3 ms·

Nuclear today is surprisingly flexible, so it's totally feasible to use it not just for the baseload but for more, like 75% to 90% of the needed power. Hint: th

by rakoo 7y ago

Nuclear today is surprisingly flexible, so it's totally feasible to use it not just for the baseload but for more, like 75% to 90% of the needed power. Hint: there's a country that has shown this as a viable solution. > And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built I don't understand. Are you suggesting building a throwaway source of power until nuclear reactors are built ? That's not how things work. When there really isn't enough countries buy from neighbors. But I agree with your underlying point that building a plant takes a long time; that's why we need to stop being freaked out already and start building them, so we can get rid of all those coal plants.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
You're referring to France, the government of which is planning to phase out nuclear in favour of wind and solar and projecting that it will save them billions. So they don't seem particularly convinced by your argument. They also are one of the largest power exporters in the world, which doesn't really scale up unless we start exporting power to mars. But regardless of those two separate fatal flaws, I don't think wind/solar advocates would be let off by nuclear advocates if they just handwaved away 10-25% of power and just ignored costs because the extra money would come from hidden subsidies to a nationalised energy sector so I don't see why the reverse isn't fair.
- rakoo 7y ago
  The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    The French Nuclear eventually needs replaced by something, either more nuclear or renewable, as it's bearing its end of life. That makes them not too different from any other nation, and they've made the same decision as every other nation, which is that nuclear is too expensive and slow to be considered. So I agree that other things should be done as well but unless someone has some secret method of building cheap nuclear that they're not sharing then France will spend 120 Billion to replace nuclear with renewables because the alternative would cost even more.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      No, they've done the same as other countries, which is follow the so-called ecology-oriented organisations and kill nuclear because that's what the population is asking for, not because it's the best thing to do. Again, if priority number one is to reduce CO2 then renewable won't be enough. If the priority is to find something quick and cheap, then sure, a solar panel is cheap. Except if you need a sustained production for more than 30 years then it's actually more expensive than nuclear. Again, in France it's not replacing fossil, it's replacing nuclear, the second cleanest form of electricity. If you just want to please the masses and don't care about the environment, then sure, that choice was the good one.
      - ben_w 7y ago
        If you’d said that even a few years ago, you’d have been right. Now renewables-plus-batteries have about the same LCOE as nuclear even in France, with plenty of reason to expect both renewable production and storage to become even cheaper. (France already has pumped hydro plants, but I’m not even counting them in the LCOES because I don’t know their capacity or how long they will last, but they’re unlikely to build more because they apparently battery storage is now cheaper). And I’m saying this as someone who is a fan of nuclear tech and who thinks most of the public fears are disproportionate.

by rakoo 7y ago

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

You're referring to France, the government of which is planning to phase out nuclear in favour of wind and solar and projecting that it will save them billions. So they don't seem particularly convinced by your argument. They also are one of the largest power exporters in the world, which doesn't really scale up unless we start exporting power to mars. But regardless of those two separate fatal flaws, I don't think wind/solar advocates would be let off by nuclear advocates if they just handwaved away 10-25% of power and just ignored costs because the extra money would come from hidden subsidies to a nationalised energy sector so I don't see why the reverse isn't fair.

rakoo 7y ago
The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).
- ZeroGravitas 7y ago
  The French Nuclear eventually needs replaced by something, either more nuclear or renewable, as it's bearing its end of life. That makes them not too different from any other nation, and they've made the same decision as every other nation, which is that nuclear is too expensive and slow to be considered. So I agree that other things should be done as well but unless someone has some secret method of building cheap nuclear that they're not sharing then France will spend 120 Billion to replace nuclear with renewables because the alternative would cost even more.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    No, they've done the same as other countries, which is follow the so-called ecology-oriented organisations and kill nuclear because that's what the population is asking for, not because it's the best thing to do. Again, if priority number one is to reduce CO2 then renewable won't be enough. If the priority is to find something quick and cheap, then sure, a solar panel is cheap. Except if you need a sustained production for more than 30 years then it's actually more expensive than nuclear. Again, in France it's not replacing fossil, it's replacing nuclear, the second cleanest form of electricity. If you just want to please the masses and don't care about the environment, then sure, that choice was the good one.
    - ben_w 7y ago
      If you’d said that even a few years ago, you’d have been right. Now renewables-plus-batteries have about the same LCOE as nuclear even in France, with plenty of reason to expect both renewable production and storage to become even cheaper. (France already has pumped hydro plants, but I’m not even counting them in the LCOES because I don’t know their capacity or how long they will last, but they’re unlikely to build more because they apparently battery storage is now cheaper). And I’m saying this as someone who is a fan of nuclear tech and who thinks most of the public fears are disproportionate.