14 ms·

Hard to argue that something that powers like 70% of France is one notch above dead. If all of big oil had conducted an incredibly successful campaign against

Hard to argue that something that powers like 70% of France is one notch above dead. If all of big oil had conducted an incredibly successful campaign against you since you were born, you probably wouldn't be feeling too hot either. And they conducted that campaign because of how incredibly good the technology is. This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, and anti-science policy. Now is the time to rally for change and science-driven policy, not to give up. The water is lapping at our feet!

neaanopri 6y ago
I'm skeptical 'big oil' campaigned against nuclear. Oil doesn't compete for power generation, fossil fuel power is mostly from coal and natural gas. I would totally believe coal companies did that
- aksss 6y ago
  Hydrocarbons have nothing to worry about, even with nuclear. We are running into fossil fuels (our global usage is still climbing at a rapid pace), we have not flatlined, much less started to bend the curve downwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&t=760s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&t=760s
- Turing_Machine 6y ago
  Err... natural gas (the largest component of current U.S. power generation) is produced by the exact same big oil companies, for the most part. The three largest natural gas producers in the United States are ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips. Also, before the Arab Oil Embargo hit in 1973 (causing oil prices to skyrocket) a significant amount (though not a majority by any means) of the U.S. electric grid was oil-fired.
- TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
  What will it take to convince you of the facts? https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-lobby-opposes-state-subsidies-for-nuclear-power-producers-1493145109 https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-lobby-opposes-state-sub... That should also give you some terms to search for other sources too if you feel compelled.
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  Maybe Big Oil was afraid of nuclear powered cars.[1] (Okay, this is mostly a joke...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon
woleium 6y ago
very much this.
adrianN 6y ago
70% of the electricity in France is nuclear. Almost all other power (heating, cars...) is still fossil fuels.
- andbberger 6y ago
  Sure. That's still a big number though. And with that much nuclear, even resistive heating is pretty reasonable from a carbon perspective.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Nuclear power is a giant kettle, why would you even bother with resistive heating?
    - andbberger 6y ago
      Cogeneration would be much better for sure. In most countries heating with natural gas ends up being less carbon (after losses). But in France even resistive heating could be viable from a carbon perspective. To be clear you should never do this, you should use a heat pump. But you could and it wouldn't be the end of the world.
bilbo0s 6y ago
This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, and anti-science policy. You sound like someone who doesn't have to work out the financial engineering to back all that development. The treehuggers may be anti-nuclear, but energy investors are not. What energy investors are however, is pro-profit. Nuclear keeps falling short in the analysis phase of a lot of energy investment firms due diligence. Probably won't be attractive unless and until the government comes in and basically nationalizes the construction of these facilities. It's unreasonable to expect the private sector to lose billions on billions building nuclear plants "cuz we should do right". Look at the mess that is Vogtie, and you'll understand clearly nuclear's problem. I would go so far as to say that even with zero taxes, and no regulations at all, most energy firms would walk away from the vast majority of nuclear projects. Nuclear's problem is not "corruption". The pursuit of profit on the part of energy investors is not "corrupt". T Boone Pickens is not a tree hugger. He just knows that the windmills he was slapping up generated return in less than 6 months with enviable yield. Whereas a nuclear plant may not return a profit in its lifetime. The essential problem here, is financial, and no one wants to address that problem in a realistic fashion. Government, at least it seems, is simply in no hurry to intervene. (Probably because they don't have any more of an appetite for laying out those kinds of sums than the energy investors do.)
- andbberger 6y ago
  You're absolutely right, the "financial engineering" of nuclear energy is not my problem, and the government should definitely nationalize nuclear energy. The corruption I'm referring to is the oil lobby's interference in policy and public perception. You're saying: capitalism doesn't work in the context of carbon-free energy production (or in general, but let's leave that aside), and I agree. Controversial opinion in a fundamentally capitalistic forum such as this one, but capitalism is very much the problem here. It has systematically failed to price in externalities, which is why nuclear energy doesn't look so good on the balance sheet. Allow me to revise my statement: This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, anti-science policy, and a broken economic system that will be the death of all of us.
  - 6y ago
xref 6y ago
People throw out this 70% number but it’s really undercut by the fact France hasn’t built a new nuclear plant since 1999, and has decommissioned quite a few in that time. The average plant age is now 35. Nuclear output is actually down from its peak, with renewables largely responsible for new generating capacity. France hopes to drop their nuclear mix to 50% by 2035, and their most recent reactor at an existing site started in 2007 aiming for completion by 2012...but that slipped by more than a decade and now they hope by the end of 2022 at the earliest. So France is pretty hard to hold up as the shining beacon of a vibrant nuclear industry.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Would China be a better example as it is currently building dozens of new nuclear plants?
- ip26 6y ago
  It isn't a shining beacon of vibrancy, but it does show that it was, at least at one time, a real possibility. An existence proof.
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    With sufficient subsidy and a powerful enough engine, you can make a pig fly.
    - ip26 6y ago
      I'll believe it when I see it
manicdee 6y ago
It boggles my mind that France and South Korea had such great success with nuclear but nobody else was able to replicate that success. It can't be magic or works of God that won that success, so what's the real story?
- elihu 6y ago
  There was a comment in a similar discussion a few days ago, attributing France's success in part to being able to sell excess nuclear power to neighboring countries, and those neighboring countries not themselves investing heavily in nuclear. Basically, if France's neighbors tried to replicate France's success, they'd immediately run into the problem that they'd have to compete with France in the same power market. If building more nuclear reactors made economic sense in that market, France would (perhaps) already have done it. I don't know how true that is, but it at least makes sense.
  - CaptArmchair 6y ago
    What competition? The Belgian market is already firmly owned by France energy companies. Belgium has 2 nuclear power plants. In 2016, these covered about 51% of domestic power consumption. Those power plants are owned and operated by Engie-Electrabel which is a subsidiary to Engie, a french multinational providing utilities services. Engie-Electrabel covers about 50% of the Belgian market. The second largest producer/supplier on the Belgian market is Luminus (20% market share). The main shareholder of Luminus is Electricité de France (70% stake). Fun fact, EDF Luminus has a 10% stake in Engie-Electrabel's Belgian nuclear power plants. Most of their production is gas based. Those 2 nuclear plants are coming up on 50 years of age. Their operational lifespan was 40 years. Talks about a phase out have been going on since 1999. So, what went wrong? Back in 2003, at the end of their legislature, the then-government passed legislation that put a stop on building new plants and asserted a phaseout between 2021-2025. Even though an energy commission back then already noted the high reliance of Belgian consumption on nuclear. It was assumed that subsequent governments would revert that decision. That didn't happen. Why? Because between 2003 and now, Belgium has had a string of political crises severely stifling decision making processes. The "energy transition" has been postponed over those past 20 years for political reasons. Belgium is now at a moment in time where those plants ought to be shut down, but without any proper alternatives to curb power consumption. Meanwhile, the costs for consumers has risen sharply over the past decade: 0.35 EUR / kWh. Those costs are expected to rise in the future. Past policies regarding subsidizing renewables such as solar panels through tax incentives turned out to negatively impact the budget deficit. Moreover, the existing, outdated grid isn't updated to deal with modern power consumption. As a result, Belgium has ended up in a bind where recently owners of solar panels were barred from putting their surplus production on the grid, and the massive costs of subsidizing will need to be recouped. The already massively accrued costs to the public even before an energy transition can happen in earnest, pretty much render the debate moot. Needless to say, Belgium is looking towards a future where it will probably be forced to reside to building new gas powered plants for the time being, and steep consumer prices for power.

