Nuclear energy in USA: why only 19%

[Astronuc]

and by routinely I mean not requiring a billion dollars up front (to the NRC),

The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer. For FY 2016, the budget will decrease to about $191 million.

http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1503/ML15030A331.pdf

http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/nrofuncdesc.html
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/advanced/non-lwr-activities.html - not too much on advanced reactors since no one has done an application. A certification could probably done for about $200 million or so, but not necessarily $1 billion. Transatomic's MSR would probably require some kind of prototype, since what they propose is different from the only MSR constructed and operated in the US. They would probably need a private investor willing to take a big risk, or get funding through DOE.

It would take some digging to discover NRO's budgets and activities over the last decade - but here is some information on expected costs.

NRC estimates that its review of a reference COL would cost applicants about $26 million, assuming $258 per hour for reviewer time. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that COL applicants would spend about $100 million for preparing the application, paying NRC licensing fees, responding to NRC during the review process, and overhead. A reactor designer estimates that preparing a design certification application costs $200 million.

See page 10 (14/41) in http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071129.pdf

A DC requires a fair amount of engineering work. Preparing a DC doesn't mean the license fee, wouldn't necessarily equate to the cost of preparation. On the other hand, those numbers reflect 2007.

The new reactors budget for FY2010 was $264.7 million, or perhaps up to ~$267 million. Budgets can found in the files on the following page.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1100/

 

[russ_watters]

The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer. For FY 2016, the budget will decrease to about $191 million.

I was referring to - and I suspect he was too - the cost of complying with the regulations, not the cost of enforcing them:

Nuclear power plants are much more complex than homes or automobiles, leaving innumerable options for spending money to improve safety. In response to escalating public concern, the NRC began implementing some of these options in the early 1970s, and quickened the pace after the Three Mile Island accident.

This process came to be known as "ratcheting." Like a ratchet wrench which is moved back and forth but always tightens and never loosens a bolt, the regulatory requirements were constantly tightened, requiring additional equipment and construction labor and materials. According to one study,4 between the early and late 1970s, regulatory requirements increased the quantity of steel needed in a power plant of equivalent electrical output by 41%, the amount of concrete by 27%, the lineal footage of piping by 50%, and the length of electrical cable by 36%. The NRC did not withdraw requirements made in the early days on the basis of minimal experience when later experience demonstrated that they were unnecessarily stringent. Regulations were only tightened, never loosened. The ratcheting policy was consistently followed...

In addition to increasing the quantity of materials and labor going into a plant, regulatory ratcheting increased costs by extending the time required for construction. According to the United Engineers estimates, the time from project initiation to ground breaking5 was 16 months in 1967, 32 months in 1972, and 54 months in 1980. These are the periods needed to do initial engineering and design; to develop a safety analysis and an environmental impact analysis supported by field data; to have these analyses reviewed by the NRC staff and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards and to work out conflicts with these groups; to subject the analyzed to criticism in public hearings and to respond to that criticism (sometimes with design changes); and finally, to receive a construction permit. The time from ground breaking to operation testing was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980.

The increase in total construction time, indicated in Fig. 2, from 7 years in 1971 to 12 years in 1980 roughly doubled the final cost of plants.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

So mheslep was wrong (I suspect it was just off-the-cuff): the cost of regulatory compliance isn't a billion dollars, it's five (typical guestimate per reactor $10 billion, but since none have been built recently...).

Don't get me wrong: safety is important. But nuclear power has been regulated out of existence as a source of new electric power. Most of the result of that is an increase in coal power. We've regulated out of existence something that theoretically might kill people and replaced it with something that does kill people (a lot of people). Note, that's changed over the past 5 years with the resurgence of natural gas, but the previous 30 years was dominated by coal.

 

[mheslep]

Thanks for the references.

The entire new reactor budget at the NRC for FY 2015 is about $237 million, and that's all the designs, and includes utility projects as well. I expect much of that has to do with new builds like the four units at Vogtle and Summer.

