EPR technology that will power Hinkley Point C & Sizewell C

[@MarioStahl1983]

Renewables and nuclear are the "golden mix"! Keep up the good work! 👍👍👍

[@kiliandervaux6675]

Actually renewables are added to the nuclear/gaz/coal plants because you still have to produce the same amount when there is neither wind nor sun. Given the fact that nuclear already emits very little carbon emissions, I don't see the point of adding renewables plants. It represents massive investments (that could be spent elsewhere for the ecology) for no carbon emissions reduction. When you burn gas or coal though, you can drastically reduce carbon emissions by adding renewables plants.

[@iareid8255]

Kilian, your first point is well made. Without nuclear renewables could not run without gas and or coal, this is a fact few people seem to be aware of. Renewables are uncontrollable and need to be balanced with power plants that can control ouput to keep demand and supply closely matched. By themselves frequency would run away and the grid would partially or wholey trip. Even just nuclear and renewbles, I don't really know if nuclear is flexible enough to carry out balancing duties, it would certainly add to the cost of ruuning them in that mode.

[@AlldaylongRock]

@@iareid8255 Nuclear power plants CAN load follow, and are pretty good at it, if fitted to do so. Systems include special control rods that absorb less neutrons, and turbine bypass valves in the "clean side". Even coal plants can load follow using steam bypass. The problem with nuclear load following is economics, and technical issues. You already have put your fuel in, so steam bypass is a waste, and turning down the reactor too much (to save fuel) can cause xenon poisoning, and then you are in a pickle (badly managed xenon poisoning was actually the root cause of Chernobyl), and yeah, that adds a lot of cost to the power plants. Ideally you dimension your grid so that the Nuke plants just work very closely to full power at all times (can turn them down a bit (85%+ output) for spinning reserve), and then load follow with Hydro and gas. Too many VREs(wind, solar, wave) are a waste of time and money, and just provoke instability, and add a lot of cost. You can have some VREs, if you have pumped Hydro for example.

[@AlldaylongRock]

@Tim Norris Except for the TENORMs from Rare Earth metals mine tailings, and the toxic heavy metals on the not recycled PV panels. Or the microplastics in wind turbine blades that are just buried in a landfill.

[@iareid8255]

JDaniel, yes I have read that nuclear can load follow, but in practice it is not the usual mode, for the reason you said Coal can quite easily load follow, I don't know why it is considered otherwise. Boiler output is easily modulated.

[@SC-yy4sw]

Very nice project. I hope the EPR2 can streamline the design and bring the costs down a bit. We need a nuclear renaissance in europe and around the world. All industrialised low carbon countries do it with the help of nuclear as baseload.

[@krashd]

2:39 Strange logo for an energy company, it looks like a man running around on fire.

[@jondonnelly4831]

What is seen, cannot be unseen :D

[@BerlietGBC]

What about all the cost and build time over runs Finland unit for one

[@TerryClarkAccordioncrazy]

Hinkley C is a financial train wreck with no end in sight.

[@yggdrasil9039]

After watching this video, I still have no idea how EPRs work

[@hypercomms2001]

Somehow this makes no mention of the EPR Reactor [Unit 3] that is being built in Finland... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[@mrkokolore6187]

Yes it does 1:42

[@hypercomms2001]

UK Pro Nuclear Power Group I am aware of them, I was referencing the EPR in Finland...

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@hypercomms2001 The EPR in Olkiluoto is not built by EDF, whereas in Taishan and Hinkley Point they have a (partial) projekt ownership.

[@The_Dark_Lord-69]

@Tim Norris without stating why you think that, one could confidently assert that you are wrong, unless the very same flawed (leaking) fuel rods were used in Finland. Chances of that happening are zero. Nuclear reactors don't use each other's used fuel assemblies.

[@thewiseperson8748]

@@The_Dark_Lord-69 EBR has a fundamental design flaw that turbulence of cooling fluid flow causes resonances that rattle the fuel rod racks and cause premature fuel rod failure. As neutron embrittle of the reactor components occur, these resonances will cause even greater problems with catastrophic component failure. Sadly, the EBR is a fundamentally flawed design. Even building the EBR is difficult; all examples of its construction worldwide have been late and vastly over budget.

