11 ms·
I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are bloc
by socialdemocrat 5y ago
I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power, and crisis with Russia makes gas less accessible. France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power. They may pull this off. 2035 is a really long time to wait for new power to the grid though.
- HideousKojima 5y ago>Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the high voltage lines that would bring the power into San Diego. Something about them going through an area full of endangered tortoises or something like that if I recall correctly.
- chrisseaton 5y agoIsn't environmentalists' argument that we should reduce our power consumption, rather than destroying the environment to keep providing so much power? That's not as crazy a position as you make it out to be is it?
- Teknoman117 5y agoIt's an absolutely crazy proposition because there are very few people who would choose to reduce their quality of life. It's far easier to switch to net-zero energy sources than it is to completely redefine society.
- chrisseaton 5y agoSome people think it's worth redefining society to protect the environment. I wouldn't agree with that absolutely either, but it's a logical and defensible position. It's not incoherent.
- pyronik19 5y agoThe problem is there position is completely irrational when you take the amount of damage down to standards of living to the negligible environmental damage done from PV panels. It's almost like the goal is to maximize human misery not minimize environmental damage.
- stickfigure 5y agoWholly impractical solutions are not defensible.
- roenxi 5y ago"The position is coherent" is a devastatingly low bar for the table stakes or redefining society that radically.
- ch4s3 5y agoIt doesn't seem particularly coherent to me for a few reasons. To draw a hard line between human activity/habitat and nature seems artificial. A human settlement is not so different from a beaver dam of ant colony in many ways. The idea especially in the US that there is some pre-colonial unspoiled nature that we could preserve or return to seems historically ignorant. Native Americans were managing the land with fire in much of North America for at least 15k years and the whole place was a giant game park with archipelagos of agriculture and settlements. Early settlers remarked that upon arrival they could ride a horse through New England forests at a full gallop, which wouldn't be possible in a primeval/unmanaged forest. So redefining society away form managing nature would be a radical departure and it unclear what the end goal would even be. There is nothing to roll the clock back to really anywhere in the world, and even if you "re-wild" a lot of the continent it's not clear what you would get, it certainly wouldn't resemble the Americas of 1491 ecologically. Mostly these folks seem like neo-malthusians who just hate people and civilization. I'm all for increasing bio-diversity, pulling carbon out of the air, and cleaning up waste but I don't think any of that requires us to use drastically less energy. If anything we should aim to make energy so clean and cheap that those other things become cheap and easy.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- isomel 5y agoYeah, humans have lived fine before fossil fuels so we can do it again, right? Just kill half of them. And let 90% of the remaining population work in the fields like slaves. Easy /s
- chrisseaton 5y agoWildest strawman I’ve ever seen on this site. I’ve never even remotely seen anyone argue for what you’re mocking. And it’s not even anything to do with fossil fuels - it’s about renewables.
- tyjaksn 5y agoWhile I agree that modern society requires significant energy inputs, there is a middle ground. For instance, if cities or the suburbs were more pedestrian friendly, walking, cycling, etc. would be a viable option meaning less use of fossil fuels by driving.
- Manuel_D 5y agoStandards of living are highly connected to energy consumption. Reducing power consumption without also reducing living standards is difficult to do. Furthermore, power consumption is going to increase as transportation and industrial processes become electrified.
- adrianN 5y agoElectricity consumption is going to rise with electrification. Power consumption is going down. A heat pump is about three times as efficient as heating with oil. An electric engine is about twice as efficient as an ICE, and so on.
- goodpoint 5y agoThe overton window of HN is skewed so far into techno-optimism that you get downvoted into oblivion for mentioning reducing energy usage. Edit: surprise, I'm also getting silent downvotes, as if I needed further proof.
- chrisseaton 5y agoPeople will advocate permanently destroying a habitat before they consider taking a bus instead of driving.
- andrewinardeer 5y agoHere in Australia, it can be argued that The Green Party's blanket ban and refusal to even consider let alone use nuclear has contributed significantly to more carbon in the air as we have instead relied on coal for the last 50 years.
- rgmerk 5y agoThis is just plain wrong. Absent environmentalism or non-economic considerations (hello Jervis Bay) no nuclear power would ever be built in Australia. We have way too much cheap, conveniently located coal.
- adventured 5y agoBoth of those things can be correct. Without environmentalist pressure, coal would be used indefinitely. And nuclear isn't being built or considered because the environmentalists won't support it. Accordingly they can get positive credit for the first and negative for the second.