Right, out of total budget for new and existing for NRC of $1 billion, almost entirely paid for by industry. The one billion that's used a rule of thumb for new light water reactors is over several, as much as four years. Not all of that goes to the NRC of course, but the NRC requires the spending be done by applicant, indirectly or otherwise, on design work.

... A certification could probably done for about $200 million or so, but not necessarily $1 billion.

Your estimate is in conflict with testimony a couple months ago from the Energy Subcommittee. Also, to what end? The primary point of the spending is not to support the budget of the NRC, but to reach a predictable if not guaranteed outcome. That is, demonstrate safety and reliability metrics and the applicant gets a liscense. The experts that testified explained that the process has no predictability for reactors that are not light water, large, PWRs.

Transatomic's MSR would probably require some kind of prototype, since what they propose is different from the only MSR constructed and operated in the US. They would probably need a private investor willing to take a big risk, or get funding through DOE.

A large risk indeed, given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that the US has always done light water reactors, and therefore is should stay that way. Moreover, the NRC is an "independent agency" and therefore the government and the people should leave them alone to decide what's best (for lightwater reactors).

 

[Astronuc]

Thanks for the references.

Right, out of total budget for new and existing for NRC of $1 billion, almost entirely paid for by industry. The one billion that's used a rule of thumb for new light water reactors is over several, as much as four years. Not all of that goes to the NRC of course, but the NRC requires the spending be done by applicant, indirectly or otherwise, on design work.

Certainly, a supplier or applicant has to do the engineering and design work, and that does take lots of money, for probably several hundred or thousand scientist and engineers depending on the size and complexity of the design. One could try to use off-the-shelf components, e.g., existing turbine/generator technology. In the case of Transatomic, they'll need detailed reactor and core design information and data, and probably new codes that do core simulation and fuel-coolant hydraulics.

The total NRC budget is about $1 billion, but that includes existing reactors (~100), new reactors (4 + DCs), Yucca Mountain (suspended), . . . .

Activities also include:
Reviewing new applications for Medical Isotope Production facilities; and
Completing operating reactor decommissioning activities at Kewaunee, Crystal River 3, and San Onofre Units 1 and 2

From http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1407/ML14079A179.pdf (Slide 4 shows the total NRC budget since FY2003.)

Operating Reactors: $590.1 million (FY14), $577.3 million (FY15), Change ($12.8 million) - or about $6 million per reactor, which could include plant modifications, e.g., uprates, or large component replacement (e.g., steam generators, upper head, . . . ), . . . . (see slides 7 and 8)
There are 900 licensing actions (including 6 power uprates)!

New Reactors: $221.3 million (FY14), $237.9 million (FY15), Change $16.5 million - (slides 8 and 9)

Your estimate is in conflict with testimony a couple months ago from the Energy Subcommittee. Also, to what end? The primary point of the spending is not to support the budget of the NRC, but to reach a predictable if not guaranteed outcome. That is, demonstrate safety and reliability metrics and the applicant gets a license. The experts that testified explained that the process has no predictability for reactors that are not light water, large, PWRs.

The NRC is addressing that, but someone comes in with a new concept, for which there is no precedent, how can the NRC predict an outcome. The NRC does not design reactors and NPPs, they simply review designs with respect to safety criteria and existing statutes, which Congress creates. All that started under the AEC, which evolved into the NRC and ERDA => DOE, splitting the regulatory entity from the R&D/promotion entity.

However, there is Joint Initiative Regarding U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Strategy for Advanced (Non-Light Water) Reactor Technologies.
http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML1435/ML14353A224.html
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/resfuncdesc.html
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/organization/nrofuncdesc.html#darr

A large risk indeed, given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that the US has always done light water reactors, and therefore is should stay that way. Moreover, the NRC is an "independent agency" and therefore the government and the people should leave them alone to decide what's best (for lightwater reactors).

The NRC is independent, but subject to the laws established by Congress, include the Code of Federal Regulations and US Code, which contains various public laws, such as the Atomic Energy Act + various amendments.

Is the statement "given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that . . ." related to Dr. Peter Lyons's testimony?

