7 ms·

This is wishful thinking. France for example never had a Three mile island type of disaster which tilted the public opinion of nuclear power, like the USA did.

This is wishful thinking. France for example never had a Three mile island type of disaster which tilted the public opinion of nuclear power, like the USA did. They continued building up their nuclear power plants well into the 1990s but failed to bring construction costs and delays down like your comment suggests. In fact if we take Germany as a counter-example, when they stopped building nuclear power plants due to popular demand, they significantly increased renewable energy to a point where they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left. This shows that Nuclear power might actually be a hindrance towards an electrified future, as governments have historically put to much faith in it, which was ultimately unwarranted, instead of investing in renewables. EDIT: I feel like people are focusing on the wrong point here. I was apparently—and unintentionally—disingenuous by touting Germany’s success in replacing coal power with renewables, as compared to France. However, my main point still stands, that investing in nuclear well into the 1990s did not bring costs and delays of new plants down.

jjoonathan 4y ago
> governments have historically put to much faith in it If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s and had instead merely key up the pace, our grid wouldn't be 20% nuclear like it is today, it would be 100% nuclear. Instead, we made the choice to pump 20 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere while we waited for solar and wind to become viable. I'm glad they finally are -- they just broke into double digits, in a few years they will pass the nuclear buildout we stopped in the 80s -- but that was one helluva waiting cost.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- runarberg 4y ago
  This is false dichotomy. The US government also had the option of investing in renewables as early as the 1970s. They simply didn’t. The success of Germany’s recent investment suggests that was a wrong choice.
  - scoopertrooper 4y ago
    In fairness solar efficiency was below 10% in the 1970s, while the world was already producing many gigawatts of nuclear energy at that time. It's not as though Germany could have 'decided' in the 1970s to have 2022 technology. Sure, increased investment at the time may have sped up the development of renewables, but it still wouldn't be fast. Science doesn't quite work that way.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Solar efficiency and cost would have been where they are today by 1990, and we would not now be facing imminent, impending Climatic Catastrophe. Energy during ie past 30 years would have been radically cheaper. Coal plants and nuke plants alike would have been shuttered as unsustainable, not for their CO2 but just because they cost too damn much. But here we are, instead. Thank Reagan. And Bush. And Bush, again. US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        So you're argument is that in an alternative timeline where we'd invested more money we would have invented technology in the 1980s that still doesn't exist in the 2020s?
        spopejoy 4y ago
        Uhh, renewables are here today. The parent was refuting that "solar wasn't ready" by making the point that the progress in renewables is attributable to increased industrial activity and funding. Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. That regime lasted until the 90s and by then any memory of the oil crises in the 70s was long gone.
        opo 4y ago
        >Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. The panels installed on the White House were not photovoltaic solar panels - they were solar water heater panels. (After they damaged the roof, they weren't replaced after the repairs were done.) It wouldn't have been possible to run the economy on solar water heater panels.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  "If nuclear hadn't failed, it would have succeeded."
andrewmutz 4y ago
Do you have a source on the France vs Germany thing? France uses 20x less coal than Germany to begin with (https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count...) so I'm not sure about the comparison of reducing consumption Also, during the recent conflict with Russia, Germany is turning coal plants back online and France is not.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  France is right now buying coal-fired power from across borders. Domestic coal consumption figures are meaningless.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France That's wrong. France is a net exporter of power, by over 50%. So even on aggregate it is a net benefit to the world since 90% of the power generated is CO2 free.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      France exports energy when the rivers are cold enough to operate their nukes. Rivers are just now close to maximum temperature.
      - thrown_22 4y ago
        Yes and? French electricity is 10 times less CO2 intensive to produce than German. Given that France exports 30% more electricity to Germany than they import it reduces the carbon footprint of both countries.
The_Double 4y ago
> they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left. That sounds a less impressive when you rephrase it as saying they went from 15x more coal use than france to 9x as much. Percentage wise the decrease seems similar in the last few years. source: https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/germany https://www.iea.org/countries/germany
espadrine 4y ago