[@jamjardj1974]

Need another 25 of these, so get a move on.

[@firecloud77]

Why does it only last 60 years?

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

it can last longer or not as long, it depends on how it is ran and maintained

[@AresErrantKnight]

Same parts of the reactor, namely the 20+ cm thick steel nuclear vessel, get brittle over time because of the high flux of neutrons which cause damage to the steel lattice, and are irreplaceable. Light water nuclear reactors such as the EPR can thus typically last 60 years but some have been approved to run for longer, up to 80 years so far in the US, because it was discovered that their vessels were still strong enough. Some studies show that they could run for over a century too but no reactor has existed for that long yet.

[@enemyofthestatewearein7945]

Since the design allows for replacement of all primary pressure components, it's fair to say that the EPR could in theory be maintained indefinitely. 60 years is the design life of the RPV and primary pipework.

[@bencripwell8663]

Not only that, but the cost is unbelievable. Finland and France are 6 billion and 10 billion euros over budget respectively, and with a price tag of 18 billion pounds, is it worth it? Fuck no. No it is not.

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

how many wind turbines and solar panels would you need to compete with a power station that provides power 24/7 365 days a year, wind only works when the wind blows, solar only works when the sun shines, bio mass produces carbon, hydro blocks off rivers and cause local extinction of animals in rivers that rely on the natural flow.

[@burningnose5866]

Why don't you remember Olkiluoto 3? That is the first NPP of EPR!!!!! Not running, but the first planned and built Reaktor of 3rd generation, made in Europe. China is faster, they have many people to build and many ideas to build it otherways... hope the safety is like our european safety.

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

Taishan nuclear power station is already leaking due to the fact it was rushed by the CCP

[@karlschauff7989]

@@FowlorTheRooster1990 Communism and nuclear energy seem to be a bad combination.

[@nl59]

China are still building 3 coal stations a week so they can't be that keen on nuclear.

[@wernermuller3522]

Meine PV-Anlage liefert seit 27 Jahren Strom und ich habe Herstellungskosten von ca. 1 Cent/kWh beim PV-Strom.

[@BerlietGBC]

Well looking at the cost and building over runs so far I think this advert is misleading at the very least, and the deal we have stuck in the UK is taking the piss, think we in the UK would have done far far better with the CANDU, if Thatcher had not killed our own nuclear industry we would have had our own SGHWR’s I’m sure

[@richardstout6364]

Chris Barton has our own government not killed our own nuclear industry we would be using 3 rd generation Fast Breeder Reactors. We were miles ahead of the rest of the world on this technology until the government shut down Dounrey......

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@richardstout6364 Regarding fast breeders: the French, the German, the Japanese design didn't work, only the Russian BN series seems to run stable. But the whole breeder concept assumed that there is a acacity of uranium fuel, which until today is not the case. Fuel prices are rather negligible in NPP operation. Yes, uranium is in principle a depletable ressource, but why would anybody invest in (unproven) reactor technology, when he can also work with something which is well known and understood?

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

the uk would have been better if the government kept investing in the Magnox program and making more and more efficient versions of the AGR reactors

[@juniorballs6025]

60 years of energy generation then hundreds of thousands of years of hazard from the fission products. Seems an incredibly greedy short term and shortsighted deal.

[@thecatpersonuk9962]

As a species we are finding ways to reuse nuclear fuel and even change it into a new no waste form of nuclear fuel

[@juniorballs6025]

@@thecatpersonuk9962 No we're not. Fast breeder reactors are in use in Russia but nowhere else, and other than fusion that's the best bet for reducing contamination. Fission creates a soup of radioactive debris. As a species, we're miles away from cleaning up nuclear fuel. We've just about cleaned up after the creation of the bomb in the 40's/50s.

[@thecatpersonuk9962]

@@juniorballs6025 I meant globally

[@thecatpersonuk9962]

@@juniorballs6025 well for now we take it to tunnels in main land Europe and send it down shafts then once it is full we fill it up with concrete

[@shivsankermondal]

France recycles spent nuclear fuel upto 96%

[@thewiseperson8748]

Flammaville (France) late and over budget, Olikuoluto (Finland) late and over budget, Taishan (China) fundamental technical design flaws, was late and over budget on implementation, Hinkley Point C (United Kingdom) late and over budget.. EBR = disastrous design. SMR's from Rolls Royce will be much better.

