6 ms·

Once the last reactor decommissioned and the last nuke waste inert we may try to evaluate the impacts. Until them everything can happen, even the worst. As fo

Once the last reactor decommissioned and the last nuke waste inert we may try to evaluate the impacts. Until them everything can happen, even the worst. As for Fukushima there are many hypothesis about the real impact until now, and even more for the future. Believing the effects are already fully known is at best 'weird'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... Thinking that we can only replace fossil fuel with nuke is not even funny, as solar and wind soar. In Europe solar and wind already produce as much electricity than nuke plants, and sail around while nuke plants are shutting down. Storage is indeed a challenge, and the real choice is between our capacity to lower nuke-induced risk (waste, disasters...), which seems low after decades of efforts, and on the other hand our capacity to further enhance existing other energy 'sources', which are progressing at a very fast pace.

kortilla 7y ago
Stop comparing solar and wind to nuclear. That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. Bringing online solar and wind does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. You highlight that storage is a challenge, but it’s the entire blocker at this point. Until storage is solved, solar/wind do nothing more than displace some peaker plants.
- natmaka 7y ago
  Nuclear power generation also implies using fossil-fuels powerplants. Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. This could be alleviated thanks to decentralized production (small units). Granted, this is theoretically true for nuclear and solar/wind alike, however civilian practical small solar/wind units do exist, nuclear units don't. Many write just as if nuclear plants may really solve our climate-related problem. They neglect that gridpower is a small portion of the total energy (about 17%), therefore a fully 'cleanly'-produced gridpower (by whatever method, nuclear and/or other) lets us, on the sole 'energy' side of the matter (there are other ones), with at the very least 60% of the climate-related problem at hands.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    France could have gone 100% nuclear, french nuclear reactors can adapt their load to the demand intra-day. It is not a technical decision.
    - natmaka 7y ago
      No, nuke is for base-load, it cannot be started/stopped in 10 minutes (in France, as in many countries, hydro dams are used as buffers).
      - erentz 7y ago
        Parent is talking about load following. Nuclear power plants can absolutely load follow the diurnal predicted demand closely. Most power demand is forecast very accurately with only small amounts of new generation dispatched or load shedded to account for the smaller variances, or when outages happen on some part of the grid.
        natmaka 7y ago
        Indeed, however all this neglects that solar produces during peak hours, and that multiple production sites are possible (benefiting from various meteorological conditions). The huge powergrid it implies isn't very different from the one nuke powerplants already need (given that many cannot sit nearby huge cities), that both wind and solar in such a wide area not producing enough is a rare occurrence. Transporting energy far away causes losses, but we already do it, and who cares if its TCO is very low (solar and wind are progressing quickly), and its production not dangerous? Add geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass, then better global efficiency and energy savings. Then a pinch of very small complementary units (already available). ... and we are better set for so many more scenarios, at a globally lower cost and without any serious risk.
        hokkos 7y ago
        Solar doesn't product for french peak hours (8h and 19h) it is uncorrelated (Pearson correlation) with load. And solar is also auto-correlated on France scale, same with wind. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJuknaqXkAAwbWn?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJuknaqXkAAwbWn?format=jpg&name=... https://twitter.com/hokkos/status/1196564989022220289 https://twitter.com/hokkos/status/1196564989022220289
- strainer 7y ago
  > That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. I dont think so. We may have a common competitor yet also be in competition. Solar and wind have very complimentary output patterns (combining two variable sources produces a less variable source even without the modest degree of anti correlation which is present between wind and solar). Nuclears output pattern really begs to be constant, it never wants to ramp down because there is almost no savings, whereas solar and wind can clash but also leave each other demand windows.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    You quoted and then ignored the entire reason they don’t compete. Nuclear is great for base load because it’s not very reactive as you pointed out. Solar and wind are absolutely terrible for base load (see Hawaii).
    - strainer 7y ago
      I didnt vote that down since I can explain - base load is a theoretical fraction of electricity demand, not a separate physical entity. Renewable supply competes for whatever anyone wishes to categorize as "base load" the same as it competes for "peak loads" and "moderate loads" - renewables sell when they make power for any load. You have no "base load" once such competitors are involved because half the time they are bidding for all of the load. Separating off a base load deal is then an artificial arrangement. Your supplier who can only economically supply a certain level is no help when your renewables fall short, and they are an expense when your renewables surge and offer cheaper power. Once renewables are in the mix you want economical dispatch-able supply. That means batteries for frequent sub-daily power deficits, and existing fossil moving to carbon neutral fuels for less frequent deficits. There is no effective nuclear construction industry today that can stop renewables getting big in the mix, and the bigger renewables get into it, the less attractive "base load" power purchasing contracts become for buyers. There is talk about making nuclear competitively dispatchable with molten salt reserviors - that's just a nuclear plant and molten salt battery. The battery is the economical part. Nuclear will continue to be an expensive side project for many governments which can afford it, sometimes completing a project, sometimes giving up as they do after multiple cost increases and delays, but it is practically finished in competitive industry by the arrival of advanced solar and wind.
- nicoburns 7y ago
  > does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. If we put the money we put into building nuclear plants into energy storage, then that would likely change pretty quickly.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    No it wouldn’t. It’s not a money problem, it’s a tech problem. You can pour 50 billion into storage and it won’t make a dent in the base load.
    - nicoburns 7y ago
      50 billion would fund a lot of R&D into energy storage (I'm guessing that's probably more than the total amount that's even been spent on such research to date). And it's not like it's a crazy unsolvable problem. There are lot's of promising avenues that just need to be developed, and not even that much. Our current tech isn't that far off being able to support what we need.

