10 ms·

Proud of my country for once (Nuclear France) We decarbonated our electricity in a 20 years timeframe (while the consumption was rising) thanks to nuclear powe

by Iv 7y ago

Proud of my country for once (Nuclear France) We decarbonated our electricity in a 20 years timeframe (while the consumption was rising) thanks to nuclear power. I always wondered why no other country went that road and why they are still hesitating. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_production_by_sources_in_France.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/...

acidburnNSA 7y ago
Congrats. You all did really an impressive job. Having a ~single utility that could basically standardize on the fleet and share engineering services and operator training across the fleet really is a good example of how to run nukes cheaply too. Nukes in France are currently about 30% cheaper than natural gas. Really awesome. Climate solutions here we come!
- bboygravity 7y ago
  Climate solutions here we don't come. There's a very strong political lobby in France against nuclear with plans to reduce nuclear power generation there within the next decade(s)[1]. Europe's other "big example" (Germany) will be closing all of it's nuclear power plants within years. Only to replace them by (Russian) gas powered plants. Currently "only" 35 % of Germany's power production (2018) is from "sustainable" sources. CO2 production will go up significantly when they start moving from nuclear to gas and other sources: there's no power source that generates as little CO2 per TWH as nuclear when looking at the entire life cycle. The end result in the future will be: more absolute CO2 emissions (debatable), more CO2 emissions per generated TWH (absolute certainty), more deaths per generated TWH [2], higher consumer energy prices ("sustainable" is way more expensive than nuclear sustainable), more political dependency on Russia due to gas imports and no more electricity exports from France to surrounding countries (France is a net exporter of energy thanks to nuclear) potentially leading to a more unstable European grid. I don't get it. [1]https://www.nucnet.org/news/france-plans-to-delay-shutdown-of-some-nuclear-plants-by-10-years https://www.nucnet.org/news/france-plans-to-delay-shutdown-o... [2]https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
  - 9q9 7y ago
    I don't get it. Politics. In the 1980s the Green Party emerged in Germany, a powerful new left-wing party. Unlike most new parties, they didn't disappear quickly, but proved remarkably politically adept. Their original USP (unique selling point) was environmetalism in general, but extreme and well organised opposition to nuclear power in particular. At the time, all other parties supported nuclear (including the hard left, since the Soviet union was all in on nuclear). At the time de-carbonisation and global warming wasn't a big issue. Merkel's 2011 decision to abandon nuclear was a direct (and political) reaction to the Fukushima nuclear disaster and impending regional elections: Merkel feared (rightly) that with Fukushima fresh on the electorate's mind, her party would be savaged by the Greens on the nuclear question. In order to prevent that, she forced a 180 degree turn on her party and promised to phase out nuclear energy quickly. As an aside, I've always wondered to what extent the anti-nuclear movements had tacit support from coal/oil producers/users.
    - bboygravity 7y ago
      I'm not one to easily believe the West's "the Russians did it" rhetoric, but here's an issue (Germans switching from nuclear to Russian gas) where the Russians would obviously benefit strongly both economically as well as politically. Or to put it in Putin's eloquent trolling words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQDyt0B-1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQDyt0B-1E
      - 9q9 7y ago
        There are plenty of parties interested in preventing nuclear: oil producers, coal producers, gas producers, owners of oil and coal power plants. Also bear in mind that in the 1980s, when the anti-nuclear power movement became a serious political force, Russia as a state didn't exist. OTOH, the Soviet union was heavily invested in nuclear power.
    - pjc50 7y ago
      Nah, the Green movement was there from the 60s and always against nuclear because of the weapons. Much of the fighting was over nuclear weapons testing, then later over nuclear waste disposal at sea. This came to a head with the French government's terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, causing the death of a photographer who was on board at the time. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill.
pilif 7y ago
Same for Switzerland. And even better: We're privileged to have the Alps in the middle of our country making hydroelectricity a very viable and renewable option.
- lnsru 7y ago
  Is Switzerland ready to destroy the nature for cheap hydroelectricity?
  - rdevsrex 7y ago
    I’m not sure about all hydropower in Switzerland but Grand Dixence is very high up. I’ve been there myself and the nature doesn’t seem to be disturbed. I don’t think there are any salmon swimming up from the Pacific like in a lot of rivers in the US. What exactly are your concerns about wildlife being disturbed?
