8 ms·

In France this 'success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that th

In France this 'success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 10,3% of gridpower in 2017). The sole reactor currently planned (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 10 years behind schedule and 4x overbudget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

godelski 6y ago
I'm unsure what you are suggesting here, so I want to be extra clear about the French policy and current state of affairs. As in stands, France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita[0][1]. No one is saying that we should _only_ use nuclear. Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. France is trying to reduce its dependence upon nuclear (which is a good idea) and replace its fossil fuel infrastructure first. This is because renewables are becoming cheaper. The plan is to have a diversification of nuclear + renewables (which is what pro-nuclear advocates are fighting for). Nuclear serves as a baseload and backbone and is supported by renewables to fill the gap. You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support. As battery technology gets better and cheaper and as price of renewables continue to fall you will also find that pro-nuclear advocates will cheer this on. There is a big misconception that many believe people are arguing nuclear vs renewables or arguing that the grid should be _only_ nuclear. What we are arguing for is nuclear + renewables vs renewables + coal + oil + gas. The reason being that _today_ we have the technology to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions with _current_ technologies. We are looking at countries that already have successful models for emissions and saying "hey, we should do something similar to that, since it clearly works." It would be insane to not look at what models are already successful and try to say that the technologies they use are counter productive. The proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look. We are arguing for models closer to Sweden (since we, the US, have lots of access to hydro) than were are for France's current system (though their goals would also be a good model to consider). [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&year=latest&country=FRA~DEU~NOR~SWE~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=false https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=fals... [1.5] Note that Sweden also uses a significant amount of nuclear
- rtx 6y ago
  Grid should only be nuclear. Renewables and batteries will be major source of pollution going ahead. I am not sure why green groups are pushing those.
- natmaka 6y ago
  I'm not "suggesting" anything, I just let us remember that France plans to considerably reduce its nuclear power capacity. If my assertions aren't clear or if a proof is missing please feel free to ask. FYI I'm French. > France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita Apples and oranges... France has wayyyy less factories than Germany, however it imports goods produced elsewhere. CO2 emitted in order to produce those goods is to be accounted for! Real CO2 emission: France: 6.92t/year/capita in 2017 Germany: 10.83t/year/capita in 2017 Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?year=latest&time=2017&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?year=latest&time=2017&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... Moreover Germany is richer than France (=> more equipment => more CO2 emitted). GDP per capita (PPP): 52.4k€/capita versus 47.6 At this point from your data 9.13/5.2 (1.75) ratio we are back to 9.74/6.92 (1.4) Germany's climate is much colder (=> more heating => more CO2 emitted). Heaters in Germany are massively oil-based systems because there was an historic low taxation on heating oil. Sadly I can't find solid data. Food for thought. > Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. Yes, indeed. However it doesn't imply that we must use each and every energy source, without any consideration for all its characteristics. Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, and contrary to a common belief they cannot solve the climate challenge while letting us avoid changing our habits. > You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear Some, in France, think that we should go full nuclear, and they fight for it. Example: https://www.enviscope.com/lassociation-des-ecologistes-pour-le-nucleaire-porte-plainte-contre-la-fermeture-de-fessenheim/ https://www.enviscope.com/lassociation-des-ecologistes-pour-... Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. Example: https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleaire-ou-renouvelable-pour-barbara-pompili-la-france-devra-choisir-apres-2035-6915983 https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleair... In 2010 in the US 8.4% of the energy comes from nuclear plants, and renewables (hydro included) produce approx 6% Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Energy_consumption_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#En... That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has, and adapt or retrofit all energy-consuming equipment in order to have it use gridpower (or to embark some nano-reactor). This seems completely unrealistic, from many perspectives. Even a mix (nuclear + renewables) with 3 to 5 times more nuclear seems unrealistic. 'CO2-clean' energy production as a whole isn't possible. Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions, and 63% (of the electricity) is produced by fossil fuel, and 20% by nukeplants). Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... => quickly reducing CO2 emission by 27% by producing all gridpower does not imply any adaption/retrofit of any existing stuff, however it implies a 5-fold increase of nuclear capacity or a balance with renewables (taking into account the baseload) and would not be a decisive progress as the GIEC invites us to "fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warmi... Therefore, indeed, "the proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look": in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff. > What we are arguing for IMHO the sole realistic option is "let's drastically reduce our energy & stuff needs", or even "degrowth". Even an "all-nuclear gripower" plan, which is completely out-of-reach, cannot fix the climate problem: gridpower offers only about 25% of the consumed energy in advanced countries, and beyond energy-production many human activities emit huge amounts of CO2 in ways we cannot modify, or at best cannot modify quickly (agriculture comes to mind, as in the US it produces ~10% of the emitted CO2, and feeding cows with gridpower may prove to be difficult). > _today_ we have the technology We don't know, _today_, how to make a fool-proof nuclear plant nor how to effectively dispose of its waste. We don't know how to solve the NIMBY challenge. Financing a nuclear plant becomes more and more difficult. Even building it is a major ordeal (see the EPR projects). And even if we fix all this there is no all-nuclear approach able to tackle the challenge (dividing CO2 emissions by 3).

