? the premier EU nuclear nation ?

72

vooffle t1_iuckzp0 wrote

France built Olkiluoto 3 in Finland. It's 13 years overdue and comically over budget.

Delays of Olkiluoto 3 have significantly slowed down nuclear energy development across Europe.

116

Fenris_uy t1_iud0xpn wrote

Because Westinghouse always finish on time, right?

Vogtle is behind schedule and is projected to cost over $30B

19

Feanorer t1_iud38qs wrote

I worked at vogtle 3 and 4 for eight years. You ain’t kidding we just did fuel load for 3

11

vooffle t1_iud89tf wrote

Just went to check the list of most expensive buildings and saw Vogtle overtake Olkiluoto. That said, Areva has their hand in Hinckley and Flamanville as well, both also delayed and surpassing Olkiluoto.

3

hikingmike t1_iudrs1t wrote

Interesting, I just did some wiki reading - “This last report blames the latest increase of costs on the contractor not completing work as scheduled. Another complicating factor in the construction process is the bankruptcy of Westinghouse in 2017.[13] In 2018 costs were estimated to be about $25 billion.[3] By 2021 they were estimated to be over $28.5 billion.[14] Upon completion of Units 3 and 4 in 2023, Vogtle will become the largest nuclear power station in the United States.”

2

vengefulspirit99 t1_iud9h6e wrote

Westinghouse literally went bankrupt building these ap1000s for a project going overbudget. They were bought out by Brookfield in 2018 after their chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2017.

13

Teantis t1_iudvsvf wrote

Westinghouse basically helped the Marcos family steal a fucktin of money building a 'nuclear power plant' in the Philippines in the 80s that never ever came close to being operational but still cost a fucktin if money.

From an academic article in 1994 ten years after the plant was rsted as unsafe without ever operating:

> The construction of the Philippine's first nuclear power plant by Westinghouse has come to symbolize the corruption and cronyism of the Marcos' years. The plant has created so much controversy that it has yet to operate, in a country that desperately needs electrical power.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25072530

Edit: fuckton but apparently autocorrect likes fucktin

5

HannsGruber t1_iudivkh wrote

I bought a Westinghouse inverter generator on Amazon and as I sit here in the desert, smelling like gas having filled it for the 5th time in 30 hours...

Fuck.

My Firman I left at home would run for 16 hours on a tank but it was loud af

0

Gtp4life t1_iuf0pxn wrote

But is it less efficient or does it just have a smaller tank? My friend’s F150 can go like 100mi further on a tank than my fusion. It also has almost double the tank size.

2

greenmachine15517 t1_iudsuj5 wrote

Don’t forget about Flamanville 3, I think that one is more than a decade overdue.

1

stufmenatooba t1_iuc9hsi wrote

The United States produces as much nuclear generated power as China and France combined. It's not like they didn't approach the nation with the most experience. Going outside the EU was likely a big decision for them.

50

xaina222 t1_iuca7ks wrote

Just find it weird that they went to the US and not France which is right there, maybe this is a diplomatic move and they want to build closer ties with the US

9

randomlygeneratedpw t1_iucc2p2 wrote

The eastern European countries do not trust France as a strategic partner for a project of this scale.

Every single one views the US, not France, as the guarantor of their freedom from Russian domination. That kind of calculus is important when deciding who will build your critical strategic infrastructure.

79

neetnewt t1_iuckonn wrote

Why would that be macron has been steadfast in suggesting surrendering.

10

koolbro2012 t1_iudmlbz wrote

Also, France hasnt really been good at winning wars...mostly surrendering.

−12

stufmenatooba t1_iucbyu4 wrote

After Ukraine, having a US presence may seem like a good decision from a defense standpoint. Russia would be far less likely to attack a US installation should they consider invading.

18

isawagoose t1_iucyqds wrote

We have airplanes now. Distance isn't really a meaningful factor in these things.

10

s3rila t1_iucfinc wrote

France is use to this kind of behavior

1

[deleted] t1_iucgug6 wrote

[removed]

−11

DependentAd235 t1_iuckqnm wrote

I mean France shouldn’t be but… both France and Germany have failed to take lead on the major European issue of the decade.

Sure they don’t have the sheer size of the US but the UK set up training camps for Ukraines soldiers and France didn’t.

Their desire to be seen as leaders isn’t backed up by action.

