5 ms·

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. T

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
        natmaka 7y ago
        Are solar and wind correlated? Adding other minor 'sources' (biomass), progressing on efficiency and storage, and also saving energy isn't as foolish than hoping that nuke plant and their waste will no commit another major boo-boo, and waiting for those supa dupa absolutely sure nuke plants architectures promised since the 50's.
  - hokkos 7y ago
    French nuclear can make varies its plant at 3-5 %Pr/minute, when cumulating 53 reactors, it is a lot. Also nuclear is 20% of the marginal electricity (the one that varies). http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/aen-infos-suivi-charge-29-2.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/aen-infos-suivi-c... https://www.tmrow.com/static/c90a14e6fe7e73b4c60963818f9041ec/d41bb/marginal-generation-mix.png https://www.tmrow.com/static/c90a14e6fe7e73b4c60963818f9041e... https://www.tmrow.com/blog/marginal-carbon-intensity-of-electricity-with-machine-learning https://www.tmrow.com/blog/marginal-carbon-intensity-of-elec...
    - natmaka 7y ago
      Nuclear plants doesn't have enough flexibility, therefore thermal (non nuclear) power stations are necessary. In France they produce about 7% of the gridpower. "Not enough flexibility" isn't specific to renewables.
      - hokkos 7y ago
        Renewable have no flexibility, that can't ramp up on demand, they can only be curtailed, which is stupid. Nuclear have a lot of flexibility, as I showed you, the spikes are already dealt with by hydro and reservoir. We just need moar nuclear plants and we can eliminate the few remaining coal and gas plants.
Reedx 7y ago
> Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. Yeah, they're not 100% nuclear. In any case, their results are far better than countries who eschewed nuclear. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity [compared to Germany]. French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German's. And yet the opposite is the case.[1] So it seems France made a good decision. Their electricity is both cleaner and cheaper... 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#1d0c5831bd98 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...
- natmaka 7y ago
  It is apparently cheaper because in France, as in many countries, the nuke was and remains heavily subsided, decommission costs under evaluated, mishaps hidden... The French public financial auditing institution (la Cour des Comptes) published in 2012 that public nuke investments are opaque, and that it costed around 228 10e9 euros, plus nowadays 3.4 10e9 euros per year for the sole maintenance. Nuke risk is what it is, and even financially it is not sound. Read there, starting folio 269: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... It is so expensive it cannot be hidden anymore. Electricity in France is absolutely not cheap, its price there is average in Europe. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Germany now pays in order to solve the problem. France isn't completely dumb and a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. However those are only words, until now. Meanwhile... Germany solves its problem. Comparing France and Germany when it comes to industrial and technical problems is not fair, as Germany is so far ahead we don't see them anymore (and yep, I'm French, but facts are facts).
  - hokkos 7y ago

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
      - natmaka 7y ago
        Are solar and wind correlated? Adding other minor 'sources' (biomass), progressing on efficiency and storage, and also saving energy isn't as foolish than hoping that nuke plant and their waste will no commit another major boo-boo, and waiting for those supa dupa absolutely sure nuke plants architectures promised since the 50's.
- hokkos 7y ago
  French nuclear can make varies its plant at 3-5 %Pr/minute, when cumulating 53 reactors, it is a lot. Also nuclear is 20% of the marginal electricity (the one that varies). http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/aen-infos-suivi-charge-29-2.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/aen-infos-suivi-c... https://www.tmrow.com/static/c90a14e6fe7e73b4c60963818f9041ec/d41bb/marginal-generation-mix.png https://www.tmrow.com/static/c90a14e6fe7e73b4c60963818f9041e... https://www.tmrow.com/blog/marginal-carbon-intensity-of-electricity-with-machine-learning https://www.tmrow.com/blog/marginal-carbon-intensity-of-elec...
  - natmaka 7y ago
    Nuclear plants doesn't have enough flexibility, therefore thermal (non nuclear) power stations are necessary. In France they produce about 7% of the gridpower. "Not enough flexibility" isn't specific to renewables.
    - hokkos 7y ago
      Renewable have no flexibility, that can't ramp up on demand, they can only be curtailed, which is stupid. Nuclear have a lot of flexibility, as I showed you, the spikes are already dealt with by hydro and reservoir. We just need moar nuclear plants and we can eliminate the few remaining coal and gas plants.

Reedx 7y ago

> Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. Yeah, they're not 100% nuclear. In any case, their results are far better than countries who eschewed nuclear. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity [compared to Germany]. French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German's. And yet the opposite is the case.[1] So it seems France made a good decision. Their electricity is both cleaner and cheaper... 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#1d0c5831bd98 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...

natmaka 7y ago
It is apparently cheaper because in France, as in many countries, the nuke was and remains heavily subsided, decommission costs under evaluated, mishaps hidden... The French public financial auditing institution (la Cour des Comptes) published in 2012 that public nuke investments are opaque, and that it costed around 228 10e9 euros, plus nowadays 3.4 10e9 euros per year for the sole maintenance. Nuke risk is what it is, and even financially it is not sound. Read there, starting folio 269: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... It is so expensive it cannot be hidden anymore. Electricity in France is absolutely not cheap, its price there is average in Europe. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Germany now pays in order to solve the problem. France isn't completely dumb and a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. However those are only words, until now. Meanwhile... Germany solves its problem. Comparing France and Germany when it comes to industrial and technical problems is not fair, as Germany is so far ahead we don't see them anymore (and yep, I'm French, but facts are facts).
- hokkos 7y ago