> France for example never had a Three mile island type of disaster which tilted the public opinion of nuclear power Despite that, the public opinion soured so bad, that it is the detractors that had to bring disaster to nuclear reactors. Protestors fired rocket-propelled grenades at a plant[0]. It did not cause any nuclear danger. On the other hand, the costs grew because the standards for risk grew to tremendous levels that are way, way above those applied for the coal and gas industries, or wind and solar for that matter. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack
- asib 4y ago
  > Despite that, the public opinion soured so bad, that it is the detractors that had to bring disaster to nuclear reactors. Protestors fired rocket-propelled grenades at a plant[0]. It did not cause any nuclear danger. The wiki article you linked says the plant was unfinished. This would indicate the attack was a protest against the construction of the plant, not an attempt to induce a nuclear meltdown. You are perhaps unintentionally twisting the facts.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    Besides, in France we've had "protest" attacks even against chip foundries. I would assume it par for the course for a nuclear plant.
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      That said, historically chip factories have left overwhelming chemical messes.
    - baq 4y ago
      for good reasons... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride
morning_gelato 4y ago
>This shows that Nuclear power might actually be a hindrance towards an electrified future, as governments have historically put to much faith in it, which was ultimately unwarranted, instead of investing in renewables. Historically the countries that invested in nuclear and hydro have been most successful in lowering the carbon intensity of their energy sector. Looking at the data, Germany does not appear to be nearly as successful as France. In 2021 France's electricity averaged 68 gCO2/kWh, and Germany averaged 364 gCO2/kWh. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?tab=chart&country=FRA~SWE~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?t... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...
Redoubts 4y ago
> they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, Germany is like 40% coal, and France is maybe 5%. It's easier to reduce at a faster rate when your use is still massive.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
pyrale 4y ago
> They continued building up their nuclear power plants well into the 1990s but failed to bring construction costs and delays down like your comment suggests. > In fact if we take Germany as a counter-example, when they stopped building nuclear power plants due to popular demand, they significantly increased renewable energy to a point where they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left. Rarely have I seen reality mistreated so blatantly. France has barely used coal in the last 4 decades, and so it seems to be enough to claim that, by slowly reducing their coal use, Germany does much better. That reminds me of the popular definition of chutzpah: the person that asks for mercy after murdering his parents, since, afterall, he's now an orphan. > However, my main point still stands, that investing in nuclear well into the 1990s did not bring costs and delays of new plants down. Your main point is wrong. [1] shows that each model has experienced faster build time as new units were built. What is true is that new, more advanced designs can take more time to build than older, less advanced designs. [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%C3%A9aires_en_France#/media/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%...
- thematrixturtle 4y ago
  That graph shows nothing of the sort, and it conveniently excludes the 2010s, where Areva's Olkiluoto 3 plant in Finland has been under construction for 17 years and is still not finished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Even after being declared finished, it isn't.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > That graph shows nothing of the sort CP0: first reactor 6.5y, last reactor 5y CP1: first reactor 6y, last reactor 5y CP2: first reactor 5y, last reactor 6y P4 : first reactor 7y, last reactor 6y P'4: first reactor 7y, last reactor 6.5y N4 : first reactor 12y, last reactor 7.5y That's 5/6 designs where building multiple plants lead to faster build times. > it conveniently excludes Honestly, I suspect you're just namedroping here. But let's adress the point: Olkiluoto and Flamanville are the first 2 reactors of their generation, I'm not sure what you want to compare them to in terms of build time. My guess is that Hinkley point will get built much faster, and that we may see further improvements if more are built.
orangeoxidation 4y ago
> They continued building up their nuclear power plants well into the 1990s but failed to bring construction costs and delays down like your comment suggests. Absolutely true. It proved expensive even at large scale and with full support of the state. I don't trust promises or hypotheticals of cheap nuclear power, at all. But here's the thing: France succeeded with decarbonizing their electricity production. It's a pretty notable success. Yes, it was (and remains) expensive and yes those plants are now failing often, remaining expensive ober their whole lifetime. But it worked and France could afford it. I'd argue many other countries could afford it as well. The German electricity mix is a lot dirtier by comparison.
- kitkat_new 4y ago
  > But it worked and France could afford it. failing plants due to their age and maintenance resulting in less nuclear power in the long run say otherwise
TameAntelope 4y ago
Oh yeah, and Germany is totally not in any kind of energy crisis right now due to lack of domestic energy sources...
- kitkat_new 4y ago
  nuclear isn't a domestic energy source either
  - samatman 4y ago
    But then you have to ask: why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country#Germ...
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    As if the source of the uranium was in any way comparable to gas or coal…