 

[mheslep]

Is the statement "given the testimony I posted, in which the regulator stated that . . ." related to Dr. Peter Lyons's testimony?

Yes

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html

That's a good review of what went wrong. There were some major problems back then, and there were A&E firms who got into nuclear plants, when they should not have done so, since they lacked experience and weren't qualified, especially when it came to first-of-a-kind systems. Then there was TMI-2 and the fire at Browns Ferry, and significant QC/QA problems at other sites.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes

Dr. Peter B. Lyons was confirmed as the Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy on April 14, 2011 after serving as the Acting Assistant Secretary since November 2010. Dr. Lyons was appointed to his previous role as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) in September 2009. Ref: http://energy.gov/contributors/peter-b-lyons

He was a regulator, but now he promotes nuclear energy on behalf of the DOE.

Lyons was a Commissioner of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from January 25, 2005 until his term ended on June 30, 2009. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_B._Lyons

Some of the numbers, like the $1 billion number were not given in the proper context, as into what activities or to how many reactors they applied.

 

[inquisitivegeek]

All its merits aside, I think the difficulty with nuclear power, is that the cost of a disaster is not quantifiable and could sink any commercial venture that tries it and ends up with a Chernobyl.

Even the biggest companies in the world - say Citibank, Wal-Mart or Microsoft - none of them could afford the clean-up, damages and legal fees that would ensue if they end up radioactively polluting a large chunk of real estate. Put simply if Chernobyl was owned by the commercial company of arbitrary size it would be bankrupt.

The conclusion from this is that forays into nuclear power generation requires government support and guarantees of immunities.

 

[russ_watters]

All companies have a non-zero risk of bankruptcy and a great many companies that go bankrupt survive and live-on (GM, pretty much every major airline).

Perhaps more to the point, the government generally takes the liability for that risk anyway.

 

[inquisitivegeek]

The business model of companies like Wal-Mart is pretty conservative and does not take on large risk. Banks like Citibank - well let's not go there; the whole concept of fractional reserve banking is basically fraudulent.

When the stakes become high enough that national interest/pride gets involved - national airlines are an example - the government steps in and bails them out, in exchange for equity or even golden shares.

But my point is that why should corporate entities take on unquantifiable risk of a nuclear disaster for a slow and steady income? From a business point of view, it would be much better to invest in the devils you know such as cleaner coal/oil/gas power plants.

 

[mheslep]

Aviation has the same kind of liability caps in place as nuclear. Western reactors have safety risks, but they can no more go "Chernobyl" (graphite fire with no containment) than they can have a nuclear explosion.

 

[DrDu]

It would be interesting to have data from France, maybe the only country which sets on nuclear reactors as a basic pillar in energy generation.

 

[mheslep]

It would be interesting to have data from France, maybe the only country which sets on nuclear reactors as a basic pillar in energy generation.

WNA has most of the basics.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-A-F/France/

 

[jim hardy]

With a nuke one runs into the need for a huge support staff.. They perform the continuous review process on operating experience and "what if" scenarios, and exchange memoranda with regulatory agencies, .

When you have to employ a thousand extra folks just because it's a nuke, much of the fuel cost differential disappears.
Economy of scale kicks in if a utility can spread that cost over several plants. My old employer has bought several plants around the country.

 

[mheslep]

A "huge support staff" that spends its time communicating with regulatory agencies is by definition there by fiat, and dependent on a bureaucratic construction for its existence, wise or otherwise. Furthermore, now large corporations have built their business models upon this bureaucratic construction. An innovator in SMR or similarly lean technology that hopes to eliminate much of that staff by design is bound to have many, well funded opponents that would likely attempt to pull the levers of that bureaucracy. That's worrisome.

 

[Joshua McAnaney]

No, it isn't (and never has been):

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/04/~/media/Research/Images/0/123/0426_chart2.png It once held promise to be cheap, but it has never been efficiently enough regulated to be cheap. A lot of that has to do with politics.

So the basic answer to your question is that nuclear power is limited due to a combination of unfavorable economics and politics.