9

Pokey_Seagulls t1_iucn034 wrote

The "premier EU nuclear nation's" finest have tried to build a single nuclear reactor in Finland ever since 2005. It's still not quite done. You'll pardon me, I'm sure, for not having any faith in Team France's ability to build anything nuclear.

39

yellowbai t1_iucpat8 wrote

It’s done they’ve loaded the fuel in. But you are correct in that there have been lots of problems. Every single nuclear project goes over budget or has complexities. Westinghouse declared bankruptcy over their nuclear project management issues.

France has the most nuclear electricity production relative to their size and is the only western nation (along with the USA) that can make + design their own nuclear propulsion system. The British use an American designed reactors. They have decades of experience in this field. And unlike the Americans they never changed in their political support of nuclear power.

The EPR design is a massive innovation but the teething problems have been huge. The problem with OK3 was the companies that bid for the projects didn’t have the technical ability to execute on it. Siemens even paid back money in a court case.

Westinghouse faced the same problems when they tried to implement their designs they found too much of the supply chain was outsourced and they lost a lot of manufacturing acumen. However the process to reintegrate that knowledge is back but it will take many years and concerted political will.

15

NavyDean t1_iud2ilx wrote

Can you explain why CANDU didn't make your list?

Is it because they don't use a uniquely designed propulsion system? Or have they stopped exporting CANDU?

3

Omidia888 t1_iueu77w wrote

CANDU’s are breeder reactors. You want avoid selling those to countries that don’t already have nuclear weapons.

2

oxygenium92 t1_iucey8f wrote

Polish gov kinda need this diplomatic relation right now. I can say a lot bad things about polish gov but damn, this was a good move.

15

shoulderknees t1_iucla5t wrote

We'll need to see the reasoning behind this decision but I would not be surprised if the French builder had to step aside because they are constrained on resources. They spent the last decade regaining knowledge on how to build an NPP and while the situation seems much better now, they are still lacking people to handle multiple projects at the same time. And there are plans for massive renewal of the French NPPs that is using numbers on the higher end of what the builder said they could achieve so starting new projects elsewhere might be stretching it.

9

yellowbai t1_iucldeh wrote

EPR vs A1000 have different perfmance indicators. I’m not a nuclear engineer so I’m not fully sure on the differences but theres here’s a paper outlining some

EPR construction has been pretty painful in Finland and was over budget and over time. It’s probably also a bit of a political move to curry favour with the Americans by procuring it from a Westinghouse. Also there no harm in having knowledge for different types on nuclear reactors on the European continent. The French design is still a beast and once Flamanville and OK3 go fully live more countries will have confidence in the French design. There’s just been a lot of teething problems with it. To be fair Westinghouse have lost a lot of their production/manufacturing knowledge most of its in Korea. The Americans are trying to repatriate the knowledge but it will take a long time to reintegrate the supply chains

7

Unipro t1_iuchwxc wrote

Poland and the EU have some disputes over the separation of power between the courts and the government.

Before the war, they were next in line for sanctions after Hungary. Very likely why they chose an non-EU country.

3

7evenCircles t1_iucq9m4 wrote

I think this is most likely. Poland has more latitude for disagreeing with the EU internally if it can cultivate a strong relationship with an external guarantor.

0

agumonkey t1_iucpddn wrote

As a French I'd love to but our industry has slowed down a bit it seems and energy companies have enough issues with current reactor deals (england and a few other places) not going well enough. Also AFAIK, france nuclear industry was bootstrapped from american design :)

2

neetnewt t1_iuckmwp wrote

French will be livid!

−4

LordSblartibartfast t1_iud49w8 wrote

Nah, for several reasons:

  • Ecological parties and ONGs here are almost all anti nuclear. It’s almost surprising that r/France is mostly pro Nuclear considering all the people I’m talking here with see Nuclear energy as a powder keg that could vaporise half of the country any minute now.

  • For those who are pro Nuke, right now we’re focused on restarting domestic Nuclear plants construction first and foremost. To get our recently promised 5 EPRs is a higher priority than delivering abroad.

  • Last but not least, I think we can all be relieved that Poland made the choice of Nuclear, even though it’s from America, rather than spawning more coal plants

5

Criom t1_iucrt49 wrote

French here, I'm not surprised, our politic class has been destroying this industry for decades and most of the knowladge is gone with the old guard of engineers. It's sad.

2

pickled-egg t1_iudgd7t wrote

It's mind boggling how many countries just seem to have given up on nuclear in this way.

France of course is the country that has done this the least but given the very obvious trajectory you'd think everyone would want in on what could be very profitable business.

2