    - lnsru 7y ago
      Where did I mention wildlife?? One just needs to flood lots of area to build hydropower plants. Please look at this picture: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway#/media/File%3AAlta-damm.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway...
- throwaway9d0291 7y ago
  I recently went on a trip to a power station and came away with the understanding that as far as electricity goes, Switzerland is somewhat screwed. Switzerland has 5 nuclear plants operating right now, which produce 34% of its electricity (with hydro accounting for another 60%) [0] however these plants are approaching the ends of their lives and a referendum in 2017 banned new plants [1], so we need to find an alternative way to replace them. Expanding hydro isn't an easy option because there's nowhere to build new dams (and the populace is generally against it) and the glaciers that provide the water are shrinking due to climate change. This will produce a burst of extra capacity but following that hydro won't be a viable option. There are plans to turn a few existing resevoirs into pumped storage facilities [2] but this isn't a great deal of capacity. Wind can be a part of the overall solution but it's not enough. The Swiss government (optimistically) plans to have ~300GWh/month by 2050 [3] but that's only ~5% of Switzerland's current consumption. Solar is another potential part of the solution but current capacity is minimal and adoption hasn't been going well [4]. The Swiss government has a 2050 energy plan [5] but it doesn't seem realistic to me. For one, they expect a 43% decrease in overall energy consumption _and_ a 13% decrease in electricity consumption. Assuming most of the non-electric consumption is from cars and it's reduced in favor of EVs, I just don't see how electricity consumption can be less than it is today. In the end, I think Switzerland is going to be heavily dependent on importing energy from elsewhere in Europe unless it removes the nuclear ban in the immediate future. It doesn't look likely that it's going to be able to replace the lost capacity with renewables quickly enough. [0]: https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft/energie/energie---fakten-und-zahlen.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft... [1]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vote-opener/43190762 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vote-opener/43190762 [2]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/hydropower_swiss-alps-proposed-as-powerhouse-of-europe/32762310 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/hydropower_swiss-alps-proposed-... [3]: https://www.uvek-gis.admin.ch/BFE/storymaps/EE_WEA/index.php?lang=en https://www.uvek-gis.admin.ch/BFE/storymaps/EE_WEA/index.php... [4]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/07/12/switzerland-close-to-hitting-2-gw-solar-mark/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/07/12/switzerland-close-to-... [5]: https://www.bfe.admin.ch/bfe/en/home/policy/energy-strategy-2050.html https://www.bfe.admin.ch/bfe/en/home/policy/energy-strategy-...
hanniabu 7y ago
> I always wondered why no other country went that road and why they are still hesitating. Because when things go wrong they go really wrong and many times we see capitalism continuously move the goal post on safety rules. A plant designed for 30 years with an acceptable 1cm crack tolerance surpasses both limits, lobbying occurs, and then it's now all of a sudden designed for 40 years and 3cm cracks.
- ptah 7y ago
  also it takes a more long term vision than any corporation currently has. France electricity production is mostly state-owned and the government can afford to take a longer term view
- sbdmmg 7y ago
  > Because when things go wrong they really go wrong. My impression is that the main reason is poor education and scaremongering, rather than actual causalities. When comparing nuclear with other energy sources, nuclear is still quite safe in deaths/TWh, see for example [1]. [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
  - simfoo 7y ago
    Imagine if Chernobyl happened in the middle of Europe (it _can_ happen again). Imagine if large parts around it became uninhabitable for hundreds of years. This risk is not captured by a single deaths/TWh number, so please stop comparing this when debating (current) nuclear energy options (not talking about future designs or even fission-based plants)
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      Fuel fire to atmosphere is not particularly likely at the remaining Chernobyl type reactors, never mind more safety oriented modern designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Simplified_Boiling_Water_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Simplified_Boiling_Wa... The Fukushima disaster nicely demonstrated that there is lots of risk, but the incredible severity of the release at Chernobyl is probably going to be historically unique. (Fukushima released quite a lot of material, mostly leaking Cesium into groundwater (and then the ocean). Chernobyl released several metric tons of fuel directly into the atmosphere...)