- XorNot 5y agoDon't kid yourself though - no major party in Australia supports nuclear. The Liberals will say they'll think about it, knowing there's a couple hundred idiots who'll actually believe them and give them a vote while they greenlight Indian-owned coal-miners finishing the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. Both major parties (Labor and Liberal) have huge donors from coal-mining concerns, as well as union support from coal-miners who - in a startling display of unification with the capital class - also oppose it because it's not coal-mining. The world will be building fusion reactors in 2050, or spacebeamed solar power or opening a portal to the Warp or something for limitless free energy, and Australian politicians will still be talking about how "we can't just give up on coal". Progress in this field is going to come from the private sector in-spite of the government who are already trying to kill solar power projects.
- rgmerk 5y ago
- Spooky23 5y agoEnvironmental people are a diverse bunch with plenty of charlatans and people willing to enrich themselves for “the greater good”. It’s pretty trivial for various interests to undermine and drive their agendas.
- Teknoman117 5y agoYeah, that one just boggles my mind. A few huge PV solar projects out in the desert in southern California and Nevada got stalled by environmentalists complaining about increased shading cooling down the desert. At this point, even if solar panels in the desert kill off a few species of lizards, seriously, what's the alternative? More damage will occur if we don't. It needs to be about minimizing total damage, even if it means damaging isolated areas intentionally.
- valarauko 5y ago> It needs to be about minimizing total damage, even if it means damaging isolated areas intentionally. I think that's an arithmetic everyone largely accepts, but they just don't want to be the specific ones paying the price while others seemingly get only the benefits. NIMBYism, if you will.
- TulliusCicero 5y agoIt's 100% NIMBYism. Just like the complaints about how higher-density housing may hurt 'the environment' for whatever city people live in. Like, if everyone blocks high density housing, those people don't just disappear, they're gonna end up living in low density housing, and that's obviously much worse for the environment: takes up more space, which means cutting into nature more, and generally takes more energy for the lifestyle too. But that doesn't matter to NIMBY's -- the important thing is that they don't have to see the environment changing where they live in particular.
- jibe 5y agoIt isn’t really NIMBYism to oppose remote desert solar plants, it is just people who care, perhaps without fully weighing cost/benefit, about any negative effect on nature. There is a rational case that the huge footprint of solar and wind ends up doing more damage than more compact nuclear or natural gas plants. I suspect most of those opposing solar also oppose nuclear and gas. I’d call it Nothing Is Good Enough Syndrome instead of NIMBY.
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago> Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days? The problem is - the average "environmentalist" is not trying to maximize for anything. It's a broad bucket that almost everyone is falling into and there's almost zero common ground, no organization, etc. Of course there are going to be people that oppose almost everything that label themselves as "environmentalists". There's always people that oppose everything! And most people consider themselves "environmentalists".
- dahfizz 5y ago> Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days? That is not a self evident claim. At least, most people do not belong to environmental advocacy groups. The largest one is the Sierra club, with 1% of the US population as members.
- goodpoint 5y agoAdditionally any twitter bot or "crisis actor" paid by an oil company can claim to belong to the category. It's far too easy to blame "environmentalists" for everything.
- jeromegv 5y agoLots of NIMBY anti-development people would consider themselves environmentalist. They are in fact conservatives people that would rather keep the status quo and are against free market for housing and want their assets to inflate to insane prices.
- goodpoint 5y agoUnsurprisingly. Moreover, politicians passed unpopular laws e.g. ecotaxes or bans and direct blame onto "environmentalists". It can be a powerful tactic to drive a wedge between general population and "environmentalists". Ultimately to protect certain companies.
- HideousKojima 5y ago
- 908B64B197 5y agoI sometimes wonder if oil and gas companies even need lobbying: Environmentalists are the number one threat to any green initiative. If they could all agree on one thing just for once.
- eecc 5y agoLikely Shell is funding these “environmentalist groups” in what is basically the corporate version of shitposting. :)
- XorNot 5y agoRemember the term "carbon footprint" was popularized by BP[1] specifically as an effort to distract from efforts at systemic regulation that might effect corporations by making CO2 seem like an individual moral concern. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Origin_of_the_concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_footprint#Origin_of_the...
- r00fus 5y agoWould it surprise you to know that some anti-nuclear activism was supported [1] by the fossil fuel industry? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-fossil-fuel-interests-bankrolling-the-anti-nuclear-energy-movement/?sh=3d4d4dc97453 https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/are-f...