jjoonathan 4y ago

> governments have historically put to much faith in it If we (US) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s and had instead merely key up the pace, our grid wouldn't be 20% nuclear like it is today, it would be 100% nuclear. Instead, we made the choice to pump 20 gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere while we waited for solar and wind to become viable. I'm glad they finally are -- they just broke into double digits, in a few years they will pass the nuclear buildout we stopped in the 80s -- but that was one helluva waiting cost.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
runarberg 4y ago
This is false dichotomy. The US government also had the option of investing in renewables as early as the 1970s. They simply didn’t. The success of Germany’s recent investment suggests that was a wrong choice.
- scoopertrooper 4y ago
  In fairness solar efficiency was below 10% in the 1970s, while the world was already producing many gigawatts of nuclear energy at that time. It's not as though Germany could have 'decided' in the 1970s to have 2022 technology. Sure, increased investment at the time may have sped up the development of renewables, but it still wouldn't be fast. Science doesn't quite work that way.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Solar efficiency and cost would have been where they are today by 1990, and we would not now be facing imminent, impending Climatic Catastrophe. Energy during ie past 30 years would have been radically cheaper. Coal plants and nuke plants alike would have been shuttered as unsustainable, not for their CO2 but just because they cost too damn much. But here we are, instead. Thank Reagan. And Bush. And Bush, again. US spent $5T trashing Iraq and Afghanistan. That would have paid for completely switching over to renewables, several time over.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      So you're argument is that in an alternative timeline where we'd invested more money we would have invented technology in the 1980s that still doesn't exist in the 2020s?
      - spopejoy 4y ago
        Uhh, renewables are here today. The parent was refuting that "solar wasn't ready" by making the point that the progress in renewables is attributable to increased industrial activity and funding. Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. That regime lasted until the 90s and by then any memory of the oil crises in the 70s was long gone.
        opo 4y ago
        >Reagan took the solar panels off the White House for a reason, so his buddy James Watt could kill off any alternatives to fossil energy. The panels installed on the White House were not photovoltaic solar panels - they were solar water heater panels. (After they damaged the roof, they weren't replaced after the repairs were done.) It wouldn't have been possible to run the economy on solar water heater panels.
pfdietz 4y ago
"If nuclear hadn't failed, it would have succeeded."

andrewmutz 4y ago

Do you have a source on the France vs Germany thing? France uses 20x less coal than Germany to begin with (https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/coal/coal-consumption-by-count...) so I'm not sure about the comparison of reducing consumption Also, during the recent conflict with Russia, Germany is turning coal plants back online and France is not.

ncmncm 4y ago
France is right now buying coal-fired power from across borders. Domestic coal consumption figures are meaningless.
- thrown_22 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France That's wrong. France is a net exporter of power, by over 50%. So even on aggregate it is a net benefit to the world since 90% of the power generated is CO2 free.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    France exports energy when the rivers are cold enough to operate their nukes. Rivers are just now close to maximum temperature.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Yes and? French electricity is 10 times less CO2 intensive to produce than German. Given that France exports 30% more electricity to Germany than they import it reduces the carbon footprint of both countries.

The_Double 4y ago

> they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left. That sounds a less impressive when you rephrase it as saying they went from 15x more coal use than france to 9x as much. Percentage wise the decrease seems similar in the last few years. source: https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/france https://www.iea.org/countries/germany https://www.iea.org/countries/germany

espadrine 4y ago

> France for example never had a Three mile island type of disaster which tilted the public opinion of nuclear power Despite that, the public opinion soured so bad, that it is the detractors that had to bring disaster to nuclear reactors. Protestors fired rocket-propelled grenades at a plant[0]. It did not cause any nuclear danger. On the other hand, the costs grew because the standards for risk grew to tremendous levels that are way, way above those applied for the coal and gas industries, or wind and solar for that matter. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix#Rocket_attack

