5 ms·

>> Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. > Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiativ

>> Given their financial state I'm quite sure they will be interested in obtaining and selling gridpower. > Ok, so we disagree. My experience is that initiatives like this that depend on the participation of large numbers of independent entities to even get started, usually fail. The entire European Union was aggregated this way. One can doubt it is efficient or even good, however participation of a large number of nations is a done deal. >>> Nuclear seem to have lower emissions than all "renewable" sources >> This is contested as there was no solid assessment since 2014, > I was just referencing the link you provided. As noted there is AFAIK no solid more recent meta-study. >> France really wants it, and struggle in a quagmire since the mid 2000's. >> France already succeeded France built its nuclear fleet starting 50 years ago. It was then a rich (thanks to the 30 Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trente_Glorieuses ), shock-full of industries, electricity consumption is then the third of current amounts, and the project is highly strategic (due to the risk of oil embargo, as illustrated by effects of then recent wars in Israel). Nothing of this is true anymore, and it makes for a huge difference. > France actually intends to build new ones. Indeed, since 2004 France tries to build an EPR reactor, the building process started in 2007 and was planned to deliver the reactor in 2012. It may be delivered in 2023, for nearly 6 times the budget... > paywalled You may find a copy at usual 'unofficial' sources (not that I hint to commit any potentially illegal action). > what it would cost in terms of investments. It studies wind regimes, not economics. This is a valid argument. The bottomline here is mainly the proportion of production surpluses which will become consumed electricity. > In the 1960's, forecasters promised that nuclear would provide energy so cheap it would essentially be free. Then there was a backlash that lasted almost two > generations. The real backlash started after TMI and was at its highest after Chernobyl (1986). > Now, maybe, the understanding of nuclear is approaching neutral again. In 2010 (just before Fukushima) it could be so. > wind power will hit a similar wall. The public will be disillusioned This is possible, however the probability of a major blunder à la TMI or Chernobyl implying wind turbines is very low. > renewables surely will take over, and maybe eventually solar will be so cheap that hydrogen can be produced at a lower cost than natural gas. Why not? However I doubt anyone now alive will see this. > Until then, I think we should make sure we keep up our nuclear production This is rather solid, but one has to consider some implications (risk of major accident, dangerous waste to be disposed of, I know: waste isn't a problem for you, however no nation (bar, to an extent, South Korea and Finland) have potentially proper long-term storage for it, and strictly not a single one has sufficient storage for its active fleet. This may not be as simple as some think, and this is not only a matter of "extreme" (useless) political measures: this stuff is nasty. > and add as much as possible. This is debatable, as building reactors become more and more slow and expensive, even in zones where the local power wants it and can enforce its will (China). Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project.

trashtester 4y ago
> ...due to the risk of oil embargo ... > Nothing of this is true anymore, and it makes for a huge difference. Technically, I suppose the risk now is gas embargo. Also, I'm pretty sure GDP per capita is higher today than 50 years ago, even if they have not had the same growth as other countries. > In 2010 (just before Fukushima) it could be so. Maybe that depends on what sources you are exposed to. Those feeds that hit me are more positive now than in 2010, even if there was a setback after 2011. Just a few days ago, Japan decided to restart nuclear plants: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/5/27/japans-kishida-pledges-to-restart-idled-nuclear-power-plants https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/5/27/japans-kishida-p... > This is possible, however the probability of a major blunder à la TMI or Chernobyl implying wind turbines is very low. Seen through my lenses, TMI and Fukushima were non-events that were blown out of proportion by a mislead and scared populace. Chernobyl was a real incident, but still nearly insignificant compared to deaths from coal based power plants every year. For every radiation related death from these incidents, I would guess that 1000-1000000 died from the irrational fear that was generated, as it lead to increased use of coal based power. If somehow the public could be made to understand that, they may actually learn to appreciate the benefits of nuclear power. "Renewables" on the other hand, would not get a bad rep from an accident like that. Instead, if there is a period of high enery prices and maybe at some point even brownouts caused by uncontrolled variability of availability, I think more and more people are likely to feel mislead by the "renewable" proponents, and permanently lose trust in them. At that point, I worry that an increasing number of people will start to demand their coal plants back. > dangerous waste Nuclear waste ranges from 30 year old medical lab gloves to freshly spent fuel. Scary pictures like below tend to be from almost-harmless low grade waste: https://static.dw.com/image/17629832_401.jpg https://static.dw.com/image/17629832_401.jpg The global amount of high grade wast, primarily spent fuel, is miniscule. Properly educating the public of the dangers (and lack thereof) of such fuels unfortunately requires some mathematical and science understanding (half-lives, exponential declines, isotopes). But when I do the math, I don't see any kinds of existential dangers after 300-500 years. Any relatively stable deep mine is suitable to store the used fuel. There are a few isotopes that are slightly more radioactive than background radition over a longer timeframe, but that's a tiny risk compared to naturally occuring radon gas. And if you are at all concerned about global warming, the risks from storage are infintisimal by comparison. At worst, I think the expected harm from nuclear plants can be compared to the harm being done by windmills to natural wildlife (birds, mainly). > This is debatable, as building reactors become more and more slow and expensive, even in zones where the local power wants it and can enforce its will (China) Prices per kwh in China still seem quite reasonable. In general, as technologies mature, prices SHOULD come down over time. When that doesn't happer, there tends to be external factors. > Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project. Maybe, or maybe not. So far, France has been far more successful in phasing out fossil fuels than Germany. For a generation, their emissions have been much lower than Germany's. I don't know exactly which country has had the greatest expenses in doing so (including energy price, subsidies, direct government investments, etc), but I would not be surprised if the total investments by France have been lower. My bet is that France will continue to be performing better than Germany well in to the 2030's, or perhaps further. When and if Germany finally catches up, it will take another 30-50 years of low greenhouse gas emissions to "catch up" to France's performance, in terms of aggregate emissions. To add insult to injury, the German energy model has created a massive reliance on Putin's Russia for their natural gas. Russia has already started to cut off deliveries to countries not complying with their demands. If Germany is going to wean themselves off Russian energy, it will require pretty massive investments in all of the LNG value chain. And in doing so, they will replace dependency on Russia with dependency on autocratic monarchies in the Middle East. > Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project. (repeated quote) So, instead of making this an either/or, all or nothing experiment, I claim that a 50/50 split (or therearound) of those investments is rational. Nuclear for most of the base load, at least until all coal is gone. As much renewable energy as we are able to build without reaching instability in the supply. And some combination of natural gas, hydrogen and storage to even out the bumps. All should be required and incentivised to focus on keeping costs down. Special interest groups should be prevented from causing too many price increases.