ptah 7y ago
Possibly as it was achieved with state-run companies with the french government doubling down whilst others (I'm looking at you UK) privatised electricity production
Vinnl 7y ago
What I especially don't get: as far as I know all the security risks already apply for most of the countries near France. Sure, Belgium could build coal power plants, but if anything goes seriously wrong with a nuclear reactor in France, they're still screwed.
olau 7y ago
Because of costs. If you look at the reasons in France, I suspect CO2 did not matter much, but rather that it was a matter of national security. If the European nations of today started to feel threatened, I'm sure you'd see plenty of public funding for renewables and nuclear. Anyway, we'll get there some day, it least with renewables that are falling in price year by year.
- Iv 7y ago
  I was taught the main reason was oil independence. De Gaulle did not want to depend on freshly independent Algeria, Saudi Arabia or Russia. It was in the 70s, CO2 emissions were not yet identified as a serious problem but peak oil was already a known problem.
specialist 7y ago
My impression is that France's nuclear policy was born out of their "Thanks, but no thanks" relationship to NATO. Meaning that France's domestic energy was an outgrowth of their decision to go their own way for defense (post Suez Canal?).
pjc50 7y ago
The consensus from public easily googleable sources seems to be the "Messmer plan", e.g. https://energytransition.org/2015/03/french-nuclear-power-history/ https://energytransition.org/2015/03/french-nuclear-power-hi... ; an ambitious goal to de-oil the economy entirely! It doesn't appear that CO2 entered into the picture at all. The combination of factors was - 1973 oil crisis - almost no domestic oil production, small domestic gas and coal - pre-existing military nuclear programme - strong engineering culture and availability of skills - strong statist/dirigiste culture of state megaprojects - enough anti-Americanism to not just buy it in from Westinghouse The UK didn't go down this path because of North Sea oil and anti-statist Thatcherism, along with a classic British failure to do sui generis advanced technology properly (AGR). Germany probably didn't go down this path due to coal lobbying. Few other countries had any nuclear experience in weapons programs, and the anti-proliferation concerns made it hard for them to do so in the 80s (e.g. Iraq built one and Israel blew it up, https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm )
- jankotek 7y ago
  > Germany probably didn't go down this path due to coal lobbying Germany and Austria is strongly anti-atom. It comes from cold war where Germany was primary nuclear target for Soviets and US.
  - kaybe 7y ago
    I'd argue the largest factor was the accident at Chernobyl with a very real risk of contamination. We haven't found a site for final storage yet either.
    - gridlockd 7y ago
      > We haven't found a site for final storage yet either. Nuclear waste storage shouldn't ever be "final". Nuclear waste processing and recycling today is far more advanced than it was in the past. Nobody knows what we can do in the future. It's intellectually dishonest to extrapolate technological progress of so-called green technologies, but then not afford the same to nuclear technology, which has effectively been left in limbo for decades.
spodek 7y ago
You mentioned the benefit, lower carbon emissions. You didn't mention the cost. I searched "France nuclear waste." The first response was a BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 saying "France generates around three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power but despite decades of activity it is no nearer a solution to the perils of nuclear waste. Many countries agree the hazardous material - some of it at temperatures of 90C - has to be disposed of deep below ground where it can be isolated from all living things for tens of thousands of years whilst the radiation slowly reduces." Tens of thousands of years is long. Unless I'm missing something, we have no idea the problems that may arise in a period longer than since Egyptian pyramids. I'm comparing nuclear pollution not to coal, but to had similar resources been put into reducing consumption.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  The claim that nuclear waste has to be stored for millennia is a false premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use It would be unwise to gamble on technological progress making 100% green energy feasible, but not making safe nuclear waste disposal feasible. Consider that nuclear waste can be stored temporarily way into the future, but climate action and reliable energy is needed right now. If I had to choose between the environmental impact of climate change and the odds of some nuclear leaks thousands of years down the road, I'd go with nuclear. Such radiation isn't that harmful and the effects will either be localized or diluted.
- driverdan 7y ago
  That's a much smaller problem than the problems coal power creates.