WOW, just realized how much the energy companies are ripping us off. Not that I blame them, that's capitalism at it's finest, but seriously, that's a huge profit per kWh, especially when you consider just the baseline amount of energy required at any given time for, say, the US or the UK. That's a huge profit margin.

 

[mheslep]

The majority of the typical electric rate in the US (12¢/kWh) goes to creation and maintenance of a grid which is 99.999% available. Fuel costs for instance have long been a minority of the bill. Nuclear fuel costs are less than 1.2¢/kWh per EIA, coal fuel less than 3¢/kWh. The balance of the bill goes into maintaining existing power plants, including spare plants to absorb planned and unplanned outages, yes building some new plants, and especially the last mile of wiring and transformers to private residences which is typically repaired 24/7 within hours after the latest isolated fallen tree.

Given the above, one of the most outrageous subsidies at the moment is net metering for rooftop solar PV. PV owners can drive their net energy drawn from the utility to zero but pay nearly nothing for the grid connection to their home, given the traditional bill structure which is based on kWh usage at the residential level. Net metering as it exists can't continue much longer.

 

[QuantumPion]

WOW, just realized how much the energy companies are ripping us off. Not that I blame them, that's capitalism at it's finest, but seriously, that's a huge profit per kWh, especially when you consider just the baseline amount of energy required at any given time for, say, the US or the UK. That's a huge profit margin.

What you are talking about? The profit margin on electricity generation is quite slim, only a few percent. The reason why it is economical is that it is stable, predictable market for the most part.

 

[Joshua McAnaney]

What you are talking about? The profit margin on electricity generation is quite slim, only a few percent. The reason why it is economical is that it is stable, predictable market for the most part.

Yes, but bearing in mind that the current power demand in the UK alone is 30.57GW right now, spread out over that amount, that's a huge amount of money.

 

[QuantumPion]

Yes, but bearing in mind that the current power demand in the UK alone is 30.57GW right now, spread out over that amount, that's a huge amount of money.

If power companies operated at zero profit, then no one would invest in the company and they would not have any money to expand to meet increasing demand, upgrade, or maintain facilities. They would instead have to borrow the money and pay the banks interest, which would be passed down to the customer. Or, if the government ran the power companies at zero profit, then the money would come from taxes. So profit, interest, or taxes, you're paying for it one way or another. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

 

[gmax137]

Yes, but bearing in mind that the current power demand in the UK alone is 30.57GW right now, spread out over that amount, that's a huge amount of money.

Yes, it is huge amount of money, but it is also a huge amount of electricity.

I'm not sure where that 30.57 GW value comes from, is it the average grid load in the UK?

Assuming that's what it is, go ahead and figure out the annual profit being made by selling that 30.57 GW

Not sure what you pay in the UK say 0.15 GBP per kw-hr? And if the power company is making 10% profit (certainly it is less than that), then they'd be making
30.57E6 * 0.15 * 0.1 * 24 * 365 = 4 E9 GBP/yr. sounds like a lot (it is!)
But compare to, say, annual profits of Exxon Mobil at 32 Billion USD = 22 Billion GBP -- now who is doing the rip off?

If you still think the power companies are treasure troves, buy some of their stock, and get your share of the riches.

 

[DEvens]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/testimony/2012/04/~/media/Research/Images/0/123/0426_chart2.png

[snips]

This graph is clearly not accurate. When required to pay their property tax on the cost of their installations, solar in Ontario loses money at 40 cents/kWhr. Clearly they are doing some kind of jim-jam average on solar and natural gas.

 

[mheslep]

At 50deg N Ontario might not be a good representative of solar costs

 

[russ_watters]

WOW, just realized how much the energy companies are ripping us off. Not that I blame them, that's capitalism at it's finest, but seriously, that's a huge profit per kWh, especially when you consider just the baseline amount of energy required at any given time for, say, the US or the UK. That's a huge profit margin.

No, those numbers tell you nothing at all about profit margin because they do not include the cost of distributing the electricity, only the cost of making it.

