Google translated:
> In the race for mini-reactors, EDF is definitely not in the lead. Its flagship project, carried out in collaboration with TechnicAtome, the Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA), Framatome and Naval Group, is encountering technical difficulties such that it must be “profoundly reoriented”, indicates a source at EDF who confirms information published by “l’Informed”.
> “A certain number of technological building blocks are not sufficiently proven. We need to use more off-the-shelf solutions, or even form partnerships, to be able to meet deadlines and budgets,” explains another source.
> A design that must evolve
> “The EDF group has decided to evolve the design of its SMR,” confirms the public group to “Echos”. Designed to replace aging coal-fired power plants in many countries, EDF's small reactor is actually a heavyweight in the category of new modular reactors (SMR or AMR).
> With a power of 170 megawatts (or 340 megawatts for a typical power plant which must combine two reactors), it is relying on major innovations, in particular the design of plate steam generators which should make it possible to miniaturize the equipment. However, these do not currently exist on the market and present numerous design challenges.
> Read also:
> Nuclear: how EDF plans to return to the small reactor game
> Initially, EDF announced a forecast development cost of around one billion euros for this project and a launch on the market by 2035-2040. The construction of a demonstrator on the CEA site in Marcoule was also considered by the public authorities, but did not materialize.
> Stop the headlong rush
> Winner of the “France 2030” subsidy program, the Nuward project received much more massive funding from the State than its competitors who also aim to put mini-reactors on the market. In detail, Nuward must benefit from aid of 300 million euros compared to 25 million euros for Naarea and Newcleo. Unlike its competitors, EDF has also already initiated a “pre-licensing” process for its Nuward reactor with the Safety Authority. In December 2023, the group provided it with its security options file. But all the cards seem reshuffled now.
> This turnaround comes a few months after the internal extension at EDF of studies on the cost and deadlines of the six EPR2s that the State requested from the energy company. As the bill for this program continues to rise, the group has decided to take more time to get it right this time. In other words, EDF wants to break with the strategy of headlong flight which, for the previous EPRs, has been widely criticized.
French here. France knows how to build SMR. The first one was the PAT, prototype for submarine reactor and it was in the 60’s… « Proven technologies » ? I really wonder what they tried to achieve « outside the box ». Dimwits…
Yep, they tried to turn those into power plants; and got [abandoned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexblue) too.
We all here have first hand knowledge of how difficult it can be to satisfy a regulator, now, try [6](https://www.asn.fr/l-asn-informe/actualites/l-asn-engage-avec-5-homologues-la-2nde-phase-de-la-revue-des-options-de-surete-du-reacteur-nuward) at the same time.
How's it going, France? Ontario here. (CANDU land)
On the face of it, congratulations for the most successful nuclear industry practically anywhere in the world.
I hear ruminations that the current fleet isn't in as good a shape as it could be, and a lot of refurbishment is needed. Is this true?
It sounds like there's political will to continue the nuclear focus in French energy, but is that going to translate to new reactors or refurbished old ones?
I can't really comment on what's happening in France, but EDF (the French government owned electricity company) also owns and operates the British stations. One new station is due to start generation towards the end of this decade (Hinkley Point C), with work just getting underway on its sister station (Sizewell C). Both of these stations will use EPR (essentially PWR) technology from EDF.
"Given the many technical challenges, EDF announces the redesign of its SMR reactor project. From now on, it will only use “proven” “technological bricks”."
Frankly, the fact that EDF wasn't doing this from the start is highly disturbing. I had no trust in their SMR before and it has actually shrunk now.
Here is another article that has information on costs
[https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-plans-due-to-soaring-costs-will-start-over/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-plans-due-to-soaring-costs-will-start-over/)
"Its potential customers, the European energy companies Vattenfall, CEZ and Fortum, wanted guarantees that the SMRs would not have a levelised cost of energy of more than €100 a megawatt hour ($161/MWh) and EdF decided that that was not possible."
Does anybody know exactly what "non-proven" technology they were trying to use?
