4 ms·

Nuclear energy, so far, is the only proven way of producing more than 3/4 of a nation's electricity from carbon free sources other than geographically limited o

Nuclear energy, so far, is the only proven way of producing more than 3/4 of a nation's electricity from carbon free sources other than geographically limited options like hydroelectricity. It's a proven technology that has served as France's main electricity source for close to 4 decades. As compared to plans to turn our power grid into a Rube Goldberg machine and dealing with power outages when wind and solar output don't conform to projections, it's not hard to see why people favor nuclear.

godelski 6y ago
I don't really agree with this, even though I am an avid nuclear proponent. I do think France has it right, but there's some other things to consider. France is phasing out some of its nuclear and does not plan on replacing it. No they aren't going to 0% or even 50%, but they are doing it and this is a good idea. They are replacing old plants with renewables where they can and replacing and building new plants where they can't. This is part of why France has been doing so well in terms of CO2eq production (one of the lowest in Europe, which is especially crazy considering it doesn't have the hydrodynamic opportunities that Sweden does, who also uses a fair amount of nuclear). Remember that no matter what you do, you want a diversified portfolio for power generation. You don't want to rely on a single resource.
- manfredo 6y ago
  > France is phasing out some of its nuclear and does not plan on replacing it A statement they keep making to placate anti-nuclear advocates but keep postponing and postponing. Because there's no way to reliably generate the majority of electricity using wind and solar, and only small parts of France are suitable for hydroelectricity. Diversification doesn't matter for energy that comes from heat engines. Just like how many countries successfully grew their economies with > 80% fossil fuels plants, there's nothing wrong with powering a country entirely on nuclear power. Sure it's good build alternatives where it's cheaper. But the main draw of nuclear power is that its output entirely controllable. Diversification is much more important in renewables where you don't control the weather.
  - godelski 6y ago
    > A statement they keep making to placate anti-nuclear advocates but keep postponing and postponing. Because there's no way to reliably generate the majority of electricity using wind and solar, and only small parts of France are suitable for hydroelectricity. This is really confusing. Me, nor France, said that they are going to go to 0% nuclear. In fact, I remember saying > No they aren't going to 0% or even 50% Maybe I should be more clear and say "Less than 50%". So I'm confused because I'm reading your response as disagreeing what IS happening (decommissioning IS happening) and taking it to mean that ALL reactors are being proposed to be decommissioned. Which is definitely not true. > Diversification doesn't matter for energy that comes from heat engines. What? We've always had diversification. So does every other country. They also always have. Different energy sources have different advantages. It would be dumb not to use the one that has the most advantage for the specific situation. And of course there's the old saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket." But you seem to be disagreeing with this but also agreeing by saying > Sure it's good build alternatives where it's cheaper A big part is that France doesn't produce its own nuclear and so renewables do provide some self resilience. That does have some advantages, but obviously France does want to keep a mostly nuclear system (recycling is self resilience too). > But the main draw of nuclear power is that its output entirely controllable. Which this isn't really true. You CAN throttle nuclear but not infinitely and surely not like you can with coal or natural gas. France just sells the excess and this "throttles" a lot for them. It is very efficient. > there's nothing wrong with powering a country entirely on nuclear power. The issue is easier for France than other countries, simply because momentum. One thing you have to consider with building reactors is that they take longer to develop and build than other sources. Which I'll agree that we should have started yesterday, but let's be realistic. If you really believe this then you should also be a proponent of renewables because they are a better stop gap to a nuclear based system than coal and natural gas are.
    - manfredo 6y ago
      > Maybe I should be more clear and say "Less than 50%". > So I'm confused because I'm reading your response as disagreeing what IS happening (decommissioning IS happening) and taking it to mean that ALL reactors are being proposed to be decommissioned. Which is definitely not true. They keep delaying their supposed nuclear cutbacks: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/frances-decision-to-delay-nuclear-phaseout-by-a-decade-jepordizes-pv-plans/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/frances-decision-to-d... The reality is that wind and solar can't replace nuclear or Fossil fuels without some insanely good energy storage that is currently the stuff of science fiction. > Which this isn't really true. You CAN throttle nuclear but not infinitely and surely not like you can with coal or natural gas. France just sells the excess and this "throttles" a lot for them. It is very efficient. Incorrect. Reactors can be modulated in terms of thermal output. You can throttle the electrical output even if the thermal output remains the same by cooling the water more aggressively. Furthermore excess energy is not a hard problem to solve. Desalinate water, or other energy intensive tasks are good energy sinks. > One thing you have to consider with building reactors is that they take longer to develop and build than other sources. Which I'll agree that we should have started yesterday, but let's be realistic. If you really believe this then you should also be a proponent of renewables because they are a better stop gap to a nuclear based system than coal and natural gas are. France built up it's nuclear generation from 10% to 80% in the span of 15 years. By comparison, solar and wind are still waiting for an effective energy storage system to come into existence. Renewables are not capable of generating more than ~40% of a country's electricity due to the fundamental mismatch between the time that energy is generated and the time that energy is consumed. Look at Germany to see the failure of solar and wind to produce a carbon free energy system. The solution exists, and has existed for over half a century now.

