17 ms·

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

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.
  - 9q9 7y ago
    I'm not sure what you are arguing for / and against. I did not say that everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. However, I've worked in enough political organisations to doubt that large scale grass-roots movements are likely only grass roots. I agree that the connection with nuclear weapons triggers powerful emotions against nuclear electricity generation. But nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons are not the same thing. (Cf. do you expect much opposition against nuclear fusion electricity because of hydrogen bombs?) Clearly opposition against nuclear weapons was in parts guided by the Soviet Union: for example the World Peace Council was set up by the Soviet Communist Party in 1948–50 to to campaign against nuclear weapons at a time when only the USA had them [1]. Given that oil and coal based electricity generation would have been vanquished by going full-in on nuclear electricity generation, I'd not be surprised if there had tacit or not so tacit support of anti-nuclear movements from ... interested parties. Rainbow Warrior The German Green Party was founded in 1980, Rainbow Warrior was in 1985. Much more important than the Rainbow Warrior event were the Three Mile Island accident (1979) and even more the Chernobyl disaster (1986). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
I don't get it either. Pretty much everyone who looks at it agrees that nuclear costs more than solar, wind and batteries and is a non-solution to climate change due to cost alone. Yet, 'nuclear realists' show up in every thread to complain about how stupid lefties and greens are for not embracing nuclear. If you look at support for nuclear in the US it's noticeably higher for Republicans, who also are distinctly less likely to be in line with reality on various related issues. Sadly I have to assume that most of the people loudly supporting nuclear are actually part of the problem, voted for Donald "climate change is a Chinese hoax, so let's subsidize coal" Trump and now use this idea that Nuclear is being shut down by hysterical greenies as a way to salve their conscience, because they know they're actively involved in destroying the planet, but will feel better if they can convince themselves that "the other side does it too". Current nuclear is too expensive and too slow to build to be any use for anything but a distraction in this matter. Yes I know, you think that cost of regulation is also the fault of lefties and greenies and everything would be fine if the free market could just do its thing and build nuclear everywhere, but even in China, where they can basically do whatever they want, nuclear is not the answer. For boring economic reasons. You'll never get a nuclear fan to meet you on that territory. Rhetoric about it being better than coal and the lefties and greens holding them back is all they have. I assume this is because they know they're in trouble if facts come up, so they just avoid them. I saw someone attack the very concept of "net present value" rather than accept the answers it gave for nuclear investment. It's not a good solution, no matter how hysterical the people are about nuclear radiation risks. Don't focus on them, focus on the people who say it's too expensive if you have a genuine answer. And stop voting Republican if you expect your opinion on anything environment-related to be taken seriously, they're actively working against this goal.
- pharke 7y ago
  I don't agree that all pro-nuclear people are right wing. It's historically false for one. It's also financially unfeasible for private industry with current power plant design. The best model for current technology would be a large government backed program to build a national utility powered by nuclear with secure sources of fuel production and methods of disposal all of which requires influence at the state level to overcome nimbyism. It may even need to be run at a net loss but surely the value of removing such a large source of carbon emission and pollution is worth it.
ZeroGravitas 7y ago
France being a net exporter isn't a positive of nuclear, it's one of its drawbacks. Every country can't be a net exporter, so Nuclear in France is subsidized by sales to countries who do not have their own nuclear. If those countries built their own nuclear then neither they nor France would be economic since everyone would have the excess power at the same time. We can't export power to other planets, so nuclear is not an economic solution for the whole globe, it only works at small scale when the rest of the system can absorb the inflexible power. Note that wind and solar have similar issues, which require geographic spread, oversupply and storage to meet. They can do that and still be cheaper than nuclear in an apple to apples comparison.
- bboygravity 7y ago
  The reality is that France is the only country in Europe who converts most of it's energy through nuclear. So in that reality it's definitely an advantage to be a net exporter. This advantage becomes even more pronounced as other countries switch to non-continuous power sources such as wind and solar. Those sources have production drops around the same times (at nights and cloudy days with little wind), where France can charge a nice premium to produce nuclear for them. "and storage to meet" --> There is currently no economically viable way to store electric energy from "sustainable" non-continuous sources at a large scale. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
- pharke 7y ago
  Perhaps a larger electric grid would solve the issue? Power consumption varies greatly by time of day and even greater by local climate. Or perhaps we should put the excess to good use, desalination and pumping of water is very power intensive but would allow us to green the Sahara. Where there is abundance there is innovation, I'm sure we could find a use for it.
- dsq 7y ago
  Putting off peak nuclear power to work generating hydrogen fuel is an option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
- 7y ago