 

[Joshua McAnaney]

Yes, it is huge amount of money, but it is also a huge amount of electricity.

I'm not sure where that 30.57 GW value comes from, is it the average grid load in the UK?

Assuming that's what it is, go ahead and figure out the annual profit being made by selling that 30.57 GW

Not sure what you pay in the UK say 0.15 GBP per kw-hr? And if the power company is making 10% profit (certainly it is less than that), then they'd be making
30.57E6 * 0.15 * 0.1 * 24 * 365 = 4 E9 GBP/yr. sounds like a lot (it is!)
But compare to, say, annual profits of Exxon Mobil at 32 Billion USD = 22 Billion GBP -- now who is doing the rip off?

If you still think the power companies are treasure troves, buy some of their stock, and get your share of the riches.

Yeah, that's the average baseline according to the National Grid. I do of course understand that you'd have to factor in distribution and maintenance costs, etc. on top of that but it's still a very lucrative sector (at least until fusion comes along and puts them all out of business). As an afterthought on money, though, we have a 3kWh solar panel system and sell the excess back to the grid. We've made around £43 so far this week, although I'm not sure how much power we generated. I'll take a look sometime and find out how much the scheme pays as a feed in tariff.

 

[analogdesign]

You are right, but I don't think there's a word for what you describe. It's like a "NIMBY Doughnut": in the hole in the center are where the people close to the plant who benefit from it live. Further away are people close enough to complain but not close enough to receive much economic benefit. Nevada is that way with the Yucca Mountain repository: the locals are in favor, the rest of the state against.

I'm a bit late to this, but in case you're interested, there is a word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA).

My father (now retired) was a civil engineer specializing in water projects and built plants throughout the world. Every single water project he worked on in the USA, Canada, or Europe had to deal with lawsuits. Every. Single. One. He called the people that sued "BANANAs", for "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody". I'm not sure if it is a general term but I sure heard it a lot as a kid.

Interestingly, the projects he worked on in the Middle East went smoothly. He even got large cash (!) bonuses on the way home. As in thousands of dollars of cash to put in his pocket before he left for the airport. Imagine that after a project in Manchester or New York...

 

[Cumberland]

I'm a bit late to this, but in case you're interested, there is a word (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA).

My father (now retired) was a civil engineer specializing in water projects and built plants throughout the world. Every single water project he worked on in the USA, Canada, or Europe had to deal with lawsuits. Every. Single. One. He called the people that sued "BANANAs", for "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody". I'm not sure if it is a general term but I sure heard it a lot as a kid.

Interestingly, the projects he worked on in the Middle East went smoothly. He even got large cash (!) bonuses on the way home. As in thousands of dollars of cash to put in his pocket before he left for the airport. Imagine that after a project in Manchester or New York...

If you he worked on hydropower projects, there is legitimate reason for opposition. Excluding environmental concern, displacement of families by flooding is a strong reason for opposition.

 

[analogdesign]

If you he worked on hydropower projects, there is legitimate reason for opposition. Excluding environmental concern, displacement of families by flooding is a strong reason for opposition.

That's fair enough, but he worked on wastewater treatment plants, which is something everyone needs but nobody wants.

Interestingly, in my opinion, one of the driving forces of environmental injustice (that is, locating toxic waste dumps, power plants, and the like in poor neighborhoods) is simply the fact that people in those neighborhoods complain less and are not as organized so placing the facilities in their neighborhoods is an example of taking the path of least resistance.

 

[DEvens]

At 50deg N Ontario might not be a good representative of solar costs

Toronto is 43N, cos(43) = 0.55. Tilting them and spacing them out of each other's shadows gets you by this quite well.

However, it is night and clouds that are the primary problems with solar.

The graph presented up-thread is clearly label rating power, not delivered power. Solar plants "enjoy" a capacity factor well under 50%, often as little as 10%. There are often week-to-month long cloudy periods where solar produces next to nothing. That means the price on that graph should be at least doubled. And when you include the backup power, usually methane, it can often be a lot worse than that. And if you include the added grid capacity required by the diffuse nature of solar, the cost goes up even more. I would estimate about 70 cents per kWhr.

