EDF Reactor Extensions May Cost $65 Billion on Safety Review

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-04/edf-reactor-extensions-may-cost-65-billion-on-safety-review.html

[font face=Times,Times New Roman,Serif][font size=5]EDF Reactor Extensions May Cost $65 Billion on Safety Review[/font]

January 04, 2012, 4:49 AM EST

[font size=3]By Tara Patel

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Electricite de France SA said the cost of extending nuclear reactor lives to 60 years could reach 50 billion euros ($65 billion) as safety measures ordered by regulators force the utility to accelerate investment.

The figure is 43 percent more than an estimate of about 35 billion euros EDF Chief Executive Officer Henri Proglio gave in 2010. Paris-based EDF, operator of the country’s 58 nuclear reactors, was ordered by the Autorite de Surete Nucleaire yesterday to spend billions of euros on improvements in a safety review following last year’s Fukushima disaster in Japan.

…

EDF is forecasting spending of about 700 million euros at each existing reactor to allow for operations through 60 years, Miraucourt said. The total spending plan could rise to 50 billion euros including safety measures such as new diesel generators as well as equipment like steam generators.

…

EDF will have to spend from 10 billion to 15 billion euros to bring safety standards at French reactors into line with the regulator’s recommendations, Les Echos reported today, citing officials it didn’t identify. That’s “materially above” forecasts, Morgan Stanley analysts said in a note today.[/font][/font]

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[FBaggins]

2. Does that price represent the capital expense difference between a 40-year life and 60 years?

If so... it's pretty cheap. And most of that wouldn't be new safety measures, but known existing expenses for such an extention (replacing steam generators, etc).

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Cheaper than building new ones

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-03/edf-says-longer-reactor-lives-could-cost-65-billion-after-safety-review.html

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=3]…

Keeping them going would still be cheaper than building new plants, such as the EPR model the utility is developing in Flamanville in Normandy.

…[/font][/font]

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2010/02/17/EDF-eager-to-prolong-life-of-reactors/UPI-80731266429520/

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]EDF eager to prolong life of reactors[/font]

Published: [font size=5]Feb. 17, 2010[/font] at 12:58 PM

[font size=3]PARIS, Feb. 17 (UPI) -- French energy giant EDF is eager to extend the lifetime of its nuclear power plants from 40 years to 60 years but the move could require massive investments.

The head of France's nuclear safety authority, Andre-Claude Lacoste, this week warned that EDF would have to modernize most of its reactors to have their lifetime extended.

Such a modernization, Lacoste told the Financial Times, "without doubt would require massive investment."

…

EDF has estimated that it would cost around $550 million to modernize one reactor, an investment that would pay off in the long run: Most of the existing plants have already amortized and their extension by two decades could add value of an estimated $1.6 billion, the Financial Times writes. The radical option is much more expensive: Replacing an old plant with a new one would cost $5 billion-$6 billion.

…[/font][/font]

[FBaggins]

4. Much.

And if you believe (as I do) that they have too many eggs in one basket, you've got to believe that they're going to shift some of their generation over to renewables over the next 2-3 decades. Far better to extend the life of an existing unit than to build only new 60-year models.

[kristopher]

5. Unless there is a large scale accident.

Bathtub curve


The Bathtub Curve and Product Failure Behavior
Part One - The Bathtub Curve, Infant Mortality and Burn-in
http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue21/hottopics21.htm

[FBaggins]

6. That timeline is undefined.

You don't know that the upturn exists between 40-60 years.

None of the big-name reactor incidents (Chernobyl, Fukushima, TMI, Kyshtym, Windscale, etc) are attributable to reactor age causing an increasing equipment failure rate.

You put too much weight on your own red herrings.

[kristopher]

7. The design life was 40 years.

Thereby the concept of "extended life":
"French energy giant EDF is eager to extend the lifetime of its nuclear power plants from 40 years to 60 years but the move could require massive investments."

I don't think most people will agree with your view that we should treat this like a controlled lab experiment where we push beyond design limits to see where the failure points actually manifest themselves.

[Dead_Parrot]

8. Yes kris...

...they're going to spend all $65 Billion on beer, not replace or test anything, then sit back and see what happens.

[kristopher]

10. Take a 10 yr old car and spend 15% of replacement value rebuilding it.

See how long it takes before parts you didn't replace fail.

The machines that are now in place are made of hundreds of thousands of parts. Taking it apart and rebuilding is going to place unique stresses on the parts that are not replaced and the safety margin overall cannot possibly do anything but decline.

This move to extend the lifetimes of these plants is exactly the kind of thinking that exemplifies what is wrong with the nuclear industry writ large. If new plants were accepted and priced competitively all of these older plants would be retired.

Instead they are forced to maintain their positioning within the system by putting a lower priority public safety than would otherwise be the case.

[Dead_Parrot]

11. Lolwut?

I don't really know what to say, kris. A properly built and driven car will last a hell of a lot longer than 10 years with no more than routine maintenance. I can only assume you either buy shitty cars, can't drive, or can't read a manual.

[kristopher]

12. Average miles in the US is 15k-20K/yr

200,000 is pushing it.

[Dead_Parrot]

13. Could still be either. :)

To get back to your actual point, though:

See how long it takes before parts you didn't replace fail.

Many of them will. Bulbs go all the time, for instance: They do not normally cause the entire vehicle to spontaneously combust, though, which seems to be your implication.

The machines that are now in place are made of hundreds of thousands of parts. Taking it apart and rebuilding is going to place unique stresses on the parts that are not replaced...
I'm struggling to think of an example here, unless you are talking physical load bearing components. Can you give any?
...and the safety margin overall cannot possibly do anything but decline.

Unless the replacements are inherently safer. Replacing the original steering wheel of a '66 Mustang with one containing an airbag adds to safety.

This move to extend the lifetimes of these plants is exactly the kind of thinking that exemplifies what is wrong with the nuclear industry writ large. If new plants were accepted and priced competitively all of these older plants would be retired.

I'm intrigued - is this a principle you apply evenly? For instance, if a wind farm hits 20 years old would you expect it to be scrapped and returned to a green field, or would you expect it to be refurbished?

Instead they are forced to maintain their positioning within the system by putting a lower priority public safety than would otherwise be the case.

Yes, bringing plants up to more stringent safety standards lowers safety standards. Err...

[FBaggins]

9. Which has little to do with how long they actually last.

I don't think most people will agree with your view that we should treat this like a controlled lab experiment

And I don't think that anyone will fall for that strawman.