godelski 6y ago

I don't really agree with this, even though I am an avid nuclear proponent. I do think France has it right, but there's some other things to consider. France is phasing out some of its nuclear and does not plan on replacing it. No they aren't going to 0% or even 50%, but they are doing it and this is a good idea. They are replacing old plants with renewables where they can and replacing and building new plants where they can't. This is part of why France has been doing so well in terms of CO2eq production (one of the lowest in Europe, which is especially crazy considering it doesn't have the hydrodynamic opportunities that Sweden does, who also uses a fair amount of nuclear). Remember that no matter what you do, you want a diversified portfolio for power generation. You don't want to rely on a single resource.

manfredo 6y ago
> France is phasing out some of its nuclear and does not plan on replacing it A statement they keep making to placate anti-nuclear advocates but keep postponing and postponing. Because there's no way to reliably generate the majority of electricity using wind and solar, and only small parts of France are suitable for hydroelectricity. Diversification doesn't matter for energy that comes from heat engines. Just like how many countries successfully grew their economies with > 80% fossil fuels plants, there's nothing wrong with powering a country entirely on nuclear power. Sure it's good build alternatives where it's cheaper. But the main draw of nuclear power is that its output entirely controllable. Diversification is much more important in renewables where you don't control the weather.
- godelski 6y ago
  > A statement they keep making to placate anti-nuclear advocates but keep postponing and postponing. Because there's no way to reliably generate the majority of electricity using wind and solar, and only small parts of France are suitable for hydroelectricity. This is really confusing. Me, nor France, said that they are going to go to 0% nuclear. In fact, I remember saying > No they aren't going to 0% or even 50% Maybe I should be more clear and say "Less than 50%". So I'm confused because I'm reading your response as disagreeing what IS happening (decommissioning IS happening) and taking it to mean that ALL reactors are being proposed to be decommissioned. Which is definitely not true. > Diversification doesn't matter for energy that comes from heat engines. What? We've always had diversification. So does every other country. They also always have. Different energy sources have different advantages. It would be dumb not to use the one that has the most advantage for the specific situation. And of course there's the old saying "don't put all your eggs in one basket." But you seem to be disagreeing with this but also agreeing by saying > Sure it's good build alternatives where it's cheaper A big part is that France doesn't produce its own nuclear and so renewables do provide some self resilience. That does have some advantages, but obviously France does want to keep a mostly nuclear system (recycling is self resilience too). > But the main draw of nuclear power is that its output entirely controllable. Which this isn't really true. You CAN throttle nuclear but not infinitely and surely not like you can with coal or natural gas. France just sells the excess and this "throttles" a lot for them. It is very efficient. > there's nothing wrong with powering a country entirely on nuclear power. The issue is easier for France than other countries, simply because momentum. One thing you have to consider with building reactors is that they take longer to develop and build than other sources. Which I'll agree that we should have started yesterday, but let's be realistic. If you really believe this then you should also be a proponent of renewables because they are a better stop gap to a nuclear based system than coal and natural gas are.
  - manfredo 6y ago
    > Maybe I should be more clear and say "Less than 50%". > So I'm confused because I'm reading your response as disagreeing what IS happening (decommissioning IS happening) and taking it to mean that ALL reactors are being proposed to be decommissioned. Which is definitely not true. They keep delaying their supposed nuclear cutbacks: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/frances-decision-to-delay-nuclear-phaseout-by-a-decade-jepordizes-pv-plans/ https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/11/20/frances-decision-to-d... The reality is that wind and solar can't replace nuclear or Fossil fuels without some insanely good energy storage that is currently the stuff of science fiction. > Which this isn't really true. You CAN throttle nuclear but not infinitely and surely not like you can with coal or natural gas. France just sells the excess and this "throttles" a lot for them. It is very efficient. Incorrect. Reactors can be modulated in terms of thermal output. You can throttle the electrical output even if the thermal output remains the same by cooling the water more aggressively. Furthermore excess energy is not a hard problem to solve. Desalinate water, or other energy intensive tasks are good energy sinks. > One thing you have to consider with building reactors is that they take longer to develop and build than other sources. Which I'll agree that we should have started yesterday, but let's be realistic. If you really believe this then you should also be a proponent of renewables because they are a better stop gap to a nuclear based system than coal and natural gas are. France built up it's nuclear generation from 10% to 80% in the span of 15 years. By comparison, solar and wind are still waiting for an effective energy storage system to come into existence. Renewables are not capable of generating more than ~40% of a country's electricity due to the fundamental mismatch between the time that energy is generated and the time that energy is consumed. Look at Germany to see the failure of solar and wind to produce a carbon free energy system. The solution exists, and has existed for over half a century now.