6 ms·

We can't afford to wait or not to hedge our bets. Nuclear is a hell of a hedge since we know it works. We know the French model works really well, but for some

We can't afford to wait or not to hedge our bets. Nuclear is a hell of a hedge since we know it works. We know the French model works really well, but for some reason we, the country with the most heavily armed forces in the world, can't "protect" it. BS, moneyed interests and tree huggers are keeping us from fixing the problem until fusion comes along or uber cheap battery density 100x better than what we have currently comes along.

santjego 5y ago
I can't imagine any type of plant I'd like built in a mad rush less than a nuclear power one. I am not against it, but it is not a magic bullet, either.
Krasnol 5y ago
> We know the French model works really well It works so "well" that the French taxpayer will have to pay the UK so they can deliver their guaranteed energy prices the over-due and over budget reactor they desperately try to finish will generate. It's so fantastic that every summer they have to buy dirty coal energy from Germany because their rivers get too hot and every winter because...it's too cold and their ageing fleet is breaking down all the time. The success is so staggering that they plan to reduce their fleet by 50% until 2030 and replace that with renewable energy. Hooray... --------------------- Edit: since the Astro-Turf reached me and I can't reply anymore due to downvotes, here are the answers to Bayart: > I don't down where you get that broadly France relies on German coal in the summer and winter. Why do you try to lie about something everybody can google. This is the first result for "France river hot": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwave-idUSKCN1UK0HR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa... > Pretty much the entirety of the problems we've had with the EPR program has to do stopping building nuclear power plants for decades and losing the associated skill-set and industrial base. Weird because EPR didn't stop building. They just stopped building in France so this can't be right. Also: the reactors currently still under construction started construction when all the people from the peak construction times where still there. They still can't manage to build on budget or on time. Not even close. ---------------- @corban1: Only because Germany doesn't hide their subsidies doesn't mean that the French taxpayer is not paying for their ageing fleet (or overpriced projects abroad) with their taxes... Also the fact that coal is an important job motor in troubled regions of Germany which is why it's still there (but is being phased out completely soon).
- chelical 5y ago
  This didn't age well lol. Macron just announced they're going up build more nuclear reactors to meet their emissions targets.
- corban1 5y ago
  France €0.1765 per kWh 57.3 gCO2/KWh (2019) | Germany €0.3159 (+76.9%) per kWh 468 (+816%) gCO2/KWh (2019) Seems the success is very clearly visible both environmentally and economically? [0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190067/carbon-intensity-outlook-of-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190067/carbon-intensity... [2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/co2-emissions-per-kilowatt-hour-of-electricity-in https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/co2...
  - gefhfff 5y ago
    Correlation is not causation
    - mlyle 5y ago
      ??? we're talking about the economic cost and carbon output of energy vs. how it is generated. Do you think there's some other common factor that explains France using lots of nuclear power and having a low carbon footprint and energy costs?
      - cinntaile 5y ago
        Household energy prices don't really tell us much about the production costs though.
      - gefhfff 5y ago
        I think there are may be factors for Germany having high energy prices.
- 5y ago
naasking 5y ago
Easily processed uranium will last us 80 years at current consumption rates. If you start building current nuclear reactor designs everywhere, we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. We need different nuclear reactors, fast reactors or thorium that use uranium more efficiently to stave this off, but they're more dangerous and still experimental, respectively. I think we're better off using that nuclear money into building lots of grid storage for renewables.
- mrkstu 5y ago
  Or we could just use breeder reactors.
- blibble 5y ago
  the UK has enough civil plutonium (extracted from waste) for several hundred years, without digging anything up
- mlyle 5y ago
  > Easily processed uranium will last us 80 years at current consumption rates. If you start building current nuclear reactor designs everywhere, we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. This is a little pessimistic: these numbers rely on current proven reserves without reprocessing. Of course, if you want to use a bunch more uranium, prices will go up and the number of proven reserves will increase. This won't necessarily take a massive price swing-- heck, even at current prices new reserves will continue to be found. > Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. Fuel is a negligible portion of the cost of nuclear. You could triple the cost of fuel without materially impacting the operating costs of a reactor, and the overall costs of nuclear energy are not dominated by operating costs, but instead capital costs. And, we're leaving out that reprocessing fuel is possible and proven (though there are proliferation concerns0.
- coryrc 5y ago
  You don't spend money proving new reserves when you have eighty years worth.
- 5y ago
shirro 5y ago
Hedging bets is fine but there is a lot of money and influence using nuclear to muddy the climate debate and reframe the the issue as nuclear power vs greens/environmentalists. People should be aware of how the debate is being manipulated by fossil fuel apologists/lobbyists. The moment people blame things on tree huggers they have fallen into the trap. Tree huggers are not the problem. The problem is carbon emissions. Tree huggers aren't stopping nuclear. They barely have any political power or representation. Nuclear's problems are the huge capital costs and the nimby attitude of the general public. Nuclear is a clear win in countries like France with the capability and commitment. Climate change is a global problem and it doesn't matter where the nuclear reactors are as long as global emissions are reducing. Countries that can increase nuclear should. Those that can't may find it harder but they will have to innovate more and move faster.
- portpecos 5y ago
  >The moment people blame things on tree huggers https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/educational-magazines/antinuclear-movement https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/educational-magazin... The late 1960s through 1980s saw a shift in the antinuclear movement toward protesting the development of nuclear power as an energy source. The antinuclear movement succeeded in virtually halting the governments' development of nuclear power.
  - another_story 5y ago
    How does one manage to stop nuclear energy but not fossil fuel use? These are arguably the same sorts of groups, with probably a large overlap. How did they have such power in one area, but not in another? If there is lack of lobbyist or industry pressure pushing for it, then we have to wonder why? Nuclear isn't cost effective as a business is the likely answer, and under our current system that drives most of the decisions.
    - buitreVirtual 5y ago
      I think people freak out much more easily when imagining a Hiroshima or Chernobyl or Fukushima in their home towns than when trying to picture the slow but unrelenting worsening of climate conditions over time caused by fossil burning, even though the former is local and unlikely and the latter is global and certain.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pvaldes 5y ago
Yeah, we are unable to make a good product that is actually safe and to show a real sensible solution to deal with the residues, but lets undust again the stupid narrative of the big bad tree huggers. Yawn. Please cut the BS an don't blame other people for your own failures that are incredible expensive for everybody and erase the benefits. It seems that in their strange world every citizen is either pro-nuclear or a hippie living in a caravan. This is not how they will sell it.