- nradov 5y agoThe Endangered Species Act has become a blunt instrument that environmentalists and NIMBYs can use to shut down almost any major infrastructure project. No one wants to see any species go extinct but the time has come to make some hard choices. We may have to sacrifice the six-toed purple salamanders or whatever in order to preserve the rest of the biosphere.
- parkingrift 5y agoWe're not really saving these species, anyway. Climate change will eventually come for them. We can either make a few hard choices now or watch as a few... hundred... thousand choices are made for us.
- joe_the_user 5y agoIn this article, I don't see evidence for "environmentalists" being the ones block wind-power, sounds more like argument between levels of the French state [1]. But just as much, the mantle of environmentalist can be taken by anyone, notably just nimbys. There's not a copyright on the term. But it winds-up even worse when others point to these idiot uses of the term environmentalist and then try to push actually environmentally destructive projects. https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/french-wind-energy-in-limbo-for-more-than-a-year/ https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/french-wind-ene...
- jibe 5y agoThe Green parties of Europe, which are the political face of the environmental movement, all oppose nuclear power. Perhaps most strongly in Germany, but The Greens in France oppose it as well.
- Brakenshire 5y agoThey don't oppose wind power, which is the complaint above.
- jsnell 5y agoThe Finnish Green Party no longer opposes nuclear power as of last year.
- inter_netuser 5y agoHow did that transition happen?
- jsnell 5y agoIt's been a gradual process over the last two decades. The cynical view would be that during that time they left the government twice to protest the government approving new nuclear power projects, and paid a heavy political price for that. They can't afford to do it a third time, and given Finland's position (can't rely on solar or wind during winter, can't build more hydro, can't depend on imports during the production troughs) it is highly likely that more nuclear will be approved at some point. The non-cynical view is that the world has actually changed over that time. Reducing CO2 emissions is more urgent than ever, and there's no longer time to hope that we can instead reduce energy usage which used to be their preferred solution.
- dmead 5y agotortoises and their back yards I'm sure.
- parkingrift 5y agoSeems that green Democrats would rather throw themselves into a volcano than accept anything less than their 100% absolute perfect solution. New York keeps shutting down nuclear reactors... and then offsetting the power losses with natural gas. No one could have possibly predicted this? https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776 Congrats!
- ochoseis 5y agoAt some point you begin to wonder if environmentalists like this are indeed environmentalists?
- zjaffee 5y agoThere's a difference between conservationism and environmentalism as it relates to climate change, and this comes up every time there's a debate like this. Most environmental advocacy groups are much more concerned with conservation than climate change.
- stkdump 5y agoThe German greens, now freshly back in government, have greatly accelerated worldwide deployment of renewables when they were in government last time. Without them it would have easily taken a decade longer for prices to plummet to the current levels. Renewables wouldn't be the cheapest form of energy. Let's see what they can do this time around. When the economics favor renewables, then its a no brainer. This makes new nuclear projects even more questionable. Note that the promises are there since at least 60 years. Lack of investment wasn't a problem. Recently a swiss energy company said they don't want to build new nuclear. Why should they, it doesn't make money unless the government is willing to provide the profits, which is only the case in some countries.
- kergonath 5y agoThey will keep adding renewable sources in the meantime, it’s not like they’ll be sitting on their hands.
- ekabod 5y ago"France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power" What does that means?
- pvaldes 5y ago
- brendoelfrendo 5y agoThis has nothing to do with nuclear power plants.
- pvaldes 5y agoNothing in common? Lets see. Nuclear power plants and weapons were supported and approved by the same president, regulated by the same governments, with the same members from the same parties, sharing the same feedback and moving in the same direction as the politics requested If you look under the masks of the people sharing the final responsibility you will see the face of the president in all cases. All nuclear things are intertwined, in the same way as Facebook and Instagram are different, but anything affecting one of them, will instantly spread and change the other.
- notevenclos 5y agoThe French nuclear weapons program was started by (right-wing President) general de Gaulle in the early 60s. The French nuclear power program was started in the mid-70s under the (right-wing) Giscard d'Estaing government. The rainbow warrior bombing was conducted under the (left-wing/socialist) government of Mitterrand. So completely different governments, in fact.