by Iv 7y ago

acidburnNSA 7y ago

Congrats. You all did really an impressive job. Having a ~single utility that could basically standardize on the fleet and share engineering services and operator training across the fleet really is a good example of how to run nukes cheaply too. Nukes in France are currently about 30% cheaper than natural gas. Really awesome. Climate solutions here we come!

bboygravity 7y ago
Climate solutions here we don't come. There's a very strong political lobby in France against nuclear with plans to reduce nuclear power generation there within the next decade(s)[1]. Europe's other "big example" (Germany) will be closing all of it's nuclear power plants within years. Only to replace them by (Russian) gas powered plants. Currently "only" 35 % of Germany's power production (2018) is from "sustainable" sources. CO2 production will go up significantly when they start moving from nuclear to gas and other sources: there's no power source that generates as little CO2 per TWH as nuclear when looking at the entire life cycle. The end result in the future will be: more absolute CO2 emissions (debatable), more CO2 emissions per generated TWH (absolute certainty), more deaths per generated TWH [2], higher consumer energy prices ("sustainable" is way more expensive than nuclear sustainable), more political dependency on Russia due to gas imports and no more electricity exports from France to surrounding countries (France is a net exporter of energy thanks to nuclear) potentially leading to a more unstable European grid. I don't get it. [1]https://www.nucnet.org/news/france-plans-to-delay-shutdown-of-some-nuclear-plants-by-10-years https://www.nucnet.org/news/france-plans-to-delay-shutdown-o... [2]https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
- 9q9 7y ago
  I don't get it. Politics. In the 1980s the Green Party emerged in Germany, a powerful new left-wing party. Unlike most new parties, they didn't disappear quickly, but proved remarkably politically adept. Their original USP (unique selling point) was environmetalism in general, but extreme and well organised opposition to nuclear power in particular. At the time, all other parties supported nuclear (including the hard left, since the Soviet union was all in on nuclear). At the time de-carbonisation and global warming wasn't a big issue. Merkel's 2011 decision to abandon nuclear was a direct (and political) reaction to the Fukushima nuclear disaster and impending regional elections: Merkel feared (rightly) that with Fukushima fresh on the electorate's mind, her party would be savaged by the Greens on the nuclear question. In order to prevent that, she forced a 180 degree turn on her party and promised to phase out nuclear energy quickly. As an aside, I've always wondered to what extent the anti-nuclear movements had tacit support from coal/oil producers/users.
  - bboygravity 7y ago
    I'm not one to easily believe the West's "the Russians did it" rhetoric, but here's an issue (Germans switching from nuclear to Russian gas) where the Russians would obviously benefit strongly both economically as well as politically. Or to put it in Putin's eloquent trolling words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQDyt0B-1E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDQDyt0B-1E
    - 9q9 7y ago
      There are plenty of parties interested in preventing nuclear: oil producers, coal producers, gas producers, owners of oil and coal power plants. Also bear in mind that in the 1980s, when the anti-nuclear power movement became a serious political force, Russia as a state didn't exist. OTOH, the Soviet union was heavily invested in nuclear power.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Nah, the Green movement was there from the 60s and always against nuclear because of the weapons. Much of the fighting was over nuclear weapons testing, then later over nuclear waste disposal at sea. This came to a head with the French government's terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, causing the death of a photographer who was on board at the time. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a shill.

pilif 7y ago

Same for Switzerland. And even better: We're privileged to have the Alps in the middle of our country making hydroelectricity a very viable and renewable option.