asib 4y ago
> Despite that, the public opinion soured so bad, that it is the detractors that had to bring disaster to nuclear reactors. Protestors fired rocket-propelled grenades at a plant[0]. It did not cause any nuclear danger. The wiki article you linked says the plant was unfinished. This would indicate the attack was a protest against the construction of the plant, not an attempt to induce a nuclear meltdown. You are perhaps unintentionally twisting the facts.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  Besides, in France we've had "protest" attacks even against chip foundries. I would assume it par for the course for a nuclear plant.
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    That said, historically chip factories have left overwhelming chemical messes.
  - baq 4y ago
    for good reasons... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride

morning_gelato 4y ago

>This shows that Nuclear power might actually be a hindrance towards an electrified future, as governments have historically put to much faith in it, which was ultimately unwarranted, instead of investing in renewables. Historically the countries that invested in nuclear and hydro have been most successful in lowering the carbon intensity of their energy sector. Looking at the data, Germany does not appear to be nearly as successful as France. In 2021 France's electricity averaged 68 gCO2/kWh, and Germany averaged 364 gCO2/kWh. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?tab=chart&country=FRA~SWE~DEU https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/low-carbon-share-energy?t... https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electricity https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...

Redoubts 4y ago

> they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, Germany is like 40% coal, and France is maybe 5%. It's easier to reduce at a faster rate when your use is still massive.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

pyrale 4y ago

> They continued building up their nuclear power plants well into the 1990s but failed to bring construction costs and delays down like your comment suggests. > In fact if we take Germany as a counter-example, when they stopped building nuclear power plants due to popular demand, they significantly increased renewable energy to a point where they are currently replacing coal power at a greater rate then France, despite Germany actively shutting down nuclear plants that still had years of life left. Rarely have I seen reality mistreated so blatantly. France has barely used coal in the last 4 decades, and so it seems to be enough to claim that, by slowly reducing their coal use, Germany does much better. That reminds me of the popular definition of chutzpah: the person that asks for mercy after murdering his parents, since, afterall, he's now an orphan. > However, my main point still stands, that investing in nuclear well into the 1990s did not bring costs and delays of new plants down. Your main point is wrong. [1] shows that each model has experienced faster build time as new units were built. What is true is that new, more advanced designs can take more time to build than older, less advanced designs. [1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%C3%A9aires_en_France#/media/Fichier:Chrono-parc-nucleaire-francais.svg https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_des_r%C3%A9acteurs_nucl%...

thematrixturtle 4y ago
That graph shows nothing of the sort, and it conveniently excludes the 2010s, where Areva's Olkiluoto 3 plant in Finland has been under construction for 17 years and is still not finished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Even after being declared finished, it isn't.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > That graph shows nothing of the sort CP0: first reactor 6.5y, last reactor 5y CP1: first reactor 6y, last reactor 5y CP2: first reactor 5y, last reactor 6y P4 : first reactor 7y, last reactor 6y P'4: first reactor 7y, last reactor 6.5y N4 : first reactor 12y, last reactor 7.5y That's 5/6 designs where building multiple plants lead to faster build times. > it conveniently excludes Honestly, I suspect you're just namedroping here. But let's adress the point: Olkiluoto and Flamanville are the first 2 reactors of their generation, I'm not sure what you want to compare them to in terms of build time. My guess is that Hinkley point will get built much faster, and that we may see further improvements if more are built.

orangeoxidation 4y ago

> They continued building up their nuclear power plants well into the 1990s but failed to bring construction costs and delays down like your comment suggests. Absolutely true. It proved expensive even at large scale and with full support of the state. I don't trust promises or hypotheticals of cheap nuclear power, at all. But here's the thing: France succeeded with decarbonizing their electricity production. It's a pretty notable success. Yes, it was (and remains) expensive and yes those plants are now failing often, remaining expensive ober their whole lifetime. But it worked and France could afford it. I'd argue many other countries could afford it as well. The German electricity mix is a lot dirtier by comparison.

kitkat_new 4y ago
> But it worked and France could afford it. failing plants due to their age and maintenance resulting in less nuclear power in the long run say otherwise

TameAntelope 4y ago

Oh yeah, and Germany is totally not in any kind of energy crisis right now due to lack of domestic energy sources...

kitkat_new 4y ago
nuclear isn't a domestic energy source either
- samatman 4y ago
  But then you have to ask: why not? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country#Germany https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_by_country#Germ...
- TameAntelope 4y ago
  As if the source of the uranium was in any way comparable to gas or coal…