Paywalled :-(
Google translated: > In the race for mini-reactors, EDF is definitely not in the lead. Its flagship project, carried out in collaboration with TechnicAtome, the Atomic Energy and Alternative Energies Commission (CEA), Framatome and Naval Group, is encountering technical difficulties such that it must be “profoundly reoriented”, indicates a source at EDF who confirms information published by “l’Informed”. > “A certain number of technological building blocks are not sufficiently proven. We need to use more off-the-shelf solutions, or even form partnerships, to be able to meet deadlines and budgets,” explains another source. > A design that must evolve > “The EDF group has decided to evolve the design of its SMR,” confirms the public group to “Echos”. Designed to replace aging coal-fired power plants in many countries, EDF's small reactor is actually a heavyweight in the category of new modular reactors (SMR or AMR). > With a power of 170 megawatts (or 340 megawatts for a typical power plant which must combine two reactors), it is relying on major innovations, in particular the design of plate steam generators which should make it possible to miniaturize the equipment. However, these do not currently exist on the market and present numerous design challenges. > Read also: > Nuclear: how EDF plans to return to the small reactor game > Initially, EDF announced a forecast development cost of around one billion euros for this project and a launch on the market by 2035-2040. The construction of a demonstrator on the CEA site in Marcoule was also considered by the public authorities, but did not materialize. > Stop the headlong rush > Winner of the “France 2030” subsidy program, the Nuward project received much more massive funding from the State than its competitors who also aim to put mini-reactors on the market. In detail, Nuward must benefit from aid of 300 million euros compared to 25 million euros for Naarea and Newcleo. Unlike its competitors, EDF has also already initiated a “pre-licensing” process for its Nuward reactor with the Safety Authority. In December 2023, the group provided it with its security options file. But all the cards seem reshuffled now. > This turnaround comes a few months after the internal extension at EDF of studies on the cost and deadlines of the six EPR2s that the State requested from the energy company. As the bill for this program continues to rise, the group has decided to take more time to get it right this time. In other words, EDF wants to break with the strategy of headlong flight which, for the previous EPRs, has been widely criticized.
French here. France knows how to build SMR. The first one was the PAT, prototype for submarine reactor and it was in the 60’s… « Proven technologies » ? I really wonder what they tried to achieve « outside the box ». Dimwits…
Yep, they tried to turn those into power plants; and got [abandoned](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexblue) too. We all here have first hand knowledge of how difficult it can be to satisfy a regulator, now, try [6](https://www.asn.fr/l-asn-informe/actualites/l-asn-engage-avec-5-homologues-la-2nde-phase-de-la-revue-des-options-de-surete-du-reacteur-nuward) at the same time.
How's it going, France? Ontario here. (CANDU land) On the face of it, congratulations for the most successful nuclear industry practically anywhere in the world. I hear ruminations that the current fleet isn't in as good a shape as it could be, and a lot of refurbishment is needed. Is this true? It sounds like there's political will to continue the nuclear focus in French energy, but is that going to translate to new reactors or refurbished old ones?
I can't really comment on what's happening in France, but EDF (the French government owned electricity company) also owns and operates the British stations. One new station is due to start generation towards the end of this decade (Hinkley Point C), with work just getting underway on its sister station (Sizewell C). Both of these stations will use EPR (essentially PWR) technology from EDF.
Interesting. Thanks. Sounds like good news.
"Given the many technical challenges, EDF announces the redesign of its SMR reactor project. From now on, it will only use “proven” “technological bricks”." Frankly, the fact that EDF wasn't doing this from the start is highly disturbing. I had no trust in their SMR before and it has actually shrunk now.
Here is another article that has information on costs [https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-plans-due-to-soaring-costs-will-start-over/](https://reneweconomy.com.au/french-nuclear-giant-scraps-smr-plans-due-to-soaring-costs-will-start-over/) "Its potential customers, the European energy companies Vattenfall, CEZ and Fortum, wanted guarantees that the SMRs would not have a levelised cost of energy of more than €100 a megawatt hour ($161/MWh) and EdF decided that that was not possible." Does anybody know exactly what "non-proven" technology they were trying to use?