santjego 5y ago

I can't imagine any type of plant I'd like built in a mad rush less than a nuclear power one. I am not against it, but it is not a magic bullet, either.

Krasnol 5y ago

> We know the French model works really well It works so "well" that the French taxpayer will have to pay the UK so they can deliver their guaranteed energy prices the over-due and over budget reactor they desperately try to finish will generate. It's so fantastic that every summer they have to buy dirty coal energy from Germany because their rivers get too hot and every winter because...it's too cold and their ageing fleet is breaking down all the time. The success is so staggering that they plan to reduce their fleet by 50% until 2030 and replace that with renewable energy. Hooray... --------------------- Edit: since the Astro-Turf reached me and I can't reply anymore due to downvotes, here are the answers to Bayart: > I don't down where you get that broadly France relies on German coal in the summer and winter. Why do you try to lie about something everybody can google. This is the first result for "France river hot": https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwave-idUSKCN1UK0HR https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa... > Pretty much the entirety of the problems we've had with the EPR program has to do stopping building nuclear power plants for decades and losing the associated skill-set and industrial base. Weird because EPR didn't stop building. They just stopped building in France so this can't be right. Also: the reactors currently still under construction started construction when all the people from the peak construction times where still there. They still can't manage to build on budget or on time. Not even close. ---------------- @corban1: Only because Germany doesn't hide their subsidies doesn't mean that the French taxpayer is not paying for their ageing fleet (or overpriced projects abroad) with their taxes... Also the fact that coal is an important job motor in troubled regions of Germany which is why it's still there (but is being phased out completely soon).

