4 ms·

The cost is upfront for nuclear and that's what doesn't align with society's immediate goals. France is no exception to that (and in fact if you know more about

by cmehdy 6y ago

The cost is upfront for nuclear and that's what doesn't align with society's immediate goals. France is no exception to that (and in fact if you know more about the state of research in France for example you can see that long-term investments aren't valued highly enough either). That's why despite the knowledge being there (and exported, just check out what french companies do in China) the main obstacle is political and societal: people are still scared, and politicians oscillate constantly on the matter of nuclear energy (Fessenheim, EPR etc) and therefore cannot actually develop a consistent position over the development phase. France actually has a ton of benefits from using nuclear (check out maps pollution-related deaths, check out hybrid car CO2 emissions per km, etc) but it takes a long-term vision to make big commitments that can pay off handsomely, and most of the world is fairly myopic (and my country is no exception). I could point you towards [1] the perception of nuclear risk (nuclear waste first, nuclear reactors second) in France being much higher than the perception of floods/fire/medical risks/terrorism, and much higher than the real numbers[2]. There is a HUGE disconnect between what people THINK nuclear power plants and nuclear waste are in terms of risk and what actually is problematic, and this oscillation has been very strong in public opinion (after all, it was Hollande 4 years ago who committed to closing a perfectly fine Fessenheim following public opinion more than anything else). So no, it's not about being buildable or not. Nuclear power plants are buildable. They're just not giving the private sector a good return on investment in today's market, and therefore it's on governments to get moving but for them to enact change their voters need to be consistently wanting it too. It's not even just a nuclear problem: just look at how public transportation can often be a constant fight between parties which delays advancements by decades (see: Toronto). [1] (in French) perceived moderate and high risks for various items in social awareness: https://i.imgur.com/iPpS6rM.jpg https://i.imgur.com/iPpS6rM.jpg [2] (in French) actual amounts of deaths related to many of the items of the previous image: https://i.imgur.com/fOwKjka.jpg https://i.imgur.com/fOwKjka.jpg

7952 6y ago
There is a false dichotomy being presented here. A piece of infrastructure can be both technically difficult and politically challenging. I think that applies to traditional nuclear power stations. Nuclear engineering is difficult, and that makes it more difficult to build nuclear power plants! And past success and knowledge is not a licence to success in the future.
- cmehdy 6y ago
  The person I replied to said they're not buildable. This is logically false because we've been able to build them. There's no dichotomy here, just an invalid argument. And science isn't just a game of randoms. We know full well how to build nuclear power plants, let's not play mysticism about it..
  - epistasis 6y ago
    I'm thinking about "buildable" in terms of how an agent that would construct it thinks: if I spend X amount of money will I have anything to show for it? In the US, the percentage of build failures has been too high for any utility or merchant generators to stomach the risk. So the existence of new reactors is not sufficient to define "buildable." The existence frequency of failed builds is what scares off new projects, and what makes them "unbuildable." Which also points to another difficulty with build ability: even if Rosatom or China or South Korea have figured out a way to build with a high success rate, that doesn't mean that it will translates to a different build crew and culture. We would have to see a string of probable 5 successes in a row in the US before a utility exec would consider risking their entire company on a new nuclear power plant. Too many gigantic companies have been destroyed in the attempt. There's a hilarious video of a SCANA (I think?) exec delivering blisteringly sarcastic remarks about the possibility of somebody else being able to pick up the pieces of their failed AP-1000 build. Nuclear is a career killer and a corporation killer in the US. It's likely that many execs in South Carolina will end up in jail for the stuff they did to try to keep the build going. And this is from people that have none of the safety or environmental concerns about nuclear. It's purely economic and "can I ever build this thing and will it destroy the company I lead."
    - cmehdy 6y ago
      So you're thinking "buildable" in terms of short-term market when nuclear power is the kind of thing built to operate on the scale of a century (and really gives financial returns only when you look over many decades), ESPECIALLY because the initial capital invested is the only real cost and most of the energy income from nuclear power plants has to go back towards investors at a typical 10% (if governments don't step up to do it themselves at much lower interests), exactly because the market is expecting returns NOW. This is a problem of framing you've got there, because by definition pretty much all the actions taken on markets have short-sightedness in mind, and at the very least nowhere near a century-long vision. The existence of reactors AND the fact that they are being built RIGHT NOW is enough to define buildable. That you don't WANT to build them is an entirely different problem, and again it is motivated by the fact that incorrect information is constantly being thrown at nuclear (even in countries where it once was a major thing to build new reactors, i.e. France) and that this information trickles down into the way people drive their representatives (politicians) towards short-sightedness.

by cmehdy 6y ago

7952 6y ago

There is a false dichotomy being presented here. A piece of infrastructure can be both technically difficult and politically challenging. I think that applies to traditional nuclear power stations. Nuclear engineering is difficult, and that makes it more difficult to build nuclear power plants! And past success and knowledge is not a licence to success in the future.

cmehdy 6y ago
The person I replied to said they're not buildable. This is logically false because we've been able to build them. There's no dichotomy here, just an invalid argument. And science isn't just a game of randoms. We know full well how to build nuclear power plants, let's not play mysticism about it..
- epistasis 6y ago
  I'm thinking about "buildable" in terms of how an agent that would construct it thinks: if I spend X amount of money will I have anything to show for it? In the US, the percentage of build failures has been too high for any utility or merchant generators to stomach the risk. So the existence of new reactors is not sufficient to define "buildable." The existence frequency of failed builds is what scares off new projects, and what makes them "unbuildable." Which also points to another difficulty with build ability: even if Rosatom or China or South Korea have figured out a way to build with a high success rate, that doesn't mean that it will translates to a different build crew and culture. We would have to see a string of probable 5 successes in a row in the US before a utility exec would consider risking their entire company on a new nuclear power plant. Too many gigantic companies have been destroyed in the attempt. There's a hilarious video of a SCANA (I think?) exec delivering blisteringly sarcastic remarks about the possibility of somebody else being able to pick up the pieces of their failed AP-1000 build. Nuclear is a career killer and a corporation killer in the US. It's likely that many execs in South Carolina will end up in jail for the stuff they did to try to keep the build going. And this is from people that have none of the safety or environmental concerns about nuclear. It's purely economic and "can I ever build this thing and will it destroy the company I lead."
  - cmehdy 6y ago
    So you're thinking "buildable" in terms of short-term market when nuclear power is the kind of thing built to operate on the scale of a century (and really gives financial returns only when you look over many decades), ESPECIALLY because the initial capital invested is the only real cost and most of the energy income from nuclear power plants has to go back towards investors at a typical 10% (if governments don't step up to do it themselves at much lower interests), exactly because the market is expecting returns NOW. This is a problem of framing you've got there, because by definition pretty much all the actions taken on markets have short-sightedness in mind, and at the very least nowhere near a century-long vision. The existence of reactors AND the fact that they are being built RIGHT NOW is enough to define buildable. That you don't WANT to build them is an entirely different problem, and again it is motivated by the fact that incorrect information is constantly being thrown at nuclear (even in countries where it once was a major thing to build new reactors, i.e. France) and that this information trickles down into the way people drive their representatives (politicians) towards short-sightedness.