18 ms·

"Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035." I'm no expert on Nuclear power but it seems to me were going in the wrong direction. At a time when we're

• ronnier 5y ago
  China is investing in nuclear power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-will-lead-the-world-in-nuclear-energy-along-with-all-other-energy-sources-sooner-than-you-think/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-wil... > As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down. Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now, but the country intends nuclear to eventually surpass all other sources
  • mytailorisrich 5y ago
    China actually has a couple of French-built nuclear power plants. There's been a long standing cooperation in that domain.
  • dragonelite 5y ago
    They are also running 4th generation thorium molten salt reactors prototypes and thinking of having a commercial viable design in 2030. From what I gathered the waste is not that suitable for nuclear weapon usage. So those Reactors could be exported to SCO/BRI/global south countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
    • ortusdux 5y ago
      The problem with molten salt based reactors is that the high temperature radioactive molten salts destroy their containment vessels. I've yet to see a system design where the salt facing components are expected to last more that 7-10 years, which really hurts profitability.
      • sudosysgen 5y ago
        Yes, the reactor cores would have to be replaced every 12-15 years. But if the reactors are mass produced and designed to swap out the cores, it doesn't have to be too expensive.
        • mcguire 5y ago
          What happens to the used cores?
          • sudosysgen 5y ago
            They have to be disposed of. That creates waste. This is the same as with any other power generation method that exceeds it's lifespan. 15 years is not that different from 20 years for a wind turbine or 30 years for a solar panel.
            • spfzero 5y ago
              Solar panels are lasting about 10-15 years in practice. About half of what was expected.
              • jhgb 5y ago
                I call BS on that. This was the performance of ancient modules (early 1980s) after 25 years of operation: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/performance-of-old-pv-modules-measurement-of-25-years-old-crystalline-silicone-modules-elforskrapport-2006-71.pdf https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/p... And this was for modules manufactured in a period with 5-10 year warranties for the product. Today you get 25 year warranties. So you're basically claiming that QA massively worsened in the meantime.
  • beebmam 5y ago
    Part of this is due to China's new expansion of their nuclear arsenal: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185
    • tehjoker 5y ago
      Why would they build land based missiles? My understanding is that that part of the US triad is basically pork due to the capabilities of sea and air and the fact that they are static installations that can be easily targeted. I can only speculate that it could make sense for China if their sea and air power are substantially less capable. It's pretty amusing for US officials to express concern over an increasing arsenal when they are themselves spending over a trillion dollars on that exact thing while they deliberately provoke China over the Taiwan issue, placing US soldiers in Taiwan, which is considered Chinese territory. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-in-taiwan-for-at-least-a-year-11633614043 https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-i...
      • 3pt14159 5y ago
        It isn't really a Triad these days. It's more like a hexaiad when you consider the various forms that nuclear weapons can take. But as to your question, silos benefit from very reliable coms. It's possible to communicate to subs, but it is slow and unreliable. Airpower suffers from jamming and signs of strike, since the planes need to be put in the air and that is observable. There is also a limit to the size of the missiles and therefore immediate range. If you want to strike anywhere on command with little notice, silos are best. If you want to hit foreign target with absolutely minimal response time, submarines usually win out, since most major capitals are by the ocean. But even beyond this consideration, it is good to have a diversity of options to reduce the risk of a catastrophic vulnerability existing. For example, some hypothetical weapon that could eliminate all your submarines without warning.
        • tehjoker 5y ago
          Good answer, thank you!
  • pixiemaster 5y ago
    they have also build hundred of steam reactors that have a modular heating system - while currently served with a coal system can be exchanged by nuclear heating anytime
  • jhgb 5y ago
    > China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation > Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now So only ~2500 more reactors to go? That sounds like a century of work.
  • felixlechat 5y ago
    Nuclear provides 4.8% of China's electrical power [1] in 2020 and 2% of China's energy mix. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?country=~CHN https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-elec-by-source?coun...
• woko 5y ago
  The government policy for a reduction to 50% is not based on issues with nuclear power itself. As far as I have seen, there are mainly 2 reasons mentioned in the public debate: i) a concern about the disposal of nuclear wastes and the long-term cost of their storage, and ii) the desire to follow other countries' policies, with a focus on wind, water and sunlight, rather than leading the way with the cheapest and most modern solution for electricity production. The decision was written in the law in 2015 [1,2], with a statement that renewable electricity (wind, water) should reach 40% of the production, which implies that nuclear power should not account for 70% in the future. Overall, I believe this is not a bad idea because i) renewable electricity is bound to get better thanks to worldwide research, and ii) it is smart not to put all your eggs in the same basket. [1] https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000043976297/ https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000... (in French) [2] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_relative_%C3%A0_la_transition_%C3%A9nerg%C3%A9tique_pour_la_croissance_verte https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loi_relative_%C3%A0_la_transit... (in French)
  • nickik 5y ago
    There is really one reason, the population doesn't like it, so they have to pretend reasons exist to build solar or wind. The cost of waste storage is tiny. By far the best would to join with Canada on next generation nuclear.
  • forty 5y ago
    Where have you seen nuclear is the cheapest solution for electrity production? Nuclear has some benefits, but price does seem to be one of them (and actually one of the reasons for preferring renewable)
    • lazide 5y ago
      On a ‘basic capacity price’ type basis, nuclear is dirt cheap. When you throw in endless political tarpits and their side effects (like having no economies of scale at all despite the clear opportunity for them) then yes, it is very expensive. shrug Most nuclear projects outside of China basically turned into exercises in endless planning churn and endless delays for no rational reason to appease anti-progress political factions long ago. For an example of a similar money pit/tarpit playing out in a similar way, check out “High Speed” Rail in California.