neaanopri 6y ago

I'm skeptical 'big oil' campaigned against nuclear. Oil doesn't compete for power generation, fossil fuel power is mostly from coal and natural gas. I would totally believe coal companies did that

aksss 6y ago
Hydrocarbons have nothing to worry about, even with nuclear. We are running into fossil fuels (our global usage is still climbing at a rapid pace), we have not flatlined, much less started to bend the curve downwards. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&t=760s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkj_91IJVBk&t=760s
Turing_Machine 6y ago
Err... natural gas (the largest component of current U.S. power generation) is produced by the exact same big oil companies, for the most part. The three largest natural gas producers in the United States are ExxonMobil, BP, and ConocoPhillips. Also, before the Arab Oil Embargo hit in 1973 (causing oil prices to skyrocket) a significant amount (though not a majority by any means) of the U.S. electric grid was oil-fired.
TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
What will it take to convince you of the facts? https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-lobby-opposes-state-subsidies-for-nuclear-power-producers-1493145109 https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-gas-lobby-opposes-state-sub... That should also give you some terms to search for other sources too if you feel compelled.
dcolkitt 6y ago
Maybe Big Oil was afraid of nuclear powered cars.[1] (Okay, this is mostly a joke...) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

woleium 6y ago

very much this.

adrianN 6y ago

70% of the electricity in France is nuclear. Almost all other power (heating, cars...) is still fossil fuels.

andbberger 6y ago
Sure. That's still a big number though. And with that much nuclear, even resistive heating is pretty reasonable from a carbon perspective.
- imtringued 6y ago
  Nuclear power is a giant kettle, why would you even bother with resistive heating?
  - andbberger 6y ago
    Cogeneration would be much better for sure. In most countries heating with natural gas ends up being less carbon (after losses). But in France even resistive heating could be viable from a carbon perspective. To be clear you should never do this, you should use a heat pump. But you could and it wouldn't be the end of the world.

