4 ms·

"All nuclear plants rely on government subsidy and externalization of decommissioning costs. In other words -- they're not on the balance sheets. What legit bus

by bzzzt 4y ago

"All nuclear plants rely on government subsidy and externalization of decommissioning costs. In other words -- they're not on the balance sheets. What legit business gets away with that?" Lots. Name one business that has compensate for all of the CO2 their activities have produced when they are going out of business.

pfdietz 4y ago
That argument would have weight if CO2 emission wasn't going the way of slavery. The old generic argument "nuclear because CO2 is bad" doesn't work, because there's now a superior non-fossil alternative. Nuclear rested on its laurels, its supporters thinking it was the only alternative when fossil fuels had to be abandoned, and it's adrift now that it's no longer entitled to be fossil fuel's successor.
- dTal 4y ago
  What's your superior non-fossil alternative? If it's "renewables", I'd love to see your plan for replacing e.g. Gravelines Nuclear Power Station in France with a renewable facility that can generate 5.5 GW for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, including the budget for the (nonexistent) storage technology required to make that happen and the land area it would need.
  - pfdietz 4y ago
    Let's look at the cost of providing synthetic baseload in France with wind + solar + batteries + hydrogen, using real weather data to drive the optimization problem: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ Using 2011 weather data and 2030 cost assumptions (some of which are already met), we get 71 euro/MWh. That's much better than what Flamanville 3 is going to be delivering. Inclusion of hydrogen reduces that cost from 93.1 euro/MWh. Many arguments against renewables assume batteries are to be used instead for long term smoothing, which is a poor choice. 2030 cost assumptions are appropriate because any new nuclear plant started now isn't going to be available before then. Ignoring the cost trajectory of renewables and storage is another common mistake of nuclear advocates, a mistake that nuclear investors cannot allow themselves to indulge in. Indeed, they likely are looking even further ahead, as that nuclear plant has to operate until 2070 or so.

by bzzzt 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

That argument would have weight if CO2 emission wasn't going the way of slavery. The old generic argument "nuclear because CO2 is bad" doesn't work, because there's now a superior non-fossil alternative. Nuclear rested on its laurels, its supporters thinking it was the only alternative when fossil fuels had to be abandoned, and it's adrift now that it's no longer entitled to be fossil fuel's successor.

dTal 4y ago
What's your superior non-fossil alternative? If it's "renewables", I'd love to see your plan for replacing e.g. Gravelines Nuclear Power Station in France with a renewable facility that can generate 5.5 GW for 24 hours a day 365 days a year, including the budget for the (nonexistent) storage technology required to make that happen and the land area it would need.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Let's look at the cost of providing synthetic baseload in France with wind + solar + batteries + hydrogen, using real weather data to drive the optimization problem: https://model.energy/ https://model.energy/ Using 2011 weather data and 2030 cost assumptions (some of which are already met), we get 71 euro/MWh. That's much better than what Flamanville 3 is going to be delivering. Inclusion of hydrogen reduces that cost from 93.1 euro/MWh. Many arguments against renewables assume batteries are to be used instead for long term smoothing, which is a poor choice. 2030 cost assumptions are appropriate because any new nuclear plant started now isn't going to be available before then. Ignoring the cost trajectory of renewables and storage is another common mistake of nuclear advocates, a mistake that nuclear investors cannot allow themselves to indulge in. Indeed, they likely are looking even further ahead, as that nuclear plant has to operate until 2070 or so.