lnsru 7y ago
Is Switzerland ready to destroy the nature for cheap hydroelectricity?
- rdevsrex 7y ago
  I’m not sure about all hydropower in Switzerland but Grand Dixence is very high up. I’ve been there myself and the nature doesn’t seem to be disturbed. I don’t think there are any salmon swimming up from the Pacific like in a lot of rivers in the US. What exactly are your concerns about wildlife being disturbed?
  - lnsru 7y ago
    Where did I mention wildlife?? One just needs to flood lots of area to build hydropower plants. Please look at this picture: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway#/media/File%3AAlta-damm.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_Norway...
throwaway9d0291 7y ago
I recently went on a trip to a power station and came away with the understanding that as far as electricity goes, Switzerland is somewhat screwed. Switzerland has 5 nuclear plants operating right now, which produce 34% of its electricity (with hydro accounting for another 60%) [0] however these plants are approaching the ends of their lives and a referendum in 2017 banned new plants [1], so we need to find an alternative way to replace them. Expanding hydro isn't an easy option because there's nowhere to build new dams (and the populace is generally against it) and the glaciers that provide the water are shrinking due to climate change. This will produce a burst of extra capacity but following that hydro won't be a viable option. There are plans to turn a few existing resevoirs into pumped storage facilities [2] but this isn't a great deal of capacity. Wind can be a part of the overall solution but it's not enough. The Swiss government (optimistically) plans to have ~300GWh/month by 2050 [3] but that's only ~5% of Switzerland's current consumption. Solar is another potential part of the solution but current capacity is minimal and adoption hasn't been going well [4]. The Swiss government has a 2050 energy plan [5] but it doesn't seem realistic to me. For one, they expect a 43% decrease in overall energy consumption _and_ a 13% decrease in electricity consumption. Assuming most of the non-electric consumption is from cars and it's reduced in favor of EVs, I just don't see how electricity consumption can be less than it is today. In the end, I think Switzerland is going to be heavily dependent on importing energy from elsewhere in Europe unless it removes the nuclear ban in the immediate future. It doesn't look likely that it's going to be able to replace the lost capacity with renewables quickly enough. [0]: https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft/energie/energie---fakten-und-zahlen.html https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft... [1]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vote-opener/43190762 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vote-opener/43190762 [2]: https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/hydropower_swiss-alps-proposed-as-powerhouse-of-europe/32762310 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/hydropower_swiss-alps-proposed-... [3]: https://www.uvek-gis.admin.ch/BFE/storymaps/EE_WEA/index.php?lang=en https://www.uvek-gis.admin.ch/BFE/storymaps/EE_WEA/index.php... [4]: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/07/12/switzerland-close-to-hitting-2-gw-solar-mark/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/07/12/switzerland-close-to-... [5]: https://www.bfe.admin.ch/bfe/en/home/policy/energy-strategy-2050.html https://www.bfe.admin.ch/bfe/en/home/policy/energy-strategy-...

hanniabu 7y ago

> I always wondered why no other country went that road and why they are still hesitating. Because when things go wrong they go really wrong and many times we see capitalism continuously move the goal post on safety rules. A plant designed for 30 years with an acceptable 1cm crack tolerance surpasses both limits, lobbying occurs, and then it's now all of a sudden designed for 40 years and 3cm cracks.

ptah 7y ago
also it takes a more long term vision than any corporation currently has. France electricity production is mostly state-owned and the government can afford to take a longer term view
sbdmmg 7y ago
> Because when things go wrong they really go wrong. My impression is that the main reason is poor education and scaremongering, rather than actual causalities. When comparing nuclear with other energy sources, nuclear is still quite safe in deaths/TWh, see for example [1]. [1] https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-ener...
- simfoo 7y ago
  Imagine if Chernobyl happened in the middle of Europe (it _can_ happen again). Imagine if large parts around it became uninhabitable for hundreds of years. This risk is not captured by a single deaths/TWh number, so please stop comparing this when debating (current) nuclear energy options (not talking about future designs or even fission-based plants)
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Fuel fire to atmosphere is not particularly likely at the remaining Chernobyl type reactors, never mind more safety oriented modern designs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Simplified_Boiling_Water_Reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Simplified_Boiling_Wa... The Fukushima disaster nicely demonstrated that there is lots of risk, but the incredible severity of the release at Chernobyl is probably going to be historically unique. (Fukushima released quite a lot of material, mostly leaking Cesium into groundwater (and then the ocean). Chernobyl released several metric tons of fuel directly into the atmosphere...)