• andrewxdiamond 5y ago
  Nuclear is always touted as such a good idea on this site, but I want to take the opposite stance. - Nuclear power has inherit risks that are not present in other forms of modern energy generation. You can claim that todays designs are 99.9999999% safe, but there is no such thing as 100%. If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable. - Nuclear waste is difficult to deal with. Our current strategies include finding a secret underground cave, and hoping no one accidentally stumbles onto it. Not to mention we have no plan for dealing with widespread use of nuclear power and the waste that would produce. - Nuclear plants take ages to build, and are insanely expensive. These costs make it impractical for a city to invest in. They also require massive amounts of concrete (bad for the environment, locally and globally) and absurd amounts of space. - Nuclear is centralized, and vulnerable to attack. In a national defense situation, nuclear power plants are large, easily identifiable, delicate targets that can take an entire area’s grid offline with a single hit to a cooling tower. The damage doesn’t even need to be severe, just enough to warrant a shutdown and inspection. Compared to other readily available green power sources, I cannot fathom why nuclear is preferred to a safe, distributed, clean grid of solar panels. Maybe one day when humanity is a space faring race we could look to nuclear to support us then, but using nuclear on earth today is a bad decision. edit: A large number of replies seem to think I am pro-shutdown of plants or pro-coal, but that was never stated. My argument is against further investment into nuclear when there are other more known technologies available, like solar and wind.
  • DaedPsyker 5y ago
    How many have been affected by emissions because we let perfect be the enemy of good? We don't go out with a bang with coal, no spectacular single point to focus attention. Nonetheless people are dying early right now this minute because it's easier to dismiss the actual long drawn out deaths than the theoretical ones.
  • kazinator 5y ago
    If something is 99.9999999% safe, it's not going to have a catastrophic failure. It will have some rare minor failures, whose effects are mitigated by a cascade of multiple safeguards. > Our current strategies include finding a secret underground cave Let's ignore how radioactive minerals are already found in caves. Just don't ventilate your above-ground cave, and you've got radon gas.
• neaanopri 5y ago
  Nuclear can also directly generate heat, for residential district heat, or industrial processes heat
• _ph_ 5y ago
  France isn't reducing the capacity as a targetted policy but out of necessity. They have 58 nuclear power plants, most of them quite old (before 80ies). To maintain the current level, they would have to be replaced not too far in the future, but currently only 1 or 2 new reactors are under construction and both late and way over budget. So there currently is no route in maintaining the current capacity. Consequently politics has to come up with a roadmap which relies less on nuclear power.
  • kspacewalk2 5y ago
    Consciously deciding to not replace capacity when the need for replacement is known decades in advance is a targeted policy.
    • _ph_ 5y ago
      Maybe I have not made that point clear enough in my post: currently they are failing to build replacement plants at a cost at which they could replace all of the existing reactors. Unless they can come up with an entirely new design which considerably cuts cost compared to what is considered a "current design" right now, there will be a reduction in capacity.
      • the8472 5y ago
        Building them in series tends to make per-unit cost come down.
        • _ph_ 5y ago
          Yes, that would be to expect. But to determine the feasibility and calculate possible savings with further units, one would have to finish the first of the series first.
        • it_citizen 5y ago
          Surprisingly, experience has shown that building more nuclear plants, even standardized, don't make them cheaper to build but more expensive. 2010: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... 2020: https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plants-so-expensive-safetys-only-part-of-the-story/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/11/why-are-nuclear-plan...
• joecool1029 5y ago
  We figured out ship reactors for some time now. Easier target for global emissions reduction could be getting reactors into some of these huge container ships that are currently burning bunker (on windy.com the emissions are so bad you can see trails where these ships go). I wonder why there's not at least 1 container ship with a reactor yet while Russia's got stuff like icebreakers running them? I found this to be an interesting read, covers the US's only nuclear powered cargo ship that came a little too early to be a container ship: https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/ https://www.flexport.com/blog/nuclear-powered-cargo-ships/
• somethoughts 5y ago
  Don't shoot the messenger but my take is that environmentalism is much more than just climate change. It just feels like it because carbon emissions is the current topic and perhaps is the most pressing topic because most of the worlds energy is generally carbon based. The actual issue that environmentalist want solved is less overall production, reduction in all pollution and impact on the environment. And perhaps a bit of wealth redistribution throw in. If nuclear ever took off meaningfully, the conversation would change and the Greta Thunberg's and Netflix documentaries would be targeted toward nuclear (or whatever takes the place of carbon based fuel) instead. The EVs, solar, wind, batteries and nuclear are great... until they are the last thing standing. Again don't shoot the messenger! This is just my hot take.
  • rangoon626 5y ago
    Exactly. Grifters like Al Gore want to use this cause as a money printing machine. Actual environmentalists want the living standards of everyone _else_ to decline, along with population. You know western society is in a hard decline when it's been taken over by greedy plutocrats and death cults.
• silexia 5y ago
  Nuclear is immensely more efficient and safer and better for the environment than any other option including solar, wind, coal, or gas. Every nation should be working towards increasing their nuclear power production, not reducing it.