6 ms·

Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Scope_of_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Sco... : In 2016, Ja

Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Scope_of_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup#Sco... : In 2016, Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry estimated ((...)) decontamination costs estimated to rise from ¥2.5 trillion (US$22 billion) to ¥4 trillion (US$35 billion), costs for interim storage of radioactive material to increase from ¥1.1 trillion (US$10 billion) to ¥1.6 trillion (US$14 billion), and costs of decommissioning reactors to increase from ¥2 trillion (US$17 billion) to ¥8 trillion (US$69 billion). The very amount of backup needed by a renewable-based system can be reduced by adequately spreading-out production units: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-could-provide-more-stable/ https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/180592/european-cooperation-... Energy storage (hydro... V2G has a huge potential: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-to-grid) and curtailment further reduce it. A dispatchable source ('backup') isn't necessarily fossil-fuel-burning: green-hydrogen-fueled gas turbines are clean: https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf https://global.kawasaki.com/news_211209-2e.pdf This very green hydrogen can be produced thanks to (clean!) renewable units overproduction. Even fully-nuclearized France produces around 9% of its electricity thanks to such 'backup' (today: fossil-fuel burning plants). Red surfaces: https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/15-electricite https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi... 9% is 33 days per year, that's quite a margin.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Again, estimates are not actual costs. And note that the figures you cite add up to much less than the 660 billion you cited earlier. Hydrogen storage has significant technological barriers. Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility so far. There's no telling when, or if, these barriers will be overcome. France can build more nuclear plants to drive down it's fossil fuel use. But no amount of overproduction will make a solar plant produce electricity at night, or wind turbines on a windless day. For that reason, "renewables" is really renewables plus fossil fuels. While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels and biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) for just under 40% of it's electricity. Not much of a win for renewables.
- natmaka 4y ago
  > estimates are not actual costs On matters such as those (vast, gov-funded, lengthy and intrinsically new projects) largely under-estimating seems way (way!) more probable to me. > Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > France can build more nuclear plants France already tries to builds a new nuclear reactor ("EPR") since 2007, it is way over budget and over schedule. As for renewables intermittency: I answered in my previous post. > While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels This comparison seems absurd to me. France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. > biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) This is more nuanced: some are rather clean.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    > Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). Incorrect. We have plenty of experience working with hydrogen produced by steam reformation. But that emits CO2, and thus cannot be used for energy storage. The vast amounts of hydrogen produced for ammonia production does not translate into usable infrastructure for hydrogen electric storage. Energy storage is a problem that has resisted an effective solution for a long time. There's no guarantee we'll find a good storage system 20 years from now or 200 years from now. > France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. So investing in nuclear yielded great reductions in CO2 emissions, and brought fossil fuel use to near zero. > Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. So Germany invested in renewables and even after more than 30 years of investment it hasn't seen nearly as big a reduction in CO2 emissions. Again you're making a very strong case for nuclear, renewables not so much.

Manuel_D 4y ago

Again, estimates are not actual costs. And note that the figures you cite add up to much less than the 660 billion you cited earlier. Hydrogen storage has significant technological barriers. Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility so far. There's no telling when, or if, these barriers will be overcome. France can build more nuclear plants to drive down it's fossil fuel use. But no amount of overproduction will make a solar plant produce electricity at night, or wind turbines on a windless day. For that reason, "renewables" is really renewables plus fossil fuels. While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels and biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) for just under 40% of it's electricity. Not much of a win for renewables.

natmaka 4y ago
> estimates are not actual costs On matters such as those (vast, gov-funded, lengthy and intrinsically new projects) largely under-estimating seems way (way!) more probable to me. > Nobody has successfully deployed a hydrogen grid storage facility Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). > France can build more nuclear plants France already tries to builds a new nuclear reactor ("EPR") since 2007, it is way over budget and over schedule. As for renewables intermittency: I answered in my previous post. > While France uses 9% fossil fuels Germany, the biggest renewables stan, uses fossil fuels This comparison seems absurd to me. France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. > biomass (which gets a green label but is often even more polluting than fossil fuels) This is more nuanced: some are rather clean.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  > Indeed (this is a work in progress, and may indeed not be possible), however the industry already uses huge amounts of H (therefore short-term storage for intermittency compensation is possible), and more and more vehicles do so (therefore a quite large distribution network for intermittent consumers is possible). Incorrect. We have plenty of experience working with hydrogen produced by steam reformation. But that emits CO2, and thus cannot be used for energy storage. The vast amounts of hydrogen produced for ammonia production does not translate into usable infrastructure for hydrogen electric storage. Energy storage is a problem that has resisted an effective solution for a long time. There's no guarantee we'll find a good storage system 20 years from now or 200 years from now. > France launched its nuclearization in the 1970's, while very rich ("30 Glorieuses)", industrial, and it was a strategic case (continuation of the "atomic bomb" program and therefore benefiting from military credits + oil crisis), and the need (electricity consumed) was 3 times lower than it is now, using reactors existing since the 1950's. It then took 25 years to build the nuclear fleet. So investing in nuclear yielded great reductions in CO2 emissions, and brought fossil fuel use to near zero. > Germany isn't as (relatively) rich and industrial as it was in the 1970's (after many crisis since the 1990's), there is a quite strong "the climate crisis isn't really a strategic top-priority form most governments" (even in Germany) argument, really launched its transition in 2011, and it uses very-quickly evolving technologies. So Germany invested in renewables and even after more than 30 years of investment it hasn't seen nearly as big a reduction in CO2 emissions. Again you're making a very strong case for nuclear, renewables not so much.