[@raphmaster23]

Everytime I hear ‘safest’ I think of the Titanic lol

[@louiswright8282]

Or Chernobyl

[@raphmaster23]

@@louiswright8282 yeah that too

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@louiswright8282 Chernobyl - as any RBMK reactor of which ~10 are still in operation - did not have a containment, that might have reduced the radioactive emissions during the nuclear catastrophy.

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

@@louiswright8282 chernobyl was built by corrupt communist officials that wanted to cut corners and finish the plant as quickly as possible to reap the rewards of the plant and bonuses

[@georgeljennings6045]

Based 👍👍

[@tandemcompound2]

The nuclear waste is made to last too... some 400000 years.

[@jagohannen3809]

Yeah no, it lasts at most a couple thousand years and there planning to store it in a concrete tunnel system undergeound

[@gunnarkaestle]

I recently learned that Pu-241 (multiple neutron capture in the reactor core starting from U-238) decays in Americium 241 which then decays in Neptunium 237. Whereas the half-time of the first is only 14 a and the second one 432 a, Neptunium has a half life of 2,4 million years. This means it does not emit that intensely such as short lived isotopes, but has higher activity levels such as naturally occuring uranium & thorium, nevertheless is a reason for concern for a pretty long time. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/ff/PU_241.png

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@jagohannen3809 In the US, there is a long term repository in operation, that stores heat developing nuclear waste in a salt dome, as salt is ductile and heat conducting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant

[@FowlorTheRooster1990]

@@gunnarkaestle wikipedia isnt a reliable source as it can be edited by anyone

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@FowlorTheRooster1990 Actually it is. As study once found that Wikipedia entries are not more frequently wrong than ordinary lexicons with paid editors. The only advantage shown is that the language used by pros is more sophisticated. But editable by anyone means also correctable by anyone - have you tried this out?

[@allancopland1768]

How many EPRs are actually in service and how many were built within budget? Knock youself out EDF.

[@freewal]

In service : 2 (in China;.) Within budget : 0. It's a new technology

[@gunnarkaestle]

@Josep Rey Cases Is this plan for 6 EPR2 already final? Or is this only the study the French government asked for, the results of which are to be discussed later? I also wonder if the French government has granted a similar feed-in tarif as the British government: "The Hinkley Point C CfD provides a Strike Price for the developer of £92.50/MWh (2012 prices)" www.gov.uk/government/collections/hinkley-point-c With a put option of ~100 €/MWh for 35 years, I can understand that a utility can take the financial risk to build such an expensive plant. In Finland, the costs overruns were coupled with a fixed price contract that Areva signed in order to have a first customer and a running plant (which is until not running), and which contributed to the falling down of Areva.

[@HAASMINIMILL1]

@Josep Rey Cases As of Feb 2022 1 EPR working after 20 years of effort. Truly pathetic.

[@arndpeter]

DEAD endlich Technologie !!!

[@ericalanwestacotthari4160]

fools

[@conductoredwards7217]

How are they fools?

[@illuminate4622]

Conductor Edwards because it's so immensely complex way to boil water.

[@conductoredwards7217]

@@illuminate4622 Yeah sort of, but nuclear energy is one of the most efficient sources of energy, its only beaten by hydro.

[@krashd]

@@illuminate4622 Most other ways require burning stuff, this one does not. The only other clean method of boiling water is solar and that only works in hot climates during the daytime.

[@gunnarkaestle]

@@conductoredwards7217 The link "Know the Efficiency of Nuclear Power" is nonsense as it mixes up "efficiency" = ratio of output per input (could be energy, exergy, or money) with capacity factor (or how many full load hours per year). The capacity factor is mostly driven by operating costs; it is clear that an expensive fuel is only used for peak or medium load power generation. Nuclear power has low fuel costs, and that is also one reason that they don't go for high efficiency (ca 30%). Low steam pressure and low temperatures allow in the Rankine cycle only a low energy efficiency of the plant (modern coal fired plants with supercritical steam are up to 46%), but as nuclear fuel is rather cheap, you don't want to risk technical problems in the nuclear island and keep the temperature parameters moderate.