trashtester 4y ago

> ...due to the risk of oil embargo ... > Nothing of this is true anymore, and it makes for a huge difference. Technically, I suppose the risk now is gas embargo. Also, I'm pretty sure GDP per capita is higher today than 50 years ago, even if they have not had the same growth as other countries. > In 2010 (just before Fukushima) it could be so. Maybe that depends on what sources you are exposed to. Those feeds that hit me are more positive now than in 2010, even if there was a setback after 2011. Just a few days ago, Japan decided to restart nuclear plants: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/5/27/japans-kishida-pledges-to-restart-idled-nuclear-power-plants https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/5/27/japans-kishida-p... > This is possible, however the probability of a major blunder à la TMI or Chernobyl implying wind turbines is very low. Seen through my lenses, TMI and Fukushima were non-events that were blown out of proportion by a mislead and scared populace. Chernobyl was a real incident, but still nearly insignificant compared to deaths from coal based power plants every year. For every radiation related death from these incidents, I would guess that 1000-1000000 died from the irrational fear that was generated, as it lead to increased use of coal based power. If somehow the public could be made to understand that, they may actually learn to appreciate the benefits of nuclear power. "Renewables" on the other hand, would not get a bad rep from an accident like that. Instead, if there is a period of high enery prices and maybe at some point even brownouts caused by uncontrolled variability of availability, I think more and more people are likely to feel mislead by the "renewable" proponents, and permanently lose trust in them. At that point, I worry that an increasing number of people will start to demand their coal plants back. > dangerous waste Nuclear waste ranges from 30 year old medical lab gloves to freshly spent fuel. Scary pictures like below tend to be from almost-harmless low grade waste: https://static.dw.com/image/17629832_401.jpg https://static.dw.com/image/17629832_401.jpg The global amount of high grade wast, primarily spent fuel, is miniscule. Properly educating the public of the dangers (and lack thereof) of such fuels unfortunately requires some mathematical and science understanding (half-lives, exponential declines, isotopes). But when I do the math, I don't see any kinds of existential dangers after 300-500 years. Any relatively stable deep mine is suitable to store the used fuel. There are a few isotopes that are slightly more radioactive than background radition over a longer timeframe, but that's a tiny risk compared to naturally occuring radon gas. And if you are at all concerned about global warming, the risks from storage are infintisimal by comparison. At worst, I think the expected harm from nuclear plants can be compared to the harm being done by windmills to natural wildlife (birds, mainly). > This is debatable, as building reactors become more and more slow and expensive, even in zones where the local power wants it and can enforce its will (China) Prices per kwh in China still seem quite reasonable. In general, as technologies mature, prices SHOULD come down over time. When that doesn't happer, there tends to be external factors. > Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project. Maybe, or maybe not. So far, France has been far more successful in phasing out fossil fuels than Germany. For a generation, their emissions have been much lower than Germany's. I don't know exactly which country has had the greatest expenses in doing so (including energy price, subsidies, direct government investments, etc), but I would not be surprised if the total investments by France have been lower. My bet is that France will continue to be performing better than Germany well in to the 2030's, or perhaps further. When and if Germany finally catches up, it will take another 30-50 years of low greenhouse gas emissions to "catch up" to France's performance, in terms of aggregate emissions. To add insult to injury, the German energy model has created a massive reliance on Putin's Russia for their natural gas. Russia has already started to cut off deliveries to countries not complying with their demands. If Germany is going to wean themselves off Russian energy, it will require pretty massive investments in all of the LNG value chain. And in doing so, they will replace dependency on Russia with dependency on autocratic monarchies in the Middle East. > Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project. (repeated quote) So, instead of making this an either/or, all or nothing experiment, I claim that a 50/50 split (or therearound) of those investments is rational. Nuclear for most of the base load, at least until all coal is gone. As much renewable energy as we are able to build without reaching instability in the supply. And some combination of natural gas, hydrogen and storage to even out the bumps. All should be required and incentivised to focus on keeping costs down. Special interest groups should be prevented from causing too many price increases.