4 ms·

> You're arguing for nuclear on the basis of its build speed? That doesn't seem to be born out in reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Franc

> You're arguing for nuclear on the basis of its build speed? That doesn't seem to be born out in reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media/File:Electricity_in_France.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#/media...

bob29 6y ago
https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  The plant was fully capable of continuing operation, but they're restricted in how much they can increase the temperature of the river used for cooling. There has been no demonstrated impact of reactor cooling on fish populations, so this is really just the government shutting down the nuclear plant just for the sake of it.
  - bob29 6y ago
    Hmm I wonder if there’s a link between the fish in the river being fine and the regulators preventing the reactor from boiling it in the summer ?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
Octoth0rpe 6y ago
I'm not sure what your point is by linking to just that graph without context. No one denies that nuclear makes up the majority of France's generating capacity. It's more debatable as to whether or not France is capable of building them out at competitive prices compared to renewables. It's worth looking at the ongoing cost disaster that is Flamanville unit 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... Short version: supposed to be 54 months to build at €3.3 billion, is currently now targeting 180 months of total construction time at €19.1 billion. Not a good look.
- sir_bearington 6y ago
  The point is that nuclear is indeed capable of being built rapidly. Over the span of 15 years France went from 10% nuclear power to 80%. You claim that nuclear can't be built at speed, and that this isn't borne out by reality. This is not only untrue, it is the opposite of true: it was borne out by reality. You're making a sharp pivot here, away from construction time to cost. Yes, nuclear is much cheaper when the same design is built repeatedly instead of first-of-a-kind reactors. This is already well known. Solar and wind are cheaper in terms of raw generation costs, but don't actually offer a path to decarbonization because of their intermittency. Solar and wind are cheap when they supplement fossil fuels. But they need to be paired with storage to be used as a primary source of power, and we don't have a feasible plan to provide that much storage let alone how much it'd cost.
  - Octoth0rpe 6y ago
    > Over the span of 15 years France went from 10% nuclear power to 80%. Ok, that's much more fair. Thanks for pointing out the fallacy. > we don't have a feasible plan to provide that much storage let alone how much it'd cost. I think part of the idea behind smart grid initiatives is to use electric vehicles as part of the storage mix: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid Not sure if you're writing that off as unfeasible, but clearly there are solutions being thought about, and there are companies in the market today selling storage with costs going down every single year. It's not unreasonable to think that the 'feasible' plan for storage is to, well, simply buy/install it; which becomes cheaper every single year. Also, solar thermal plants (no storage required) are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
    - sir_bearington 6y ago
      > Not sure if you're writing that off as unfeasible, but clearly there are solutions being thought about, and there are companies in the market today selling storage with costs going down every single year. It's not unreasonable to think that the 'feasible' plan for storage is to, well, simply buy/install it; which becomes cheaper every single year. Yes, it is. There's enough known lithium deposits to produce 5 minutes worth of storage. With current mining techniques, there's an estimated 20 minutes worth of storage. [1] > Also, solar thermal plants (no storage required) are a thing: Solar thermal is more expensive than nuclear. 1. https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html

bob29 6y ago

https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a https://apnews.com/article/2fef5c6a978b4fd5a79596020f0bac8a

sir_bearington 6y ago
The plant was fully capable of continuing operation, but they're restricted in how much they can increase the temperature of the river used for cooling. There has been no demonstrated impact of reactor cooling on fish populations, so this is really just the government shutting down the nuclear plant just for the sake of it.
- bob29 6y ago
  Hmm I wonder if there’s a link between the fish in the river being fine and the regulators preventing the reactor from boiling it in the summer ?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

Octoth0rpe 6y ago

I'm not sure what your point is by linking to just that graph without context. No one denies that nuclear makes up the majority of France's generating capacity. It's more debatable as to whether or not France is capable of building them out at competitive prices compared to renewables. It's worth looking at the ongoing cost disaster that is Flamanville unit 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan... Short version: supposed to be 54 months to build at €3.3 billion, is currently now targeting 180 months of total construction time at €19.1 billion. Not a good look.

sir_bearington 6y ago
The point is that nuclear is indeed capable of being built rapidly. Over the span of 15 years France went from 10% nuclear power to 80%. You claim that nuclear can't be built at speed, and that this isn't borne out by reality. This is not only untrue, it is the opposite of true: it was borne out by reality. You're making a sharp pivot here, away from construction time to cost. Yes, nuclear is much cheaper when the same design is built repeatedly instead of first-of-a-kind reactors. This is already well known. Solar and wind are cheaper in terms of raw generation costs, but don't actually offer a path to decarbonization because of their intermittency. Solar and wind are cheap when they supplement fossil fuels. But they need to be paired with storage to be used as a primary source of power, and we don't have a feasible plan to provide that much storage let alone how much it'd cost.
- Octoth0rpe 6y ago
  > Over the span of 15 years France went from 10% nuclear power to 80%. Ok, that's much more fair. Thanks for pointing out the fallacy. > we don't have a feasible plan to provide that much storage let alone how much it'd cost. I think part of the idea behind smart grid initiatives is to use electric vehicles as part of the storage mix: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_grid Not sure if you're writing that off as unfeasible, but clearly there are solutions being thought about, and there are companies in the market today selling storage with costs going down every single year. It's not unreasonable to think that the 'feasible' plan for storage is to, well, simply buy/install it; which becomes cheaper every single year. Also, solar thermal plants (no storage required) are a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power
  - sir_bearington 6y ago
    > Not sure if you're writing that off as unfeasible, but clearly there are solutions being thought about, and there are companies in the market today selling storage with costs going down every single year. It's not unreasonable to think that the 'feasible' plan for storage is to, well, simply buy/install it; which becomes cheaper every single year. Yes, it is. There's enough known lithium deposits to produce 5 minutes worth of storage. With current mining techniques, there's an estimated 20 minutes worth of storage. [1] > Also, solar thermal plants (no storage required) are a thing: Solar thermal is more expensive than nuclear. 1. https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html https://dercuano.github.io/notes/lithium-supplies.html