4 ms·

>> France's capacity to build nuclear reactors (in the past and now) > I'm pretty sure GDP per capita is higher today than 50 years ago They do, but money doe

>> France's capacity to build nuclear reactors (in the past and now) > I'm pretty sure GDP per capita is higher today than 50 years ago They do, but money doesn't replace industrial know-how and tools. France massively relocated various (especially heavy) industries, starting in the 1980's. > Just a few days ago, Japan decided to restart nuclear plants: > https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/5/27/japans-kishida-p https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2022/5/27/japans-kishida-p... This is a pledge, about only a few ones, after quite a delay (since 2011), formulated because this nation cannot do otherwise (lack of other types of sources, as it has to phase-out a huge amount of coal-burning plants and lacks on renewables. Moreover this politician "is not considering any new facilities". Before Fukushima nuclear produced 30% of Japan's electricy, and plans were to let this grow to 40%... Moreover even restarting some plants is not necessarily easy, accepted by the population, and legal: https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220531_12/ https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20220531_12/ > TMI and Fukushima were non-events that were blown out of proportion by a mislead and scared populace For all those accidents there is no consensus about the long-term impact on health and the environment. Chernobyl's victims scientific evaluations range from "a few hundred" to "nearly 1 million", with many intermediate values (4000, 19000, 60000...) TMI: I never could find any technical explanation for the miracle (the meltdown was partial, not complete). At Fukushima cleaning-up (its efficiency is disputed) and compensations amount to hundreds of billions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Costs_of_the_cleanup_operations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... > Chernobyl was a real incident, but still nearly insignificant compared to deaths from coal Nobody here advocates coal! > 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. Maybe, albeit in at least some cases preferring some renewable source was possible but neglected. > If somehow the public could be made to understand that Convincing the public is a burden for the nuclear industry, and it tries hard. > "Renewables" on the other hand, would not get a bad rep from an accident like that How exactly could they trigger similar accidents: dangerous particles (radionucleides) floating in wind and rain, polluting vast amount of land (in some places for decades)...? > maybe at some point even brownouts caused by uncontrolled variability of availability Maybe, indeed, if the ways to alleviate variability aren't sufficient. > Nuclear waste ranges > I don't see any kinds of existential dangers after 300-500 years No, for example if this waste reaches a water table... Moreover this is also tied to ethic standpoint: do we have the right to let such bad stuff to future generations (and yes, this also applies to fossil fuels)? > Any relatively stable deep mine is suitable to store the used fuel. That's some touted for Asse II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine > if you are at all concerned about global warming, the risks from storage are infintisimal by comparison. Renewable sources don't produce such dangerous waste. > the expected harm from nuclear plants can be compared to the harm being done by windmills to natural wildlife (birds, mainly). This is a difficult exercise. In many nations wind turbines proponents (many 'greens') don't neglect this, many jurisdictions enforce more and more strict rules (albeit they sometimes are neglected in order to accelerate deployment) and pertinent groups suggestions are considered https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bird-Smart-Wind-Energy-Fact-Sheet.pdf https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Bird-Smart-W... > Prices per kwh in China still seem quite reasonable Auditing is very difficult. > as technologies mature, prices SHOULD come down over time. When that doesn't happer, there tends to be external factors. Yes, multiple factors. One being that what was deemed adequate safety-wise isn't anymore, leading to new costs. >> Moreover each buck spent for this isn't available for a 'renewable' project. > So far, France has been far more successful in phasing out fossil fuels than Germany It was true until the last nuclear reactor was built in France, in 1999 ('Civaux-2' reactor). Afterwards France is trying hard to obtain a reactor since 2007, while Germany deploys renewables. By far the main reason France enhances its emissions since 1999 is its renewables deployment. Nuclear didn't further reduce emissions (no new reactor => no new decarbonating nuclear equipment). > My bet is that France will continue to be performing better than Germany well in to the 2030's Thanks to nuclear? This is impossible, as France doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040. France may keep up because it also deploys renewables, but using only nuclear will set it way back. > aggregate emissions Yes, this is a major point! Germany's quick phasing-out of existing reactors done without even considering reducing its consumption was a terrible decision, however renewables aren't 'guilty' of this. > the German energy model has created a massive reliance on Putin's Russia for their natural gas Please allow me to insist: the main France's uranium provider is Kazakhstan, which obeys to Putin, and this side of the challenge exists even for the US: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utilities-push-white-house-not-sanction-russian-uranium-2022-03-02/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/exclusive-us-utiliti... > 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. Calculating the amount of reactors it implies then considering the global capacity to build them is taunting. Given the result I doubt simply accepting way lower safety standards will fix the problem, and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar. Then after any non-trivial incident all the project will be thrown out of the window. Investors know about this, therefore such a project may not even be able start. > All should be required and incentivised to focus on keeping costs down. Most incentives have at best mediocre effects. In France subsidies were lampooned by the Court of Audit for failing to boost national industrial capacity. > Special interest groups should be prevented from causing too many price increases. I don't know of any sure way to do so devoid of any serious risk.