bilbo0s 6y ago

This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, and anti-science policy. You sound like someone who doesn't have to work out the financial engineering to back all that development. The treehuggers may be anti-nuclear, but energy investors are not. What energy investors are however, is pro-profit. Nuclear keeps falling short in the analysis phase of a lot of energy investment firms due diligence. Probably won't be attractive unless and until the government comes in and basically nationalizes the construction of these facilities. It's unreasonable to expect the private sector to lose billions on billions building nuclear plants "cuz we should do right". Look at the mess that is Vogtie, and you'll understand clearly nuclear's problem. I would go so far as to say that even with zero taxes, and no regulations at all, most energy firms would walk away from the vast majority of nuclear projects. Nuclear's problem is not "corruption". The pursuit of profit on the part of energy investors is not "corrupt". T Boone Pickens is not a tree hugger. He just knows that the windmills he was slapping up generated return in less than 6 months with enviable yield. Whereas a nuclear plant may not return a profit in its lifetime. The essential problem here, is financial, and no one wants to address that problem in a realistic fashion. Government, at least it seems, is simply in no hurry to intervene. (Probably because they don't have any more of an appetite for laying out those kinds of sums than the energy investors do.)

andbberger 6y ago
You're absolutely right, the "financial engineering" of nuclear energy is not my problem, and the government should definitely nationalize nuclear energy. The corruption I'm referring to is the oil lobby's interference in policy and public perception. You're saying: capitalism doesn't work in the context of carbon-free energy production (or in general, but let's leave that aside), and I agree. Controversial opinion in a fundamentally capitalistic forum such as this one, but capitalism is very much the problem here. It has systematically failed to price in externalities, which is why nuclear energy doesn't look so good on the balance sheet. Allow me to revise my statement: This isn't a technological problem, it's one of corruption, conflicts of interest, anti-science policy, and a broken economic system that will be the death of all of us.
- 6y ago

xref 6y ago

People throw out this 70% number but it’s really undercut by the fact France hasn’t built a new nuclear plant since 1999, and has decommissioned quite a few in that time. The average plant age is now 35. Nuclear output is actually down from its peak, with renewables largely responsible for new generating capacity. France hopes to drop their nuclear mix to 50% by 2035, and their most recent reactor at an existing site started in 2007 aiming for completion by 2012...but that slipped by more than a decade and now they hope by the end of 2022 at the earliest. So France is pretty hard to hold up as the shining beacon of a vibrant nuclear industry.

koheripbal 6y ago
Would China be a better example as it is currently building dozens of new nuclear plants?
ip26 6y ago
It isn't a shining beacon of vibrancy, but it does show that it was, at least at one time, a real possibility. An existence proof.
- pfdietz 6y ago
  With sufficient subsidy and a powerful enough engine, you can make a pig fly.
  - ip26 6y ago
    I'll believe it when I see it

manicdee 6y ago

It boggles my mind that France and South Korea had such great success with nuclear but nobody else was able to replicate that success. It can't be magic or works of God that won that success, so what's the real story?

elihu 6y ago
There was a comment in a similar discussion a few days ago, attributing France's success in part to being able to sell excess nuclear power to neighboring countries, and those neighboring countries not themselves investing heavily in nuclear. Basically, if France's neighbors tried to replicate France's success, they'd immediately run into the problem that they'd have to compete with France in the same power market. If building more nuclear reactors made economic sense in that market, France would (perhaps) already have done it. I don't know how true that is, but it at least makes sense.
- CaptArmchair 6y ago
  What competition? The Belgian market is already firmly owned by France energy companies. Belgium has 2 nuclear power plants. In 2016, these covered about 51% of domestic power consumption. Those power plants are owned and operated by Engie-Electrabel which is a subsidiary to Engie, a french multinational providing utilities services. Engie-Electrabel covers about 50% of the Belgian market. The second largest producer/supplier on the Belgian market is Luminus (20% market share). The main shareholder of Luminus is Electricité de France (70% stake). Fun fact, EDF Luminus has a 10% stake in Engie-Electrabel's Belgian nuclear power plants. Most of their production is gas based. Those 2 nuclear plants are coming up on 50 years of age. Their operational lifespan was 40 years. Talks about a phase out have been going on since 1999. So, what went wrong? Back in 2003, at the end of their legislature, the then-government passed legislation that put a stop on building new plants and asserted a phaseout between 2021-2025. Even though an energy commission back then already noted the high reliance of Belgian consumption on nuclear. It was assumed that subsequent governments would revert that decision. That didn't happen. Why? Because between 2003 and now, Belgium has had a string of political crises severely stifling decision making processes. The "energy transition" has been postponed over those past 20 years for political reasons. Belgium is now at a moment in time where those plants ought to be shut down, but without any proper alternatives to curb power consumption. Meanwhile, the costs for consumers has risen sharply over the past decade: 0.35 EUR / kWh. Those costs are expected to rise in the future. Past policies regarding subsidizing renewables such as solar panels through tax incentives turned out to negatively impact the budget deficit. Moreover, the existing, outdated grid isn't updated to deal with modern power consumption. As a result, Belgium has ended up in a bind where recently owners of solar panels were barred from putting their surplus production on the grid, and the massive costs of subsidizing will need to be recouped. The already massively accrued costs to the public even before an energy transition can happen in earnest, pretty much render the debate moot. Needless to say, Belgium is looking towards a future where it will probably be forced to reside to building new gas powered plants for the time being, and steep consumer prices for power.