4 ms·

> Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost o

by Jedd 7y ago

> Nuclear also has a lot of fearmongering and red tape around it. Plants are reaching their EOL and in many cases new ones are not being built due to the cost of getting through all the red tape (getting approval from the feds down to local government, dealing with inevitable NIMBY lawsuits, etc). Renewables are the future, but we aren't fully in the future yet. This is a common trope. I can't work out where you live, but I do often see this line of reasoning put forward by residents of the USA, who overlook the fact that 'the feds' don't regulate what happens in the other 95% of the planet, and yet other parts of the world are equally disinterested in building more nuclear fission plants. It may be that the problems -- federal / national governments red tape, NIMBY lawsuits, local gov / state gov / provinces / councils, 'fearmongering', etc -- are common and similar everywhere, but this seems prima facie unlikely, certainly not demonstrated.

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
But there are places with much larger portions of their power supplied from nuclear plants, e.g. France, with >70% nuclear power.
- Jedd 7y ago
  Yup, undeniably France is an interesting outlier. As I understand it, the bulk of their reactors were produced over a relatively short boom period of construction, and their projected EOL's were consequently going to coincide -- the number of safety incidents, ageing designs, costs of attending to both, public opinion swaying against, resulted in the relatively recent decisions to try to reduce the reliance on fission. But, even so, this speaks to my point -- in countries with a positive history of nuclear fission, and little 'red tape' to stall new builds, they're still moving away from it.
- Retric 7y ago
  That’s incorrect. France generation is over 70% nuclear power, but in 2018 exported 86.3 TWh mostly nuclear and imported 26TWh mostly non nuclear. So they actually use less than 70% nuclear power. This is important because of how hard it is to match nuclear generation with demand resulting in a 77% capacity factor vs ~90% in the US nuclear industry even with all those exports. In other words they built enough nuclear to cover well over 80% of demand, but only use ~60% internally. They are also looking to significantly reduce nuclear production. Closing up to 17 reactors by 2025. https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...
mabbo 7y ago
http://www.ieso.ca/power-data http://www.ieso.ca/power-data Ontario sits at about 2/3 nuclear. We have for a long time. And our electricity is relatively cheap.
- Jedd 7y ago
  I was going to point out that Ontario, at 15m, accounts for 0.002% of the population, and suggest it may be a statistical blip. But -- and thanks for the link, it's fascinating -- diving into that page raises some questions. The nuclear component is very steady at 11MW, which I suppose is a function of the technology, to provide a reliable base load. Nuclear fission accounts for 12MW -- while Hydro seems to consistently provide about a third that figure, with wind averaging just over 1MW, but peaking up to 4MW. Canada has 19 nuclear fission power plants, with all but one being in Ontario. Seemingly [1] several were / will be shutdown, as refurbishment is too expensive, and no plans to construct new plants in the province. Storage of spent fuel is expected to cost ~$30B ... but that project hasn't found a site yet, and that's a projected figure circa 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada
  - Retric 7y ago
    The import vs export numbers are critical for understanding what’s going on. The reactors are located in Ontario, but they supply power across a much wider area. Further, abundant hydroelectric power allows them to load follow locally at low cost. Yet they are still often paying 15+c/kWh.
    - mabbo 7y ago
      The hydro power is actually pretty fascinating in what it might mean for usage of unstable renewables like solar and wind. Hydro is a giant, slowly recharging battery. It's perfect to pair with wind and solar because it can deal with their highly variable generation and our society's highly variable needs. But we don't have enough hydro-battery storage to allow for solar and wind to provide our base load. That's where nuclear shines, and why Ontario uses it so much. Until we can come up with a way to store something like a week's worth of power, it's going to be very difficult to ever phase out of nuclear. But given how clean nuclear is compared to the alternative base-load energy sources (gas, coal, etc), I think that's just fine.
deadmetheny 7y ago
I worked in the nuclear power in the past. The massive volumes of red tape involved is not conjecture, I experienced it firsthand. Activists will stonewall any new construction, full stop, and the NRC requirements for existing plants only go up over time.
- Jedd 7y ago
  > I worked in the nuclear power in the past. Where? My point was and remains that USA federal government hoops around building out new nuclear fission plants can not explain the dearth of new nuclear fission plants being built everywhere else. Canada was cited elsewhere in this thread as pro nuclear fission plants -- but they've deferred all plans to build new plants. France is the really obvious big proponent, but their recent experiences (building Flamanville in FR, involvement in Hinkley in the UK) suggest there is more complexity here than can be addressed by complaints that 'The USA government has red tape'.

by Jedd 7y ago

TheCoelacanth 7y ago

But there are places with much larger portions of their power supplied from nuclear plants, e.g. France, with >70% nuclear power.

