This is so sad. The 3 "hidden problems" that the Koreans have are
- need to placate local politicians by using indigenous supply chains
- useless European over-regulation
- American IP lawsuit
So only man-made bullshit, as compared with actual technical challenges, which they seem to have mastered. So we can't have nice things, even though we can build them, because we red-taped ourselves to impotence.
In my mind the American IP lawsuit is the most appalling because the AP 1000 has already been exported to China with zero export controls. The IP, the does, the design…everything released without limit. To sue the Koreans now is just showing bad faith to an ally after you’ve already given everything to a global competitor.
As for localization, I actually think a fair bit of localization is good actually. Nuclear power plants are big, contentious program. They can and should contribute something economically into the community. Also, local supply chains once they are mature will make future builds cheaper.
Useless European over-regulation is useless tho…agreed.
The present American government seems lost in a wilderness of "woke", grift, dementia, money printing, etc., punishing its friends and citizens and rewarding its enemies. But somewhere (Artemis, James Webb, NASA for example) excellence survives.
"To sue the Koreans now is just showing bad faith to an ally after you’ve already given everything to a global competitor" - but the difference is that China's SPIC isn't competing with Westinghouse for projects in Poland and the Czech Republic. KHNP is, which makes it a competitor, not an ally
Besides, the Chinese have had to do a redesign based on the AP1000 to get it over 1350 MWe in order to clear Westinghouse's IP/export restrictions, and there was a lot of legal back and forth and prospect of lawsuits (https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1249829). So it's not like they were handed a design they could turn around and export immediately
I think for EDF to return to true greatness you would have to see a major restructuring of European energy policy NOT just French energy policy. That is the scrapping of the liberalization of both gas and electricity markets. While this might sound extreme it actually could happen. I think Poland for example would be an ally of France on this as might other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Who would oppose? Well probably the Netherlands and Germany along with anti nuclear countries like Austria. Ironically the Netherlands is fairly pro nuclear but also pro market liberalization while Spain under the current govt is anti nuclear but also anti market liberalization.
The real elephant in the room I think is the scrapping of market liberalization would be seen as a major repudiation of the EU Single Market program of the 1980s and 90s and also a slap in the face to those who might still want Britain to rejoin the EU.
Wow. That’s a really good point Tim. The French are fighting really hard just for nuclear to be considered green and thus not be placed at an unfair disadvantage.
I would love to learn more about the pros and cons of market liberalization for Europe. It seems like it has been a success in the terms of providing a market for wind and solar projects to sell into, and thus spurring investment. Also there is quite a lot of power being sold across country lines right now and I don’t know how they managed that before the time of a liberalized power market.
Just a question of detail: where does the figure of 64 reactors built in 15 years come from? Sorry, I didn't watch/listen to Mark Nelson's YouTube interview yet. However, my understanding is that 58 reactors + Superphénix came on line between 1975 and 2002. Do the 64 include research reactors in Cadarache and/or abandoned projects?
Thanks. I watched (parts of) the video. I think Keefer said in the beginning "54 reactors" (built in 15 years or something). And Mark mentioned 62 reactors between mid-70s and 90s, or something along those lines. As ballpark figures these are of course close enough, hence not a hugely big deal. But as a general rule I would just say: when in doubt, don't give exact dates and numbers. As we all know, these depend on the definitions and assumptions - whether we talk about reactor construction starts, commissioning, grid connection, commercial and/or experimental reactors, shut-down vs. operating, etc.
Thanks for writing. It's sad that anti-nuclear people keep pointing to France, as if it's a problem with the technology and not a problem caused by exactly the things that nuclear people are trying to ameliorate (human-made problems, rather than technological).
This is so sad. The 3 "hidden problems" that the Koreans have are
- need to placate local politicians by using indigenous supply chains
- useless European over-regulation
- American IP lawsuit
So only man-made bullshit, as compared with actual technical challenges, which they seem to have mastered. So we can't have nice things, even though we can build them, because we red-taped ourselves to impotence.