trashtester 4y ago
> For all those accidents there is no consensus about the long-term impact on health and the environment. Chernobyl's victims scientific evaluations range from "a few hundred" to "nearly 1 million", with many intermediate values (4000, 19000, 60000...) This is like saying there is no consensus about climate change. You will always find nuts on each end. Some claim humanity will go extinct around 2030-2040, and some say climate change does not happen or if it does, it is mostly beneficial. If we cut away the crazy people on either end, the last three scenarios you listed (4000, 19000, 60000) represent the "mainstream" estimates. Regardless of which of those you use, Nuclear power in aggregate come out as remarkably safe per GWh. > At Fukushima cleaning-up (its efficiency is disputed) and compensations amount to hundreds of billions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... Japanese response was irrational. There are areas on earth where natural background radiation is higher than what they were "cleaning up". > Nobody here advocates coal! Up until today, the only real alternative to nuclear has been fossil fuels, and for a long time, primarily coal. Maybe that will change in the future (you seem to think so), but since Chernobyl until today, lack of investment in Nuclear has certainly been made up for primarily by coal. (Some of the development in wind and solar would have happened anyway.) >> Nuclear waste ranges > I don't see any kinds of existential dangers after 300-500 years > No, for example if this waste reaches a water table... That's pretty unlikely if the mine is deep enough. It's not like one would bury it in the sands under the beaches of Denmark. Anyway, even after such a time period, the dilution that will happen in such a case means that the polution from such an event would be marginal. Say it gets burried in the bedrocks of central Scandinavia, which has been geologically stable for billions of years, you're pretty safe. > That's some touted for Asse II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine That wiki page mentions low- and medium grade waste, I don't see high grade waste mentioned. Also, 100Bq/l is not really scary, unless you use it directly for drinking water, before it is diluted. This is the thing about radioactivity, most people don't know the difference between 100Bq/g, 100Bq/l and 100Bq/m^3. And this is a worst case similar to Chernobyl, from the early days of Nuclear. > Moreover this is also tied to ethic standpoint: do we have the right to let such bad stuff to future generations (and yes, this also applies to fossil fuels)? This applies to almost everything we do, from plastics to various chemicals DNA modifications and so on. Not to speak of existential dangers, such as nuclear war, technological singularity, gray goo, etc. Imagine a world where humanity has already used up all economically available fissile materials as fuel. Maybe we can stop being scared about nuclear war? One could argue that it is our responsibility to make that happen. > Yes, multiple factors. One being that what was deemed adequate safety-wise isn't anymore, leading to new costs. Obviously paranoia, resulting from anti-nuclear scare-mongering. ;) But this is not the only factor. Even between reactors of the same nominal security class, there is huge variation in cost. I would claim this is due to poor execution, corruption, political medelling, etc. > Thanks to nuclear? This is impossible, as France doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040. France may keep up because it also deploys renewables, but using only nuclear will set it way back. My bet is that France will have lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions than Germany in 2032 and possibly all the way to 2040. Due in part to nuclear, in part to "renewables", and where nuclear is the differentiating factor, since Germany will have more "renewables". Again, nuclear and "renewables" are not mutually exclusive, and if France is able to deploy both, it proves that point. > Calculating the amount of reactors it implies then considering the global capacity to build them is taunting. Given the result I doubt simply accepting way lower safety standards will fix the problem, and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar I'm not arguing for lowering safety compared to what is in operation today. Just that maybe, most current plants have shown themselves to be safe enough. (Obviously, no Chernobyl-level plants should be constructed again). So what I'm arguing is that safety levels should be approximately at a Gen3 level, and that modern technology should be aimed at lowering prices instead of improving safety even