Jedd 7y ago
Yup, undeniably France is an interesting outlier. As I understand it, the bulk of their reactors were produced over a relatively short boom period of construction, and their projected EOL's were consequently going to coincide -- the number of safety incidents, ageing designs, costs of attending to both, public opinion swaying against, resulted in the relatively recent decisions to try to reduce the reliance on fission. But, even so, this speaks to my point -- in countries with a positive history of nuclear fission, and little 'red tape' to stall new builds, they're still moving away from it.
Retric 7y ago
That’s incorrect. France generation is over 70% nuclear power, but in 2018 exported 86.3 TWh mostly nuclear and imported 26TWh mostly non nuclear. So they actually use less than 70% nuclear power. This is important because of how hard it is to match nuclear generation with demand resulting in a 77% capacity factor vs ~90% in the US nuclear industry even with all those exports. In other words they built enough nuclear to cover well over 80% of demand, but only use ~60% internally. They are also looking to significantly reduce nuclear production. Closing up to 17 reactors by 2025. https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-close-nuclear-plants https://www.france24.com/en/20170710-france-hulot-could-clos...

mabbo 7y ago

http://www.ieso.ca/power-data http://www.ieso.ca/power-data Ontario sits at about 2/3 nuclear. We have for a long time. And our electricity is relatively cheap.

Jedd 7y ago
I was going to point out that Ontario, at 15m, accounts for 0.002% of the population, and suggest it may be a statistical blip. But -- and thanks for the link, it's fascinating -- diving into that page raises some questions. The nuclear component is very steady at 11MW, which I suppose is a function of the technology, to provide a reliable base load. Nuclear fission accounts for 12MW -- while Hydro seems to consistently provide about a third that figure, with wind averaging just over 1MW, but peaking up to 4MW. Canada has 19 nuclear fission power plants, with all but one being in Ontario. Seemingly [1] several were / will be shutdown, as refurbishment is too expensive, and no plans to construct new plants in the province. Storage of spent fuel is expected to cost ~$30B ... but that project hasn't found a site yet, and that's a projected figure circa 2005. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Canada
- Retric 7y ago
  The import vs export numbers are critical for understanding what’s going on. The reactors are located in Ontario, but they supply power across a much wider area. Further, abundant hydroelectric power allows them to load follow locally at low cost. Yet they are still often paying 15+c/kWh.
  - mabbo 7y ago
    The hydro power is actually pretty fascinating in what it might mean for usage of unstable renewables like solar and wind. Hydro is a giant, slowly recharging battery. It's perfect to pair with wind and solar because it can deal with their highly variable generation and our society's highly variable needs. But we don't have enough hydro-battery storage to allow for solar and wind to provide our base load. That's where nuclear shines, and why Ontario uses it so much. Until we can come up with a way to store something like a week's worth of power, it's going to be very difficult to ever phase out of nuclear. But given how clean nuclear is compared to the alternative base-load energy sources (gas, coal, etc), I think that's just fine.

deadmetheny 7y ago

I worked in the nuclear power in the past. The massive volumes of red tape involved is not conjecture, I experienced it firsthand. Activists will stonewall any new construction, full stop, and the NRC requirements for existing plants only go up over time.

Jedd 7y ago
> I worked in the nuclear power in the past. Where? My point was and remains that USA federal government hoops around building out new nuclear fission plants can not explain the dearth of new nuclear fission plants being built everywhere else. Canada was cited elsewhere in this thread as pro nuclear fission plants -- but they've deferred all plans to build new plants. France is the really obvious big proponent, but their recent experiences (building Flamanville in FR, involvement in Hinkley in the UK) suggest there is more complexity here than can be addressed by complaints that 'The USA government has red tape'.