4 ms·

After France, the next big economy that let rationality prevail over ivory tower environmental „activism“. Let‘s hope many more countries will follow suit.

Zenst 5y ago
I suspect many will be on the fence looking at how fusion goes as that's getting closer and closer each day and once that becomes a reality in your energy grid production - fission will fall out of favour like a stone. [EDIT - fixed as per comment below - thank you]
- edaemon 5y ago
  Did you mean to swap those? Current nuclear power plants use fission, while fusion is still in development.
  - Zenst 5y ago
    No I mixed them up and will edit that now - thank you.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  Fusion is getting slightly closer every 20 years. A fusion power plant approaching anything like a fission power plant's output is still at the very least 30 years away (EUROfusion's timeline says 2051). And that will probably be the most expensive power plant in history, even ignoring all the money poured into ITER. That gives at least 100 years before Fusion can become a major part of power generation in any significant part of the world, and this is assuming current projects achieve all their milestones on time, which historically is extremely unlikely. And this also assumes that it's even possible to reduce the cost of a ten million kelvin plasma held in place by 12 kelvin superconducting magnets, covered in a pool of liquid lithium.
wolverine876 5y ago
The parent compliments one apparent position ("rationality") and insults another, which only inflames conversation. What are these positions? Who specifically is saying what, specifically? What is your analysis? I get that it's cool to demean certain kinds of activists, if the implicit point is about trendiness.
polote 5y ago
France only has nuclear plants because they were built a long time ago. Except the EPR in Flamanville, there is no other projects to build nuclear plants. And they closed one, one year ago (The ones announced by Macron, are just politic tactic to gain votes in the next election, and are not real yet). France is far from being rational on this topic
- epistasis 5y ago
  I disagree, France is being completely rational here. There is a better mix of power that is possible now than in the 1970s, because of technology advancements. A lot has happened in the past 50 years.
- mnd999 5y ago
  And IETR.
- cinntaile 5y ago
  Their goal is 50% nuclear by 2035. From an economical point of view that's probably better than trying to keep todays levels, since they have to replace some old plants with newer ones and then the economics no longer make sense. Hence Macrons political move towards SMRs.
- stefan_ 5y ago
  It's a demonstration of rationality? No one builds new nuclear power plants because they can not compete on price. Hinkley Point C will produce power at $145/MWh. That is crazy. At that kind of price point, you are better off building an interconnect to Norway and straight up importing hydro power. Think about the kind of lifetime and investment that comes with nuclear. You start a new plant project today. It might produce power in 15 years, for some 30+ years to make it economical. Who the fuck wants to bet $20B+ on solar not supplanting our entire power generation within some 45 years? Because that is what you are saying: build new nuclear, because even half a century from now, we won't have the storage technology to make solar and wind work. That's the bet.
  - summm 5y ago
ben_w 5y ago
The U.K. didn’t start down the nuclear path because of environmental issues, it went that way because it (a) wanted atomic weapons, and later (b) the power struggle between coal mining trade unions and the Thatcher Conservative government (the strikes were part of broader issues at the time, but nuclear energy was part of the response to that). I’ve read the suggestion that the anti-nuclear-power activism in the west was stoked by the USSR precisely because of (a). No idea how true that is.
- rich_sasha 5y ago
  Russia was always exporting energy to Europe (oil gas and coal) so it does make sense from that angle too. With Germany going off nuclear, they become increasingly dependent on Russian gas.
- pjc50 5y ago
  Anti-nuclear opposition was indeed primarily against nuclear weapons, until Chernobyl. But the idea that it was backed by the USSR is without substance, a slur that's always made against anyone vaguely left wing without substantiation. The aim was bilateral (or occasionally unilateral) disarmament, because at that time we were all worried that the world might be destroyed at four minutes notice. The long slow problem of global warming was a lot further away. Even today, this is why nobody likes the Iranian nuclear programme, and why Israel airstriked an earlier Iranian reactor.

Zenst 5y ago

I suspect many will be on the fence looking at how fusion goes as that's getting closer and closer each day and once that becomes a reality in your energy grid production - fission will fall out of favour like a stone. [EDIT - fixed as per comment below - thank you]

edaemon 5y ago
Did you mean to swap those? Current nuclear power plants use fission, while fusion is still in development.
- Zenst 5y ago
  No I mixed them up and will edit that now - thank you.
tsimionescu 5y ago
Fusion is getting slightly closer every 20 years. A fusion power plant approaching anything like a fission power plant's output is still at the very least 30 years away (EUROfusion's timeline says 2051). And that will probably be the most expensive power plant in history, even ignoring all the money poured into ITER. That gives at least 100 years before Fusion can become a major part of power generation in any significant part of the world, and this is assuming current projects achieve all their milestones on time, which historically is extremely unlikely. And this also assumes that it's even possible to reduce the cost of a ten million kelvin plasma held in place by 12 kelvin superconducting magnets, covered in a pool of liquid lithium.

wolverine876 5y ago

The parent compliments one apparent position ("rationality") and insults another, which only inflames conversation. What are these positions? Who specifically is saying what, specifically? What is your analysis? I get that it's cool to demean certain kinds of activists, if the implicit point is about trendiness.

polote 5y ago

France only has nuclear plants because they were built a long time ago. Except the EPR in Flamanville, there is no other projects to build nuclear plants. And they closed one, one year ago (The ones announced by Macron, are just politic tactic to gain votes in the next election, and are not real yet). France is far from being rational on this topic

epistasis 5y ago
I disagree, France is being completely rational here. There is a better mix of power that is possible now than in the 1970s, because of technology advancements. A lot has happened in the past 50 years.
mnd999 5y ago
And IETR.
cinntaile 5y ago
Their goal is 50% nuclear by 2035. From an economical point of view that's probably better than trying to keep todays levels, since they have to replace some old plants with newer ones and then the economics no longer make sense. Hence Macrons political move towards SMRs.
stefan_ 5y ago
It's a demonstration of rationality? No one builds new nuclear power plants because they can not compete on price. Hinkley Point C will produce power at $145/MWh. That is crazy. At that kind of price point, you are better off building an interconnect to Norway and straight up importing hydro power. Think about the kind of lifetime and investment that comes with nuclear. You start a new plant project today. It might produce power in 15 years, for some 30+ years to make it economical. Who the fuck wants to bet $20B+ on solar not supplanting our entire power generation within some 45 years? Because that is what you are saying: build new nuclear, because even half a century from now, we won't have the storage technology to make solar and wind work. That's the bet.
- summm 5y ago

ben_w 5y ago

The U.K. didn’t start down the nuclear path because of environmental issues, it went that way because it (a) wanted atomic weapons, and later (b) the power struggle between coal mining trade unions and the Thatcher Conservative government (the strikes were part of broader issues at the time, but nuclear energy was part of the response to that). I’ve read the suggestion that the anti-nuclear-power activism in the west was stoked by the USSR precisely because of (a). No idea how true that is.

rich_sasha 5y ago
Russia was always exporting energy to Europe (oil gas and coal) so it does make sense from that angle too. With Germany going off nuclear, they become increasingly dependent on Russian gas.
pjc50 5y ago
Anti-nuclear opposition was indeed primarily against nuclear weapons, until Chernobyl. But the idea that it was backed by the USSR is without substance, a slur that's always made against anyone vaguely left wing without substantiation. The aim was bilateral (or occasionally unilateral) disarmament, because at that time we were all worried that the world might be destroyed at four minutes notice. The long slow problem of global warming was a lot further away. Even today, this is why nobody likes the Iranian nuclear programme, and why Israel airstriked an earlier Iranian reactor.