further. > and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar. Take school (around 12-17 years old) children on school trips to places of high air polution, show them pictures and videos of what air polution is doing to human and animal health. Let them breathe the air near some old dirty coal plant for a few hours. Then take them to a nuclear plant. Teach about the relative dangers of nuclear and coal, in some visual way. (Ie 1000 corpses dead from lung diseases vs 1 corpse dead from cancer.) Teach about radiation from cosmic rays, radon gas and nuclear plants, and let them understand how radiation from the nuclear plant is going to be less dangerous than the cosmic rays of a single plane trip. Then take them to a windpower plant. Let them listen to the music of the windmills, and maybe allow them to see a few dead birds. This can be done in the very same manner that is used to teach about climate change, polution, etc, and indeed may be part of the same programme. Keep it fact based and within the scientific mainstream. Make them understand why coal that is really, really bad, on every dimension, and that nuclear vs wind power is debatable. Not through propaganda, just by facts and science. Obviously, in ares where the generic population is already heavily anti-nuclear, chances are they will not invest much in nuclear over the next 5-10 years. But in areas where nuclear is partially accepted, eductation through government controlled channels can absolutely be used to move the needle from "mixed" to "accepted". I'm not talking about spreading false propaganda, but rather to spread mainstream scientific knowledge and to (within legal limits) counteract misinformation from fringe special interest groups (whether in the fossile fuel industry or some kind of irrational climate activist group). And every contribution helps. If such an activity can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10%, this will push back climate change by years or maybe a decade, and we will be that much closer to have fully developed the renewable technolgies needed to make renewables a fully viable approach. (If renewables are able to fully replace nuclear in this role in 2030, then great, if renewables continue to struggle with the stability and capacity issues until 2050 or beyond, having additional nuclear capabilities will postpone the adverse effects of global warming.

trashtester 4y ago

> For all those accidents there is no consensus about the long-term impact on health and the environment. Chernobyl's victims scientific evaluations range from "a few hundred" to "nearly 1 million", with many intermediate values (4000, 19000, 60000...) This is like saying there is no consensus about climate change. You will always find nuts on each end. Some claim humanity will go extinct around 2030-2040, and some say climate change does not happen or if it does, it is mostly beneficial. If we cut away the crazy people on either end, the last three scenarios you listed (4000, 19000, 60000) represent the "mainstream" estimates. Regardless of which of those you use, Nuclear power in aggregate come out as remarkably safe per GWh. > At Fukushima cleaning-up (its efficiency is disputed) and compensations amount to hundreds of billions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Cos... Japanese response was irrational. There are areas on earth where natural background radiation is higher than what they were "cleaning up". > Nobody here advocates coal! Up until today, the only real alternative to nuclear has been fossil fuels, and for a long time, primarily coal. Maybe that will change in the future (you seem to think so), but since Chernobyl until today, lack of investment in Nuclear has certainly been made up for primarily by coal. (Some of the development in wind and solar would have happened anyway.) >> Nuclear waste ranges > I don't see any kinds of existential dangers after 300-500 years > No, for example if this waste reaches a water table... That's pretty unlikely if the mine is deep enough. It's not like one would bury it in the sands under the beaches of Denmark. Anyway, even after such a time period, the dilution that will happen in such a case means that the polution from such an event would be marginal. Say it gets burried in the bedrocks of central Scandinavia, which has been geologically stable for billions of years, you're pretty safe. > That's some touted for Asse II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine That wiki page mentions low- and medium grade waste, I don't see high grade waste mentioned. Also, 100Bq/l is not really scary, unless you use it directly for drinking water, before it is diluted. This is the thing about radioactivity, most people don't know the