6 ms·

As I said, batteries of any kind... Nuclear would be better, but that takes time to build.

by jotm 5y ago

exabrial 5y ago
10000% Nuclear. France just announced a massive Nuclear project, meanwhile in the USA, the NRC bankrupts every project with non-stop delays instead of timely constructive work with designers, builders, and investors.
- adrianN 5y ago
  When did France announce a massive nuclear project? The last news I heard was that they plan to build a couple of new nuclear power plants, but far from the numbers they'd need to maintain the current capacity as ageing plants go offline in the coming years.
  - Retric 5y ago
    While France is aiming to significantly reduce the number of nuclear power plants they operate, building any nuclear power plants is seen as a good sign by the industry.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/world/europe/france-macron-nuclear-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/world/europe/france-macro... Is this not a major project? The article is very lacking in details, so it is hard to tell what it amounts to in terms of impact.
    - adrianN 5y ago
      That really depends what "up to" means and how big the "fleet of smaller reactors" is going to be. Announcing up to 14 today is very little when you have over fifty reactors to replace in the next two or three decades when you consider that building a reactor takes around fifteen years. Nuclear energy hopes are pinned on those small reactors, but afaik, none of them are ready for prime time today.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  The nuclear announcement makes nice headlines for nationalistic dreams. What they actually do tells the real story. > France will also increase its solar power capacity tenfold by 2050 to more than 100 gigawatts (GW) and target building 50 offshore wind farms with a combined capacity of at least 40 GW. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-carbon-neutrality-push-announces-new-reactors-2022-02-10/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-... So they are adding ~10 GW nuclear (6 * 1.6 GW) and at least 140 GW of renewables. Use any capacity factor you want but the numbers speak for themselves. The real reason for this is likely continue have an industrial base for their naval submarine reactors by subsidizing a complementary civilian industry.
  - exabrial 5y ago
    > The real reason for this is likely continue have an industrial base for their naval submarine reactors by subsidizing a complementary civilian industry. Interesting, I've never read about that angle. Nuclear is a great complement to Wind/Solar as it provides a steady base load.
    - Gwypaas 5y ago
      The thing is, they don't complement each other at all. They both compete for the same share of the market: the cheapest most inflexible power generation. Renewables win there and force nuclear plants to be more flexible. Due to the extremely high fixed costs and lower marginal costs of nuclear plants they then have to make the money back in fewer hours, driving cost even higher. The other issue is the costly steam turbine side. The reason gas won over coal is the efficiency and tiny footprint of gas turbines. Tack on a tiny steam side for the last percent of efficiency and you have a CCGT plant. Coal and nuclear share the same steam side, both have been dead ends since the 80s.
      - exabrial 5y ago
        That is not true. They do not compete for the some market segment. The problem is most renewables fall off before peak load subsides. That's why cheap energy storage would be a huge boon for transient renewables as they could keep providing energy after the sun is down and the wind has subsided. Take a look here: https://nuclear-power.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Base-Load-Load-Follow-Peak-Load.png https://nuclear-power.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Base-Lo...

As I said, batteries of any kind... Nuclear would be better, but that takes time to build.

by jotm 5y ago

As I said, batteries of any kind... Nuclear would be better, but that takes time to build.

10000% Nuclear. France just announced a massive Nuclear project, meanwhile in the USA, the NRC bankrupts every project with non-stop delays instead of timely constructive work with designers, builders, and investors.

adrianN 5y ago
When did France announce a massive nuclear project? The last news I heard was that they plan to build a couple of new nuclear power plants, but far from the numbers they'd need to maintain the current capacity as ageing plants go offline in the coming years.
- Retric 5y ago
  While France is aiming to significantly reduce the number of nuclear power plants they operate, building any nuclear power plants is seen as a good sign by the industry.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/world/europe/france-macron-nuclear-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/world/europe/france-macro... Is this not a major project? The article is very lacking in details, so it is hard to tell what it amounts to in terms of impact.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    That really depends what "up to" means and how big the "fleet of smaller reactors" is going to be. Announcing up to 14 today is very little when you have over fifty reactors to replace in the next two or three decades when you consider that building a reactor takes around fifteen years. Nuclear energy hopes are pinned on those small reactors, but afaik, none of them are ready for prime time today.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Gwypaas 5y ago
The nuclear announcement makes nice headlines for nationalistic dreams. What they actually do tells the real story. > France will also increase its solar power capacity tenfold by 2050 to more than 100 gigawatts (GW) and target building 50 offshore wind farms with a combined capacity of at least 40 GW. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-carbon-neutrality-push-announces-new-reactors-2022-02-10/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/macron-bets-nuclear-... So they are adding ~10 GW nuclear (6 * 1.6 GW) and at least 140 GW of renewables. Use any capacity factor you want but the numbers speak for themselves. The real reason for this is likely continue have an industrial base for their naval submarine reactors by subsidizing a complementary civilian industry.
- exabrial 5y ago
  > The real reason for this is likely continue have an industrial base for their naval submarine reactors by subsidizing a complementary civilian industry. Interesting, I've never read about that angle. Nuclear is a great complement to Wind/Solar as it provides a steady base load.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    The thing is, they don't complement each other at all. They both compete for the same share of the market: the cheapest most inflexible power generation. Renewables win there and force nuclear plants to be more flexible. Due to the extremely high fixed costs and lower marginal costs of nuclear plants they then have to make the money back in fewer hours, driving cost even higher. The other issue is the costly steam turbine side. The reason gas won over coal is the efficiency and tiny footprint of gas turbines. Tack on a tiny steam side for the last percent of efficiency and you have a CCGT plant. Coal and nuclear share the same steam side, both have been dead ends since the 80s.
    - exabrial 5y ago
      That is not true. They do not compete for the some market segment. The problem is most renewables fall off before peak load subsides. That's why cheap energy storage would be a huge boon for transient renewables as they could keep providing energy after the sun is down and the wind has subsided. Take a look here: https://nuclear-power.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Base-Load-Load-Follow-Peak-Load.png https://nuclear-power.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Base-Lo...