chelical 5y ago
This didn't age well lol. Macron just announced they're going up build more nuclear reactors to meet their emissions targets.
corban1 5y ago
France €0.1765 per kWh 57.3 gCO2/KWh (2019) | Germany €0.3159 (+76.9%) per kWh 468 (+816%) gCO2/KWh (2019) Seems the success is very clearly visible both environmentally and economically? [0] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190067/carbon-intensity-outlook-of-france/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1190067/carbon-intensity... [2] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/co2-emissions-per-kilowatt-hour-of-electricity-in https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/en/press/pressinformation/co2...
- gefhfff 5y ago
  Correlation is not causation
  - mlyle 5y ago
    ??? we're talking about the economic cost and carbon output of energy vs. how it is generated. Do you think there's some other common factor that explains France using lots of nuclear power and having a low carbon footprint and energy costs?
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      Household energy prices don't really tell us much about the production costs though.
    - gefhfff 5y ago
      I think there are may be factors for Germany having high energy prices.
5y ago

naasking 5y ago

Easily processed uranium will last us 80 years at current consumption rates. If you start building current nuclear reactor designs everywhere, we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. We need different nuclear reactors, fast reactors or thorium that use uranium more efficiently to stave this off, but they're more dangerous and still experimental, respectively. I think we're better off using that nuclear money into building lots of grid storage for renewables.

mrkstu 5y ago
Or we could just use breeder reactors.
blibble 5y ago
the UK has enough civil plutonium (extracted from waste) for several hundred years, without digging anything up
mlyle 5y ago
> Easily processed uranium will last us 80 years at current consumption rates. If you start building current nuclear reactor designs everywhere, we'll run out of it in less than 40 years. This is a little pessimistic: these numbers rely on current proven reserves without reprocessing. Of course, if you want to use a bunch more uranium, prices will go up and the number of proven reserves will increase. This won't necessarily take a massive price swing-- heck, even at current prices new reserves will continue to be found. > Then the price will skyrocket, and nuclear is already more expensive than renewables. Fuel is a negligible portion of the cost of nuclear. You could triple the cost of fuel without materially impacting the operating costs of a reactor, and the overall costs of nuclear energy are not dominated by operating costs, but instead capital costs. And, we're leaving out that reprocessing fuel is possible and proven (though there are proliferation concerns0.
coryrc 5y ago
You don't spend money proving new reserves when you have eighty years worth.
5y ago

shirro 5y ago

Hedging bets is fine but there is a lot of money and influence using nuclear to muddy the climate debate and reframe the the issue as nuclear power vs greens/environmentalists. People should be aware of how the debate is being manipulated by fossil fuel apologists/lobbyists. The moment people blame things on tree huggers they have fallen into the trap. Tree huggers are not the problem. The problem is carbon emissions. Tree huggers aren't stopping nuclear. They barely have any political power or representation. Nuclear's problems are the huge capital costs and the nimby attitude of the general public. Nuclear is a clear win in countries like France with the capability and commitment. Climate change is a global problem and it doesn't matter where the nuclear reactors are as long as global emissions are reducing. Countries that can increase nuclear should. Those that can't may find it harder but they will have to innovate more and move faster.

portpecos 5y ago
>The moment people blame things on tree huggers https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/educational-magazines/antinuclear-movement https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/educational-magazin... The late 1960s through 1980s saw a shift in the antinuclear movement toward protesting the development of nuclear power as an energy source. The antinuclear movement succeeded in virtually halting the governments' development of nuclear power.
- another_story 5y ago
  How does one manage to stop nuclear energy but not fossil fuel use? These are arguably the same sorts of groups, with probably a large overlap. How did they have such power in one area, but not in another? If there is lack of lobbyist or industry pressure pushing for it, then we have to wonder why? Nuclear isn't cost effective as a business is the likely answer, and under our current system that drives most of the decisions.
  - buitreVirtual 5y ago
    I think people freak out much more easily when imagining a Hiroshima or Chernobyl or Fukushima in their home towns than when trying to picture the slow but unrelenting worsening of climate conditions over time caused by fossil burning, even though the former is local and unlikely and the latter is global and certain.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pvaldes 5y ago

Yeah, we are unable to make a good product that is actually safe and to show a real sensible solution to deal with the residues, but lets undust again the stupid narrative of the big bad tree huggers. Yawn. Please cut the BS an don't blame other people for your own failures that are incredible expensive for everybody and erase the benefits. It seems that in their strange world every citizen is either pro-nuclear or a hippie living in a caravan. This is not how they will sell it.