- pvaldes 5y agoFrance did nuclear weapons tests from 60 until 90's with many presidents. And promoted nuclear energy with many presidents. There is an extensive feedback and overlapping between both programs and the successive governments continued basically in the same direction as the former. France just keep a clean image doing the essays as far from Europe and indiscreet views as they could and hiding the real extension of the damage done, but can't be denied that they have their own quote of evil acts also in this field, as any other countries. I'm not comparing them with North Korea, but they commit mistakes also.
- felixmeziere 5y ago100% agree Molten Salt reactors are one of the main keys to a liveable future for us this century...
- panick21_ 5y agoHonestly, even Molten Salt cooled reactors would be enough. The most advanced once are Terrestrial Energy and Moltex Energy in Canada. Canada is actually putting effort behind real next generation. I am more exited about this then almost anything else. If these can work its a literal game changer.
- Krasnol 5y agoFrance just had to turn off 3 of their rotting reactors[0] and they lowered their estimates for this year to 295-315 TWh[1]. They're desperate, it's election year and they failed to come up with a diversified energy plan for the future. Luckily the recent taxonomy decision may help to avoid sharp tax rises to finance this backward and hilariously expensive[2] strategy but those EU funds won't run forever. Expensive times coming up for the French taxpayers. [0] https://then24.com/2022/02/08/three-nuclear-reactors-shut-down-for-checks-following-suspicions-of-corrosion/ https://then24.com/2022/02/08/three-nuclear-reactors-shut-do... [1] https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/epresspack/2447/5c9aa66cd253dc8deb73da5ac2b429d5.pdf https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/epresspack/2447/5c9aa... [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-delay-higher-costs-flamanville-3-reactor-2022-01-12/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de...
- buserror 5y agoAhah, it's always expensive time for the french taxpayer -- always have been! They even have recursive layer of taxes, where you pay taxes on amounts that have... already been removed from your revenue as... taxes.
- sofixa 5y agoThat's not what recursion means. There are income taxes on your whole income (- a base provision for living expenses), and you can deduct certain things ( like donations to nonprofits) from the taxable income.
- buserror 5y agoI know what recursion means thank you so much. If you get $100 income, get a 20% tax on that, and then get another 20% tax on... not $80 but on the /previous/ $100, you are paying recursive taxes. Thats what the old "CSG" was (replaced by something else but in the same 'spirit'), in france. You are being taxed on amount you already been taxed on.
- 5y ago
- Gwypaas 5y agoLast time around it was negative learning by doing for France[1]. I wonder what magical efficiency gains they will manage to muster compared to Flamanville [2], Hinkley Point C[3] and Olkiluoto 3[4] which the state owned french nuclear industry is building. Well, more than magical "simplification", "cost cutting" and "modular design" shown on a powerpoint before reality hits again. [1]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421510003526 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanville_3_(France) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Unit_3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
- panick21_ 5y agoNuclear reactors have massive learning effects, the more you build with the same people and organization the cheaper it is. Nuclear own massive scale is its own worst enemy. If we could just build 500MW smaller Molten Salt cooled reactors we could literally build them like gas plants.
- Gwypaas 5y agoThe source regarding actually seeing negative learning effects I linked in the original comment states in the abstract. > The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that often assumed, including also cases of “negative learning” in which specific costs increase rather than decrease with accumulated experience. Sure, a nuclear cycle without the use of a steam turbine may have a future. Similarly to how gas plants undercut coal, and nuclear. Simply due to the cost of the steam plant. I haven't seen any proposals though which is more concrete than a pie-in-sky powerpoint design though. The other issue is that for wind you only need an axle and a generator, for sun it is solid state. It is hard to compete with the economics of solid state power generation.
- p1mrx 5y agoMoltex's approach to molten salt reactors looks interesting: https://youtu.be/7qJpVClxzVM?t=536 https://youtu.be/7qJpVClxzVM?t=536 Instead of pumping radioactive molten salt between a reactor and heat exchanger, they plan to leave it sitting in stainless steel tubes, and use simple convection to extract the heat. Oak Ridge rejected this idea in the 1950s because they were trying to power an aircraft, but convection makes more sense when the reactor isn't moving.
- Johnny555 5y agoAre there any large MSR's in commercial use? I see a lot of test/development reactors on the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Commercial/national/international_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Commercial... Building one MSR sounds like a good way to prove the design, but I wouldn't want to see them build 6 at the same time. The EPR design that they are building is well tested.
- pfdietz 5y agoNo, there are not.
- jokoon 5y agoA 17min explanation on molten salts by a nuclear physics professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92L6F0INYk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92L6F0INYk
- snak 5y agoExcellent explanation, thanks for sharing!