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.
- 9q9 7y ago
  I'm not sure what you are arguing for / and against. I did not say that everyone who disagrees with you is a shill. However, I've worked in enough political organisations to doubt that large scale grass-roots movements are likely only grass roots. I agree that the connection with nuclear weapons triggers powerful emotions against nuclear electricity generation. But nuclear electricity and nuclear weapons are not the same thing. (Cf. do you expect much opposition against nuclear fusion electricity because of hydrogen bombs?) Clearly opposition against nuclear weapons was in parts guided by the Soviet Union: for example the World Peace Council was set up by the Soviet Communist Party in 1948–50 to to campaign against nuclear weapons at a time when only the USA had them [1]. Given that oil and coal based electricity generation would have been vanquished by going full-in on nuclear electricity generation, I'd not be surprised if there had tacit or not so tacit support of anti-nuclear movements from ... interested parties. Rainbow Warrior The German Green Party was founded in 1980, Rainbow Warrior was in 1985. Much more important than the Rainbow Warrior event were the Three Mile Island accident (1979) and even more the Chernobyl disaster (1986). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_...

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

I don't get it either. Pretty much everyone who looks at it agrees that nuclear costs more than solar, wind and batteries and is a non-solution to climate change due to cost alone. Yet, 'nuclear realists' show up in every thread to complain about how stupid lefties and greens are for not embracing nuclear. If you look at support for nuclear in the US it's noticeably higher for Republicans, who also are distinctly less likely to be in line with reality on various related issues. Sadly I have to assume that most of the people loudly supporting nuclear are actually part of the problem, voted for Donald "climate change is a Chinese hoax, so let's subsidize coal" Trump and now use this idea that Nuclear is being shut down by hysterical greenies as a way to salve their conscience, because they know they're actively involved in destroying the planet, but will feel better if they can convince themselves that "the other side does it too". Current nuclear is too expensive and too slow to build to be any use for anything but a distraction in this matter. Yes I know, you think that cost of regulation is also the fault of lefties and greenies and everything would be fine if the free market could just do its thing and build nuclear everywhere, but even in China, where they can basically do whatever they want, nuclear is not the answer. For boring economic reasons. You'll never get a nuclear fan to meet you on that territory. Rhetoric about it being better than coal and the lefties and greens holding them back is all they have. I assume this is because they know they're in trouble if facts come up, so they just avoid them. I saw someone attack the very concept of "net present value" rather than accept the answers it gave for nuclear investment. It's not a good solution, no matter how hysterical the people are about nuclear radiation risks. Don't focus on them, focus on the people who say it's too expensive if you have a genuine answer. And stop voting Republican if you expect your opinion on anything environment-related to be taken seriously, they're actively working against this goal.

pharke 7y ago
I don't agree that all pro-nuclear people are right wing. It's historically false for one. It's also financially unfeasible for private industry with current power plant design. The best model for current technology would be a large government backed program to build a national utility powered by nuclear with secure sources of fuel production and methods of disposal all of which requires influence at the state level to overcome nimbyism. It may even need to be run at a net loss but surely the value of removing such a large source of carbon emission and pollution is worth it.

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

France being a net exporter isn't a positive of nuclear, it's one of its drawbacks. Every country can't be a net exporter, so Nuclear in France is subsidized by sales to countries who do not have their own nuclear. If those countries built their own nuclear then neither they nor France would be economic since everyone would have the excess power at the same time. We can't export power to other planets, so nuclear is not an economic solution for the whole globe, it only works at small scale when the rest of the system can absorb the inflexible power. Note that wind and solar have similar issues, which require geographic spread, oversupply and storage to meet. They can do that and still be cheaper than nuclear in an apple to apples comparison.

bboygravity 7y ago
The reality is that France is the only country in Europe who converts most of it's energy through nuclear. So in that reality it's definitely an advantage to be a net exporter. This advantage becomes even more pronounced as other countries switch to non-continuous power sources such as wind and solar. Those sources have production drops around the same times (at nights and cloudy days with little wind), where France can charge a nice premium to produce nuclear for them. "and storage to meet" --> There is currently no economically viable way to store electric energy from "sustainable" non-continuous sources at a large scale. If there was, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.
pharke 7y ago
Perhaps a larger electric grid would solve the issue? Power consumption varies greatly by time of day and even greater by local climate. Or perhaps we should put the excess to good use, desalination and pumping of water is very power intensive but would allow us to green the Sahara. Where there is abundance there is innovation, I'm sure we could find a use for it.
dsq 7y ago
Putting off peak nuclear power to work generating hydrogen fuel is an option. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
7y ago