In my mind the American IP lawsuit is the most appalling because the AP 1000 has already been exported to China with zero export controls. The IP, the does, the design…everything released without limit. To sue the Koreans now is just showing bad faith to an ally after you’ve already given everything to a global competitor.
As for localization, I actually think a fair bit of localization is good actually. Nuclear power plants are big, contentious program. They can and should contribute something economically into the community. Also, local supply chains once they are mature will make future builds cheaper.
Useless European over-regulation is useless tho…agreed.
The present American government seems lost in a wilderness of "woke", grift, dementia, money printing, etc., punishing its friends and citizens and rewarding its enemies. But somewhere (Artemis, James Webb, NASA for example) excellence survives.
"To sue the Koreans now is just showing bad faith to an ally after you’ve already given everything to a global competitor" - but the difference is that China's SPIC isn't competing with Westinghouse for projects in Poland and the Czech Republic. KHNP is, which makes it a competitor, not an ally
Besides, the Chinese have had to do a redesign based on the AP1000 to get it over 1350 MWe in order to clear Westinghouse's IP/export restrictions, and there was a lot of legal back and forth and prospect of lawsuits (https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_1249829). So it's not like they were handed a design they could turn around and export immediately
A very insightful piece, and the writing is great.
Parfait, Angelica.
(should gâteaux be singular - gateau?)
Thanks Peter! Will fix!
Somehow I feel gateaux works when discussing our political leaders.....
I think for EDF to return to true greatness you would have to see a major restructuring of European energy policy NOT just French energy policy. That is the scrapping of the liberalization of both gas and electricity markets. While this might sound extreme it actually could happen. I think Poland for example would be an ally of France on this as might other countries in Central and Eastern Europe. Who would oppose? Well probably the Netherlands and Germany along with anti nuclear countries like Austria. Ironically the Netherlands is fairly pro nuclear but also pro market liberalization while Spain under the current govt is anti nuclear but also anti market liberalization.
The real elephant in the room I think is the scrapping of market liberalization would be seen as a major repudiation of the EU Single Market program of the 1980s and 90s and also a slap in the face to those who might still want Britain to rejoin the EU.
Wow. That’s a really good point Tim. The French are fighting really hard just for nuclear to be considered green and thus not be placed at an unfair disadvantage.
I would love to learn more about the pros and cons of market liberalization for Europe. It seems like it has been a success in the terms of providing a market for wind and solar projects to sell into, and thus spurring investment. Also there is quite a lot of power being sold across country lines right now and I don’t know how they managed that before the time of a liberalized power market.
Just a question of detail: where does the figure of 64 reactors built in 15 years come from? Sorry, I didn't watch/listen to Mark Nelson's YouTube interview yet. However, my understanding is that 58 reactors + Superphénix came on line between 1975 and 2002. Do the 64 include research reactors in Cadarache and/or abandoned projects?
I'll ask him! It's from the pod.
Thanks. I watched (parts of) the video. I think Keefer said in the beginning "54 reactors" (built in 15 years or something). And Mark mentioned 62 reactors between mid-70s and 90s, or something along those lines. As ballpark figures these are of course close enough, hence not a hugely big deal. But as a general rule I would just say: when in doubt, don't give exact dates and numbers. As we all know, these depend on the definitions and assumptions - whether we talk about reactor construction starts, commissioning, grid connection, commercial and/or experimental reactors, shut-down vs. operating, etc.
Thanks for writing. It's sad that anti-nuclear people keep pointing to France, as if it's a problem with the technology and not a problem caused by exactly the things that nuclear people are trying to ameliorate (human-made problems, rather than technological).
Thank you. And indeed, the french nuclear fleet is like any other piece of kit…if you don’t maintain it properly, it will start failing.
Great article, Angelica. However, I think you're referring to Total, not Total*e* ?
Good catch I'll fix it.
also, I think it's non sequit*u*r :)
C'mon France! You got this!