How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?
How dependent is France on Niger's uranium?
The military coup in Niger has raised concerns about uranium mining in the country by the French group Orano, and the consequences for France's energy independence.
You're viewing part of a thread.
@MattMastodon @Sodis If you include construction and disposal (and transport and so on…) it is called lifecycle costs. First image shows that per energy produced (sorry german, »AKW neu« is new-built nuclear).
Uranium comes from all over the world. Second image shows the situation a few years ago. Niger is place 5, Russia place 7.
The cost is £106/MWh in 2021 for Hinkley Point, the #nuclear powerstations in the UK but it's indexed linked (goes up with inflation) so. Is higher now, and only starts when the reactor goes live in 2028 (estimated) .
The reactor was going to cost £23,000,000,000 but this has jumped to £33,000,000,000 and there is a suggestion (Reuters) that it will jump again to nearer £40,000,000,000.
To me this seems expensive #energy when #renewables can cost £50/MWh. At the moment.
@MattMastodon @Sodis We're going in circles. Volatile sources can only supply 40% of current demand for £50/MWh. The question is what fills the rest.
If storage, then the price goes up immediately by at least two conversion losses from/to storage, in addition to the cost of storage itself. Which doesn't exist at the needed scalability.
Pointing to single projects is not meaningful, as we need to build a fleet anyway, which has its own dynamics.
OK so I have googled the men capacity factor and of course #nuclear has nearly 100% and #renewables only 40%.
But this just means it produces on average 40% of it's capacity. You'd need a sunny windy day to get 100%
What I've read about is a #SWB (Solar wind and battery) system with massive overcapacity
So biomass, hydro and battery can take up the slack when needed. Or gas - which has a very low mean capacity factor <10% but is usually used as a last resort
Well you haven't explained the 40% or I've not understood you.
The fact remains the Hinkley, my local #nuclear reactor is turning out to be very expensive.
This, will make it hard for any government or investor to put the case for a second #reactor, let alone a slew of them. After all, if #EDF can't deliver, who can?
And #renewables only get cheaper.
I get the point about #batteries but batteries are great at smoothing sharp peaks in demand. Everyone making tea at 8am...
I'll try to explain the 40%, sorry for the parts that you already know.
Electric energy is always produced at the same time (and »place« roughly) as it is consumed. (You can't pump electricity into some reservoir to be consumed later, you always need a different energy form for storage.)
The problem with volatile sources is that they mostly (more than half) produce energy at the wrong time and/or the wrong place, and at other times produce nothing.
⇒⇒ Aside: the »place« problem is that you can't build solar panels and wind turbines just anywhere, and they need a lot of space. E. g. Germany has now the problem that the wind blows much better in the north, but the industry is more in the south. So, you need a lot more/stronger transmission lines. Same for offshore wind: more wind at sea, but you need a lot of cables.
The more wind and solar you already have, the more the good places are already taken.
⇒⇒ (But at least we already have transmission tech, it is now just a question of materials and effort.)
So, assume that we have enough wind and solar that we can regularly produce 100% of demand from them. You can imagine peaks just touching the demand line at top demand.
(You could imagine more than that, but that would mean overbuilding, which hurts the economics quite badly while not making the end result much better.)
⇒
⇒ Now the volatile supply line has valleys between the peaks. If you integrate over time and place, the supply line covers about 40% of demand in this situation.
That is /very rough/ and depends on a lot of factors, but my point is the same if it were 30% or 60%: where does the rest come from?
- Transmission: as already mentioned, we know how to transmit electric energy, it's just material and effort. This smoothes out the »place« dimension.
⇒
⇒ - Storage: obviously, we'd want to smoothen out the time dimension as well. This means adding storage that can meet 100% of demand as well (volatile sources frequently drop to 0), and feeding it with enough additional clean sources that it can fill every expected gap (and gap accumulation).
And here I'd like to repeat my point from before: the best (most effective) storage we have right now is pumped hydro, by far. And pumped hydro is not enough, by far.
⇒Interesting about hydro.
The UK has the same problem with it's grid and we are rebuilding our grid. But this it true of #nuclear too. Massive new powerlines are being built across Somerset.
One thing I am getting out of this is how different counties are. In the UK we have massive capacity for wind tidal etc.
Overbuilding renewables is good. Zero wind can happen but in the UK it's usually windy somewhere. Overcapacity means big surpluses for industry
⇒ - Backup. Of course, anything inherently CO₂-producing is out for this, and this includes gas, obviously, and biomass (maybe less obviously, but think about it). And that leaves?
So, this is my plan: keep building solar and wind till peak demand is sometimes met, build nuclear to replace all the fossil »backup«.
Surely biomass is net zero? It produces CO2 that has already been captured the old fascioned way.
I think it needs an approach that looks at each countries energy mix and works from that, Germany, UK, France & Norway work differently
One of the problems the UK has had is we were relying on French nuclear. But last year the French couldn't deliver
And you haven't dealt with my point about #renewable oversupply being good
But I agree storage is a problem when there is no wind.