ptah 7y ago

Possibly as it was achieved with state-run companies with the french government doubling down whilst others (I'm looking at you UK) privatised electricity production

Vinnl 7y ago

What I especially don't get: as far as I know all the security risks already apply for most of the countries near France. Sure, Belgium could build coal power plants, but if anything goes seriously wrong with a nuclear reactor in France, they're still screwed.

olau 7y ago

Because of costs. If you look at the reasons in France, I suspect CO2 did not matter much, but rather that it was a matter of national security. If the European nations of today started to feel threatened, I'm sure you'd see plenty of public funding for renewables and nuclear. Anyway, we'll get there some day, it least with renewables that are falling in price year by year.

Iv 7y ago
I was taught the main reason was oil independence. De Gaulle did not want to depend on freshly independent Algeria, Saudi Arabia or Russia. It was in the 70s, CO2 emissions were not yet identified as a serious problem but peak oil was already a known problem.

specialist 7y ago

My impression is that France's nuclear policy was born out of their "Thanks, but no thanks" relationship to NATO. Meaning that France's domestic energy was an outgrowth of their decision to go their own way for defense (post Suez Canal?).

pjc50 7y ago

The consensus from public easily googleable sources seems to be the "Messmer plan", e.g. https://energytransition.org/2015/03/french-nuclear-power-history/ https://energytransition.org/2015/03/french-nuclear-power-hi... ; an ambitious goal to de-oil the economy entirely! It doesn't appear that CO2 entered into the picture at all. The combination of factors was - 1973 oil crisis - almost no domestic oil production, small domestic gas and coal - pre-existing military nuclear programme - strong engineering culture and availability of skills - strong statist/dirigiste culture of state megaprojects - enough anti-Americanism to not just buy it in from Westinghouse The UK didn't go down this path because of North Sea oil and anti-statist Thatcherism, along with a classic British failure to do sui generis advanced technology properly (AGR). Germany probably didn't go down this path due to coal lobbying. Few other countries had any nuclear experience in weapons programs, and the anti-proliferation concerns made it hard for them to do so in the 80s (e.g. Iraq built one and Israel blew it up, https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm )

jankotek 7y ago
> Germany probably didn't go down this path due to coal lobbying Germany and Austria is strongly anti-atom. It comes from cold war where Germany was primary nuclear target for Soviets and US.
- kaybe 7y ago
  I'd argue the largest factor was the accident at Chernobyl with a very real risk of contamination. We haven't found a site for final storage yet either.
  - gridlockd 7y ago
    > We haven't found a site for final storage yet either. Nuclear waste storage shouldn't ever be "final". Nuclear waste processing and recycling today is far more advanced than it was in the past. Nobody knows what we can do in the future. It's intellectually dishonest to extrapolate technological progress of so-called green technologies, but then not afford the same to nuclear technology, which has effectively been left in limbo for decades.

spodek 7y ago

You mentioned the benefit, lower carbon emissions. You didn't mention the cost. I searched "France nuclear waste." The first response was a BBC article https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26425674 saying "France generates around three quarters of its electricity from nuclear power but despite decades of activity it is no nearer a solution to the perils of nuclear waste. Many countries agree the hazardous material - some of it at temperatures of 90C - has to be disposed of deep below ground where it can be isolated from all living things for tens of thousands of years whilst the radiation slowly reduces." Tens of thousands of years is long. Unless I'm missing something, we have no idea the problems that may arise in a period longer than since Egyptian pyramids. I'm comparing nuclear pollution not to coal, but to had similar resources been put into reducing consumption.

gridlockd 7y ago
The claim that nuclear waste has to be stored for millennia is a false premise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Transmutatio... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#Re-use It would be unwise to gamble on technological progress making 100% green energy feasible, but not making safe nuclear waste disposal feasible. Consider that nuclear waste can be stored temporarily way into the future, but climate action and reliable energy is needed right now. If I had to choose between the environmental impact of climate change and the odds of some nuclear leaks thousands of years down the road, I'd go with nuclear. Such radiation isn't that harmful and the effects will either be localized or diluted.
driverdan 7y ago
That's a much smaller problem than the problems coal power creates.