kortilla 7y ago

Stop comparing solar and wind to nuclear. That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. Bringing online solar and wind does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. You highlight that storage is a challenge, but it’s the entire blocker at this point. Until storage is solved, solar/wind do nothing more than displace some peaker plants.

natmaka 7y ago
Nuclear power generation also implies using fossil-fuels powerplants. Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. This could be alleviated thanks to decentralized production (small units). Granted, this is theoretically true for nuclear and solar/wind alike, however civilian practical small solar/wind units do exist, nuclear units don't. Many write just as if nuclear plants may really solve our climate-related problem. They neglect that gridpower is a small portion of the total energy (about 17%), therefore a fully 'cleanly'-produced gridpower (by whatever method, nuclear and/or other) lets us, on the sole 'energy' side of the matter (there are other ones), with at the very least 60% of the climate-related problem at hands.
- cm2187 7y ago
  France could have gone 100% nuclear, french nuclear reactors can adapt their load to the demand intra-day. It is not a technical decision.
  - natmaka 7y ago
    No, nuke is for base-load, it cannot be started/stopped in 10 minutes (in France, as in many countries, hydro dams are used as buffers).
    - erentz 7y ago
      Parent is talking about load following. Nuclear power plants can absolutely load follow the diurnal predicted demand closely. Most power demand is forecast very accurately with only small amounts of new generation dispatched or load shedded to account for the smaller variances, or when outages happen on some part of the grid.
      - natmaka 7y ago
        Indeed, however all this neglects that solar produces during peak hours, and that multiple production sites are possible (benefiting from various meteorological conditions). The huge powergrid it implies isn't very different from the one nuke powerplants already need (given that many cannot sit nearby huge cities), that both wind and solar in such a wide area not producing enough is a rare occurrence. Transporting energy far away causes losses, but we already do it, and who cares if its TCO is very low (solar and wind are progressing quickly), and its production not dangerous? Add geothermal, hydroelectric, and biomass, then better global efficiency and energy savings. Then a pinch of very small complementary units (already available). ... and we are better set for so many more scenarios, at a globally lower cost and without any serious risk.
        hokkos 7y ago
        Solar doesn't product for french peak hours (8h and 19h) it is uncorrelated (Pearson correlation) with load. And solar is also auto-correlated on France scale, same with wind. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJuknaqXkAAwbWn?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EJuknaqXkAAwbWn?format=jpg&name=... https://twitter.com/hokkos/status/1196564989022220289 https://twitter.com/hokkos/status/1196564989022220289
strainer 7y ago
> That’s a cudgel to ignore the fact that being anti-nuclear means being pro-fossil fuels. I dont think so. We may have a common competitor yet also be in competition. Solar and wind have very complimentary output patterns (combining two variable sources produces a less variable source even without the modest degree of anti correlation which is present between wind and solar). Nuclears output pattern really begs to be constant, it never wants to ramp down because there is almost no savings, whereas solar and wind can clash but also leave each other demand windows.
- kortilla 7y ago
  You quoted and then ignored the entire reason they don’t compete. Nuclear is great for base load because it’s not very reactive as you pointed out. Solar and wind are absolutely terrible for base load (see Hawaii).
  - strainer 7y ago
    I didnt vote that down since I can explain - base load is a theoretical fraction of electricity demand, not a separate physical entity. Renewable supply competes for whatever anyone wishes to categorize as "base load" the same as it competes for "peak loads" and "moderate loads" - renewables sell when they make power for any load. You have no "base load" once such competitors are involved because half the time they are bidding for all of the load. Separating off a base load deal is then an artificial arrangement. Your supplier who can only economically supply a certain level is no help when your renewables fall short, and they are an expense when your renewables surge and offer cheaper power. Once renewables are in the mix you want economical dispatch-able supply. That means batteries for frequent sub-daily power deficits, and existing fossil moving to carbon neutral fuels for less frequent deficits. There is no effective nuclear construction industry today that can stop renewables getting big in the mix, and the bigger renewables get into it, the less attractive "base load" power purchasing contracts become for buyers. There is talk about making nuclear competitively dispatchable with molten salt reserviors - that's just a nuclear plant and molten salt battery. The battery is the economical part. Nuclear will continue to be an expensive side project for many governments which can afford it, sometimes completing a project, sometimes giving up as they do after multiple cost increases and delays, but it is practically finished in competitive industry by the arrival of advanced solar and wind.
nicoburns 7y ago
> does not displace nuclear because they do not provide a stable base. If we put the money we put into building nuclear plants into energy storage, then that would likely change pretty quickly.
- kortilla 7y ago
  No it wouldn’t. It’s not a money problem, it’s a tech problem. You can pour 50 billion into storage and it won’t make a dent in the base load.
  - nicoburns 7y ago
    50 billion would fund a lot of R&D into energy storage (I'm guessing that's probably more than the total amount that's even been spent on such research to date). And it's not like it's a crazy unsolvable problem. There are lot's of promising avenues that just need to be developed, and not even that much. Our current tech isn't that far off being able to support what we need.