4 ms·

Agreed - the lifespan argument is really not portrayed in an accurate way. Besides, France is basically screwed - it hasn’t been able to expand its energy supp

by mattrp 7y ago

Agreed - the lifespan argument is really not portrayed in an accurate way. Besides, France is basically screwed - it hasn’t been able to expand its energy supply beyond population demands (ie it doesn’t and couldn’t support a data center economy). More than likely they will be buying energy rather than generating it in the future — unless of course someone can get the salt reactor commercialized.

namdnay 7y ago
Huh? France exports energy, and it has a massive nuclear and hydroelectric industry. Why on earth would it be more screwed than anywhere else in Europe?
- mattrp 7y ago
  Today they produce a lot of subsidized power that when everything operating correctly produces an excess of power. However we are not talking about today, we are talking about the future. The average plant age is 30 years. Some plants are so old that frances neighbors accuse it of risking another Fukushima incident.. Germany closed its plants for precisely that reason. It will like cost close to 100b if not more to decommission and untold amounts to replace whatever they take offline. My point is that just for France to unwind it’s aging nuclear it’s going to have to build and spend a lot and that is just to get back to even... much less expand to cover new sources of electricity like electrification of the car fleet. Germany in contrast has been building new transmission lines and production for a decade and still has a decade to go. Norway actually has a true surplus which is expected to be a multiple of france’s entire output, etc etc. My point was that the author was saying nuclear has an expected age of 40-80 years... I call bs on that lifespan and point to France as an example: there’s just no way we see them continue their existing plants for 80 years when their existing plants are already showing signs they may be at risk or not be able to operate much past 35-40...
- natmaka 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... Tally: Germany 1, France 28 There are many causes, one being that during hot seasons many French atomic plants cannot run at full speed (thermal pollution).
  - mattrp 7y ago
    Germany is number 1 because of the wind... there are days when they generate more than they can take. Exporting is not really a good measure of energy security — for example, how much do you think Germany can charge for the wind it cannot use? Hint: it’s a negative number. I am a proponent of nuclear - but I wish to see newer more efficient and safer designs (ie salt). When I look at France through the same lens I look at Norway, I see one country electrifying it’s entire car fleet, all of its homes, its entire North Sea oil production, is investing in massive hectare size data centers and still has plenty left over and then I see France who will be lucky to replace its aging nuclear infrastructure just get back to what it has today. I would love to see them continue to invest in nuclear but it’s own stated goal is to drop nuclear to 50% of the overall rather than the current 75%. If the article’s author is correct, that aging nuclear designs are superior to other forms of energy, why then isn’t France keeping its production at 75%?

by mattrp 7y ago

namdnay 7y ago

Huh? France exports energy, and it has a massive nuclear and hydroelectric industry. Why on earth would it be more screwed than anywhere else in Europe?

mattrp 7y ago
Today they produce a lot of subsidized power that when everything operating correctly produces an excess of power. However we are not talking about today, we are talking about the future. The average plant age is 30 years. Some plants are so old that frances neighbors accuse it of risking another Fukushima incident.. Germany closed its plants for precisely that reason. It will like cost close to 100b if not more to decommission and untold amounts to replace whatever they take offline. My point is that just for France to unwind it’s aging nuclear it’s going to have to build and spend a lot and that is just to get back to even... much less expand to cover new sources of electricity like electrification of the car fleet. Germany in contrast has been building new transmission lines and production for a decade and still has a decade to go. Norway actually has a true surplus which is expected to be a multiple of france’s entire output, etc etc. My point was that the author was saying nuclear has an expected age of 40-80 years... I call bs on that lifespan and point to France as an example: there’s just no way we see them continue their existing plants for 80 years when their existing plants are already showing signs they may be at risk or not be able to operate much past 35-40...
natmaka 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_exports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici... Tally: Germany 1, France 28 There are many causes, one being that during hot seasons many French atomic plants cannot run at full speed (thermal pollution).
- mattrp 7y ago
  Germany is number 1 because of the wind... there are days when they generate more than they can take. Exporting is not really a good measure of energy security — for example, how much do you think Germany can charge for the wind it cannot use? Hint: it’s a negative number. I am a proponent of nuclear - but I wish to see newer more efficient and safer designs (ie salt). When I look at France through the same lens I look at Norway, I see one country electrifying it’s entire car fleet, all of its homes, its entire North Sea oil production, is investing in massive hectare size data centers and still has plenty left over and then I see France who will be lucky to replace its aging nuclear infrastructure just get back to what it has today. I would love to see them continue to invest in nuclear but it’s own stated goal is to drop nuclear to 50% of the overall rather than the current 75%. If the article’s author is correct, that aging nuclear designs are superior to other forms of energy, why then isn’t France keeping its production at 75%?