Wind is similar. The label rating is, say, 100 MW, but that is often delivered for less than 10% of the time. And it is not rare for the wind power in Ontario to fall below 1 percent of rated capacity across the province.

 

[gmax137]

Toronto is 43N, cos(43) = 0.55. Tilting them and spacing them out of each other's shadows gets you by this quite well.

However, it is night and clouds that are the primary problems with solar.

...

The cost issue in the high latitudes is just that -- there's more night. Tilting the panels won't help with that...

 

[Astronuc]

However, it is night and clouds that are the primary problems with solar.

And snow perhaps.

 

[Lok]

Well the main reason USA or most of the nuclear countries don't go far from 20% nuclear capacity is the long shutdown time of a nuclear facility.
What I mean is best shown in this link from Romania (I hope there is no translation neccesary):
http://version1.sistemulenergetic.ro/
Power necessity varies a lot during one day. So when Coal plants can be shutdown in a few hours, wind and hydro in a few minutes while photo is usually to small to matter, nuclear plants need days to power down (not an expert). When you produce more you either waste or sell the energy to some other less fortunate country. Yet any less fortunate country knows you are in surplus and will buy your energy at a low price. And as a down side there is a priority between producing nuclear which corroborated with high precipitation is followed by hydro (nobody wants floods) so that coal plants need to vary their power production and sometimes end up working at only 10% capacity for a week or so. This is a brutal hit on their profit and as one can see above it is not like we can stop using them.
So this would be a no contest, Nuclear vs Economy 0-1.

 

[QuantumPion]

Well the main reason USA or most of the nuclear countries don't go far from 20% nuclear capacity is the long shutdown time of a nuclear facility.
What I mean is best shown in this link from Romania (I hope there is no translation neccesary):
http://version1.sistemulenergetic.ro/
Power necessity varies a lot during one day. So when Coal plants can be shutdown in a few hours, wind and hydro in a few minutes while photo is usually to small to matter, nuclear plants need days to power down (not an expert). When you produce more you either waste or sell the energy to some other less fortunate country. Yet any less fortunate country knows you are in surplus and will buy your energy at a low price. And as a down side there is a priority between producing nuclear which corroborated with high precipitation is followed by hydro (nobody wants floods) so that coal plants need to vary their power production and sometimes end up working at only 10% capacity for a week or so. This is a brutal hit on their profit and as one can see above it is not like we can stop using them.
So this would be a no contest, Nuclear vs Economy 0-1.

That is not entirely accurate. As discussed previously in another thread about nuclear peaking, nuclear power plants can change their power whenever and by however much they want. The reason why they do not want to is because nuclear plants have an almost fixed operating cost regardless of power, so it makes sense for them to run at full power whenever possible. You are right that hydro plants typically have first dibs when there is an excess of supply since that power is really free.

Note that France produces more than 70% of their power from nuclear. The reason why the US has not built more nuclear plants in the past is mainly due to politics. today the limitation is economics - natural gas is just cheaper and easier.

 

[Lok]

That is not entirely accurate. As discussed previously in another thread about nuclear peaking, nuclear power plants can change their power whenever and by however much they want. The reason why they do not want to is because nuclear plants have an almost fixed operating cost regardless of power, so it makes sense for them to run at full power whenever possible. You are right that hydro plants typically have first dibs when there is an excess of supply since that power is really free.

Note that France produces more than 70% of their power from nuclear. The reason why the US has not built more nuclear plants in the past is mainly due to politics. today the limitation is economics - natural gas is just cheaper and easier.

I stand corrected. Although our sole nuclear power plant is old and slow in comparison to modern ones. Still a huge power variation in one Nplant is not as "detrimental" as a mean power variation in Frances 59 reactors (although not all have such variability). And France is kinda obligated to export about 10% of electricity around itself in all directions. The Swiss being especially careful to by the power during nighttime (cheaper) and store it by refilling their hydro, as it does work with decent profits during some periods of the year.