difference between 100Bq/g, 100Bq/l and 100Bq/m^3. And this is a worst case similar to Chernobyl, from the early days of Nuclear. > Moreover this is also tied to ethic standpoint: do we have the right to let such bad stuff to future generations (and yes, this also applies to fossil fuels)? This applies to almost everything we do, from plastics to various chemicals DNA modifications and so on. Not to speak of existential dangers, such as nuclear war, technological singularity, gray goo, etc. Imagine a world where humanity has already used up all economically available fissile materials as fuel. Maybe we can stop being scared about nuclear war? One could argue that it is our responsibility to make that happen. > Yes, multiple factors. One being that what was deemed adequate safety-wise isn't anymore, leading to new costs. Obviously paranoia, resulting from anti-nuclear scare-mongering. ;) But this is not the only factor. Even between reactors of the same nominal security class, there is huge variation in cost. I would claim this is due to poor execution, corruption, political medelling, etc. > Thanks to nuclear? This is impossible, as France doesn't hope to have more than 3 new reactors by 2040. France may keep up because it also deploys renewables, but using only nuclear will set it way back. My bet is that France will have lower per capita greenhouse gas emissions than Germany in 2032 and possibly all the way to 2040. Due in part to nuclear, in part to "renewables", and where nuclear is the differentiating factor, since Germany will have more "renewables". Again, nuclear and "renewables" are not mutually exclusive, and if France is able to deploy both, it proves that point. > Calculating the amount of reactors it implies then considering the global capacity to build them is taunting. Given the result I doubt simply accepting way lower safety standards will fix the problem, and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar I'm not arguing for lowering safety compared to what is in operation today. Just that maybe, most current plants have shown themselves to be safe enough. (Obviously, no Chernobyl-level plants should be constructed again). So what I'm arguing is that safety levels should be approximately at a Gen3 level, and that modern technology should be aimed at lowering prices instead of improving safety even further. > and as noted the NIMBY effect will soar. Take school (around 12-17 years old) children on school trips to places of high air polution, show them pictures and videos of what air polution is doing to human and animal health. Let them breathe the air near some old dirty coal plant for a few hours. Then take them to a nuclear plant. Teach about the relative dangers of nuclear and coal, in some visual way. (Ie 1000 corpses dead from lung diseases vs 1 corpse dead from cancer.) Teach about radiation from cosmic rays, radon gas and nuclear plants, and let them understand how radiation from the nuclear plant is going to be less dangerous than the cosmic rays of a single plane trip. Then take them to a windpower plant. Let them listen to the music of the windmills, and maybe allow them to see a few dead birds. This can be done in the very same manner that is used to teach about climate change, polution, etc, and indeed may be part of the same programme. Keep it fact based and within the scientific mainstream. Make them understand why coal that is really, really bad, on every dimension, and that nuclear vs wind power is debatable. Not through propaganda, just by facts and science. Obviously, in ares where the generic population is already heavily anti-nuclear, chances are they will not invest much in nuclear over the next 5-10 years. But in areas where nuclear is partially accepted, eductation through government controlled channels can absolutely be used to move the needle from "mixed" to "accepted". I'm not talking about spreading false propaganda, but rather to spread mainstream scientific knowledge and to (within legal limits) counteract misinformation from fringe special interest groups (whether in the fossile fuel industry or some kind of irrational climate activist group). And every contribution helps. If such an activity can help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 10%, this will push back climate change by years or maybe a decade, and we will be that much closer to have fully developed the renewable technolgies needed to make renewables a fully viable approach. (If renewables are able to fully replace nuclear in this role in 2030, then great, if renewables continue to struggle with the stability and capacity issues until 2050 or beyond, having additional nuclear capabilities will postpone the adverse effects of global warming.