godelski 6y ago

I'm unsure what you are suggesting here, so I want to be extra clear about the French policy and current state of affairs. As in stands, France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita[0][1]. No one is saying that we should _only_ use nuclear. Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. France is trying to reduce its dependence upon nuclear (which is a good idea) and replace its fossil fuel infrastructure first. This is because renewables are becoming cheaper. The plan is to have a diversification of nuclear + renewables (which is what pro-nuclear advocates are fighting for). Nuclear serves as a baseload and backbone and is supported by renewables to fill the gap. You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear. In fact you will often find support. As battery technology gets better and cheaper and as price of renewables continue to fall you will also find that pro-nuclear advocates will cheer this on. There is a big misconception that many believe people are arguing nuclear vs renewables or arguing that the grid should be _only_ nuclear. What we are arguing for is nuclear + renewables vs renewables + coal + oil + gas. The reason being that _today_ we have the technology to dramatically reduce our carbon emissions with _current_ technologies. We are looking at countries that already have successful models for emissions and saying "hey, we should do something similar to that, since it clearly works." It would be insane to not look at what models are already successful and try to say that the technologies they use are counter productive. The proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look. We are arguing for models closer to Sweden (since we, the US, have lots of access to hydro) than were are for France's current system (though their goals would also be a good model to consider). [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?tab=chart&year=latest&country=FRA~DEU~NOR~SWE~GBR https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita?t... [1] https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=false https://www.electricitymap.org/zone/FR?wind=false&solar=fals... [1.5] Note that Sweden also uses a significant amount of nuclear

rtx 6y ago
Grid should only be nuclear. Renewables and batteries will be major source of pollution going ahead. I am not sure why green groups are pushing those.
natmaka 6y ago
I'm not "suggesting" anything, I just let us remember that France plans to considerably reduce its nuclear power capacity. If my assertions aren't clear or if a proof is missing please feel free to ask. FYI I'm French. > France has one of the lowest CO2 emissions per capita Apples and oranges... France has wayyyy less factories than Germany, however it imports goods produced elsewhere. CO2 emitted in order to produce those goods is to be accounted for! Real CO2 emission: France: 6.92t/year/capita in 2017 Germany: 10.83t/year/capita in 2017 Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?year=latest&time=2017&country=~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?year=latest&time=2017&country=~FRA https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/prod-cons-co2-per-capita?... Moreover Germany is richer than France (=> more equipment => more CO2 emitted). GDP per capita (PPP): 52.4k€/capita versus 47.6 At this point from your data 9.13/5.2 (1.75) ratio we are back to 9.74/6.92 (1.4) Germany's climate is much colder (=> more heating => more CO2 emitted). Heaters in Germany are massively oil-based systems because there was an historic low taxation on heating oil. Sadly I can't find solid data. Food for thought. > Not diversifying your energy portfolio is a terrible idea. Yes, indeed. However it doesn't imply that we must use each and every energy source, without any consideration for all its characteristics. Nuclear plants and their waste are dangerous, and contrary to a common belief they cannot solve the climate challenge while letting us avoid changing our habits. > You will not find pro-nuclear supporters upset with France's decision to reduce their dependence on nuclear Some, in France, think that we should go full nuclear, and they fight for it. Example: https://www.enviscope.com/lassociation-des-ecologistes-pour-le-nucleaire-porte-plainte-contre-la-fermeture-de-fessenheim/ https://www.enviscope.com/lassociation-des-ecologistes-pour-... Other think that we may have to chose a "100% renewables" option. Example: https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleaire-ou-renouvelable-pour-barbara-pompili-la-france-devra-choisir-apres-2035-6915983 https://www.ouest-france.fr/environnement/nucleaire/nucleair... In 2010 in the US 8.4% of the energy comes from nuclear plants, and renewables (hydro included) produce approx 6% Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Energy_consumption_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#En... That is to say in order to only 'decarbonate' the energy sector (there are other sectors to decarbonate!) thanks to nuclear power the US should deploy ~11 times more nuclear power capacity than it already has, and adapt or retrofit all energy-consuming equipment in order to have it use gridpower (or to embark some nano-reactor). This seems completely unrealistic, from many perspectives. Even a mix (nuclear + renewables) with 3 to 5 times more nuclear seems unrealistic. 'CO2-clean' energy production as a whole isn't possible. Electricity production accounts for 27% of CO2 emissions, and 63% (of the electricity) is produced by fossil fuel, and 20% by nukeplants). Source: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emis... => quickly reducing CO2 emission by 27% by producing all gridpower does not imply any adaption/retrofit of any existing stuff, however it implies a 5-fold increase of nuclear capacity or a balance with renewables (taking into account the baseload) and would not be a decisive progress as the GIEC invites us to "fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching 'net zero' around 2050". Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warming_of_1.5_%C2%B0C https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Report_on_Global_Warmi... Therefore, indeed, "the proof is sitting right there, all you have to do is look": in order to reduce emissions we have to consume wayyyyy less energy and stuff. > What we are arguing for IMHO the sole realistic option is "let's drastically reduce our energy & stuff needs", or even "degrowth". Even an "all-nuclear gripower" plan, which is completely out-of-reach, cannot fix the climate problem: gridpower offers only about 25% of the consumed energy in advanced countries, and beyond energy-production many human activities emit huge amounts of CO2 in ways we cannot modify, or at best cannot modify quickly (agriculture comes to mind, as in the US it produces ~10% of the emitted CO2, and feeding cows with gridpower may prove to be difficult). > _today_ we have the technology We don't know, _today_, how to make a fool-proof nuclear plant nor how to effectively dispose of its waste. We don't know how to solve the NIMBY challenge. Financing a nuclear plant becomes more and more difficult. Even building it is a major ordeal (see the EPR projects). And even if we fix all this there is no all-nuclear approach able to tackle the challenge (dividing CO2 emissions by 3).