4 ms·

I believe France is the only smart country in Europe (and maybe the world) when it comes to energy. They have built and still use nuclear instead of going all

by jmclnx 4y ago

I believe France is the only smart country in Europe (and maybe the world) when it comes to energy. They have built and still use nuclear instead of going all into green. Nuclear is a great bridge to when green energy is able to scale up. And I agree, why Germany is disabling nuclear now is crazy, even Japan is looking again at nuclear, and I think they will restart one of their reactors. If any country has a good reason to avoid nuclear it is Japan. Why, Japan is right on the "ring of fire".

raytube 4y ago
Ukraine shows how fragile and dangerous the reliance on reactors is. If the world can't behave responsibility. The long term costs of nuclear are just crap. You would be better investing in battery tech to store renewable energy.
- NoPie 4y ago
  Thanks to nuclear Ukraine was (is?) selling electricity to the EU even during this war. Their nuclear power-stations has shown surprising resilience. Long term is exactly where nuclear rules.
  - BoardsOfCanada 4y ago
    It'd better be, since the radioactive waste will have to be stored for a million years, which is many times the age of homo sapiens. Of course we have to hope for technical advances to convert it to a more manageable form.
    - ehvatum 4y ago
      > millions of years Ridiculous. From NRC: “ Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure.” Go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You see people. WEIRD!!!!
      - BoardsOfCanada 4y ago
        You quoted me and changed the text in the quote. Have a look here for a source for a million years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-stag...
    - NoPie 4y ago
      The earth has stored nuclear elements for millions and billions of years. It is thought that in some places naturally occurring nuclear reactors have happened. Of course, the civilization needs more orderly storage and disposal, and nuclear waste can be polluting but it is also the thing that is produced by completely natural processes. Some places have higher levels of radioactive radon gas produced by radioactive decay of elements deeper underground.
    - Genbox 4y ago
      > Of course we have to hope for technical advances to convert it to a more manageable form What do you mean by that? Dry-cask storage is very manageable and have been used for decades. > radioactive waste will have to be stored for a million years Uranium-235 is a naturally formed isotope of uranium, and it has a half-life of 703 million years. In a nuclear reactor, U-235 is split into many different fission products such as Caesium-137, Caesium-135, Zirconium-93 and many others. The longest living fission product is Iodine-129, which has a half-life of about 1.57 million years. In essence, we have high-radiation and high half-life isotopes naturally formed everywhere on earth. Once they are mined and burnt in a fission reactor, these stable isotopes are split them into many different isotopes, which last for a shorter amount of time. It is a little bit nonsense to say we need to store it for a million years. It would be the same as saying we currently need to store U-235 for 703 million years. It is all about concentrations and the type of radiation that is emitted. Nuclear waste is not "a problem" - it is a process. Right not it is safe, relatively cheap and somewhat efficient.
- sschueller 4y ago
  The likelihood of a meltdown that causes contamination into the atmosphere at that facility is extremely unlikely even if the reactor is bombed. If power is disrupted, there is 2 weeks of fuel to power the cooling mechanism. If that fails there will be a meltdown inside the reactor but unlike Fukushima there is no possibility of a hydrogen explosion in this type or reactor. The meltdown will be contained in the reactor. If now the reactor is bombed there is a possibility of radiation escaping but it takes a lot. Additionally the winds blow towards Russia so this would be a very foolish endeavor and everyone knows it. The Ukrainians are bombing it because Russia is using it as a launch pad but they also know that a Fukushima or Chernobyl is almost impossible.
- realusername 4y ago
  Ukraine showed that renewable policies are non functional since everybody was using gas as a backup source... The whole war itself is partially due to Germany's dependency to gas
rektide 4y ago
France having gone the extra 2000 miles & building breeder reactors is chef kiss. It's much harder, but using more than 1% or 2% of the energy in the fuel & burning your wastes feels like the only acceptable long term solution. Storing vast quantities of nuclear waste indefinitely, as most reactors do, is something we are still bad at, will probably never be good at, and is a problem that will far outlast any kind of imaginable forseeable future. The only responsible path seemingly available is to burn up transuranics & other waste, to build fast reactors. But that doesnt seem to be where nuclear design has headed. Cheaper plants that externalize the infinitely long storage costs seems to be the reckless path we're on. We should do nuclear, but do it well, that doesnt spawn vast nuclear waste storage problems.
mytailorisrich 4y ago
It's a very good example of long term strategic thinking. They looked at their options and decided that nuclear was the best way to produce the electricity the country needed while keeping a maximum of independence by minimising imports of fossil fuels (especially from 'unreliable' countries), so they went all in and kept to it.
origin_path 4y ago
It is good yes, but, EDF is now basically bankrupt and was in dire straits even before the sanctions on Russia. French energy policy involves making massive losses, so the nuclear may be sustainable from a fossil fuels perspective but financially it's something else.
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  Governments distorting the market do not negate the value of nuclear energy. France have many sectors involving massive loses on purpose, not because they are not economically viable.
- realusername 4y ago
  Well, part of that issue is coming from a requirement to sell electricity below production cost to "competitors"
Ekaros 4y ago
No, they kinda also failed with it. They had the capacity, but they didn't continue to replace it or keep reasonable level of skill for producing new plants. Now the fleet is aging and showing issues all at the same time. I'm not sure there is any countries that have done particularly well with their production or networks. Norway and Sweden both have hydro, but have failed to upgrade their North-South(substantial distance) grids to sufficient capacity.
realusername 4y ago
France has their own issues as well, the greens manage to convince everybody renewables would take over and replace the existing grid, the public is waking up now but it's a bit late to save this winter.

by jmclnx 4y ago

raytube 4y ago

Ukraine shows how fragile and dangerous the reliance on reactors is. If the world can't behave responsibility. The long term costs of nuclear are just crap. You would be better investing in battery tech to store renewable energy.

NoPie 4y ago
Thanks to nuclear Ukraine was (is?) selling electricity to the EU even during this war. Their nuclear power-stations has shown surprising resilience. Long term is exactly where nuclear rules.
- BoardsOfCanada 4y ago
  It'd better be, since the radioactive waste will have to be stored for a million years, which is many times the age of homo sapiens. Of course we have to hope for technical advances to convert it to a more manageable form.
  - ehvatum 4y ago
    > millions of years Ridiculous. From NRC: “ Strontium-90 and cesium-137 have half-lives of about 30 years (half the radioactivity will decay in 30 years). Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years. High-level wastes are hazardous because they produce fatal radiation doses during short periods of direct exposure.” Go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You see people. WEIRD!!!!
    - BoardsOfCanada 4y ago
      You quoted me and changed the text in the quote. Have a look here for a source for a million years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-stag...
  - NoPie 4y ago
    The earth has stored nuclear elements for millions and billions of years. It is thought that in some places naturally occurring nuclear reactors have happened. Of course, the civilization needs more orderly storage and disposal, and nuclear waste can be polluting but it is also the thing that is produced by completely natural processes. Some places have higher levels of radioactive radon gas produced by radioactive decay of elements deeper underground.
  - Genbox 4y ago
    > Of course we have to hope for technical advances to convert it to a more manageable form What do you mean by that? Dry-cask storage is very manageable and have been used for decades. > radioactive waste will have to be stored for a million years Uranium-235 is a naturally formed isotope of uranium, and it has a half-life of 703 million years. In a nuclear reactor, U-235 is split into many different fission products such as Caesium-137, Caesium-135, Zirconium-93 and many others. The longest living fission product is Iodine-129, which has a half-life of about 1.57 million years. In essence, we have high-radiation and high half-life isotopes naturally formed everywhere on earth. Once they are mined and burnt in a fission reactor, these stable isotopes are split them into many different isotopes, which last for a shorter amount of time. It is a little bit nonsense to say we need to store it for a million years. It would be the same as saying we currently need to store U-235 for 703 million years. It is all about concentrations and the type of radiation that is emitted. Nuclear waste is not "a problem" - it is a process. Right not it is safe, relatively cheap and somewhat efficient.
sschueller 4y ago
The likelihood of a meltdown that causes contamination into the atmosphere at that facility is extremely unlikely even if the reactor is bombed. If power is disrupted, there is 2 weeks of fuel to power the cooling mechanism. If that fails there will be a meltdown inside the reactor but unlike Fukushima there is no possibility of a hydrogen explosion in this type or reactor. The meltdown will be contained in the reactor. If now the reactor is bombed there is a possibility of radiation escaping but it takes a lot. Additionally the winds blow towards Russia so this would be a very foolish endeavor and everyone knows it. The Ukrainians are bombing it because Russia is using it as a launch pad but they also know that a Fukushima or Chernobyl is almost impossible.
realusername 4y ago
Ukraine showed that renewable policies are non functional since everybody was using gas as a backup source... The whole war itself is partially due to Germany's dependency to gas

rektide 4y ago

France having gone the extra 2000 miles & building breeder reactors is chef kiss. It's much harder, but using more than 1% or 2% of the energy in the fuel & burning your wastes feels like the only acceptable long term solution. Storing vast quantities of nuclear waste indefinitely, as most reactors do, is something we are still bad at, will probably never be good at, and is a problem that will far outlast any kind of imaginable forseeable future. The only responsible path seemingly available is to burn up transuranics & other waste, to build fast reactors. But that doesnt seem to be where nuclear design has headed. Cheaper plants that externalize the infinitely long storage costs seems to be the reckless path we're on. We should do nuclear, but do it well, that doesnt spawn vast nuclear waste storage problems.

mytailorisrich 4y ago

It's a very good example of long term strategic thinking. They looked at their options and decided that nuclear was the best way to produce the electricity the country needed while keeping a maximum of independence by minimising imports of fossil fuels (especially from 'unreliable' countries), so they went all in and kept to it.

origin_path 4y ago

It is good yes, but, EDF is now basically bankrupt and was in dire straits even before the sanctions on Russia. French energy policy involves making massive losses, so the nuclear may be sustainable from a fossil fuels perspective but financially it's something else.

AdrianB1 4y ago
Governments distorting the market do not negate the value of nuclear energy. France have many sectors involving massive loses on purpose, not because they are not economically viable.
realusername 4y ago
Well, part of that issue is coming from a requirement to sell electricity below production cost to "competitors"

Ekaros 4y ago

No, they kinda also failed with it. They had the capacity, but they didn't continue to replace it or keep reasonable level of skill for producing new plants. Now the fleet is aging and showing issues all at the same time. I'm not sure there is any countries that have done particularly well with their production or networks. Norway and Sweden both have hydro, but have failed to upgrade their North-South(substantial distance) grids to sufficient capacity.

realusername 4y ago

France has their own issues as well, the greens manage to convince everybody renewables would take over and replace the existing grid, the public is waking up now but it's a bit late to save this winter.