5 ms·

We need more nuclear power plants and we need them yesterday, there is no other mid term solution for the ongoing/coming energy crisis. The problem is that repl

We need more nuclear power plants and we need them yesterday, there is no other mid term solution for the ongoing/coming energy crisis. The problem is that replacing old nuclear power plants (or building new ones) takes many years, time we don’t have… Let’s see how this situation evolves.

koheripbal 4y ago
Good luck with that in Germany. The cabinet member in charge of energy is literally a former Greenpeace executive who doubled down on closing the three remaining plants in Germany THIS YEAR. German is insane.
- _ph_ 4y ago
  What you write ist plain untrue. The cabinet member who is a former Greenpeace executive is part of the foreign ministry, the job is to talk to other countries about actions against the climate change. In no way is she responsible for the German energy politics. And please refrain from calling a whole country as insane, especially based on wrong information.
  - anm89 4y ago
    So Germany is sane? People freezing to death in the richest country in the EU because it doesn't feel nice to admit that addressing your needs involves tradeoffs doesn't seem very sane to me.
    - _ph_ 4y ago
      Yes, Germany is sane. And no one is freezing to death here. The gas storages are almost filled (91%), so Germany won't run out of gas. I don't know why people need to tell so many lies about the German situtation at the moment. Yes, severe mistakes have been made in the past, mostly to have such a large dependency on Russia. But no need to invent things.
      - anm89 4y ago
        It's September ...
        _ph_ 4y ago
        Yes and? Gas consumption for heating is going to rise, but that is only one part. Germany has storage for 3 full months and of course the gas deliveries to Germany are going to continue and being intensified. There is no reason to assume that Germany would run out of gas. (And of course, private heating would be cut last, so no danger of freezing, if there every were any in Germany)
pmlnr 4y ago
Yeah... about that. I was completely pro-nuclear until very recently, when I learnt that: - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel - even France is getting their from Kazahstan So in light of these: more solar and wind, combined with possibly metan generation to store it as per https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-need-a-lot-of-solar-panels/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-...
- oneoff786 4y ago
  Kazakhstan is not part of Russia. Russia appears to be a very small supplier? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium...
  - tschwimmer 4y ago
    Uranium != nuclear fuel. Uranium has to be processed and enriched for use in reactors. I wouldn't be surprised if your list is raw, mined uranium and Russia imports and processes it.
    - oneoff786 4y ago
      At a glance, Russia does not appear to be a noteworthy importer of uranium ore. I would be somewhat surprised to learn Russia is exporting large quantities of enriched uranium across the globe.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water That very much depends on specific technology and is not inherent in all nuclear. If and how much water is needed depends very much on what and where you are building. If we were not stuck with technology from 1960 this wouldn't have been an issue for decades, but instead of innovating the last 40 years nuclear industry had to fight a battle for survival and with very little research. > - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel This is because Russia had a explicit policy of underbidding nuclear everybody in nuclear fuel providing. This is not inevitable, there is plenty of nuclear material in lots of places and many places that can make fuel. Nuclear fuel is far easier to transport then gas.
pydry 4y ago
>We need more nuclear power plants They're 5x more expensive than wind and solar and about 2x more expensive than a wind+solar+pumped storage combo. In France their capacity factor has declined to ~72% which is only about 5% above the best wind farms. What's the up side? I dont see it any more. It's an overpriced means of generating electricity that is slightly less variable that has a lead time of 19.5 years more than a solar farm.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  This 5x number is nonsense. Its generalizing for a few projects that happened in a time when there was very limited constructionist and because of 40 years of neglect not even a workforce that was available. > wind+solar+pumped storage combo Pumped storage is available in most places. And there is literally no alternative. Its insane to build a society on a technology that if something goes wrong, society only has 1-2 days of electricity storage. > In France their capacity factor has declined to ~72% which is only about 5% above the best wind farms. The best windfarms that only exist in a few places and is certainty not generally that high. An France this year had some issues that happened because nuclear was neglected for years as their leadership jumped on the all renewables trend. France had advanced reactors in the 90s and guess what, instead of building them they were killed in the endless attempted by some forces (usually greens and left) to prevent nuclear from happening. Had France simply build 3-5 of those plants they had ready in the late 90s they would be amazing by now. > slightly less variable Is actually much less variable if you look at it in totality. > lead time of 19.5 years Again this is just generalizing from the worst possible example. If a country actually commits to building a significant amount of plants rather then a single project that constantly on the verge of being canceled things look quite different. Had Germany in 2000 simply started to build as many reactors as possible they would be finishing them at many a year now and building them at a rate of 4-5 years a pop. They would be far more green and far more reliably then what they have actually managed with their green revolution (and huge investment in gas).
  - pydry 4y ago
    >This 5x number is nonsense. Sadly it doesnt surprise me that youre surprised. You ought to check lazard for a full LCOE comparison. I didnt just make it up. >France had advanced reactors in the 90s and guess what, instead of building them they were killed in the endless attempted by some forces (usually greens and left) to prevent nuclear from happening. The greens never had enough political power to do that. Cost was the only reason France's nuclear industry struggled. It's the same reason it was just nationalized. The nuclear lobby does share the oil industry's utter disdain both for the environment and environmentalists though, something it has apparently passed on to some of its more enthusiastic supporters. It is so very, very obvious how much they hate the Germans with a for proving nuclear power doesnt need to be part of any green transition, for instance. This why certain groups will never shut up about the "environmental damage" done by Germany shutting down just two nuclear plants and never even mention Poland being 80% coal fired. >Had Germany in 2000 simply started to build as many reactors as possible Then theyd have run out of money. It's a good thing they didnt choose the 5x more expensive, slightly more dangerous and slower option. Unlike the nuclear industry they gave half a damn about global warming. Maybe if Poland did the same thing they wouldnt be 80% coal powered.

koheripbal 4y ago

Good luck with that in Germany. The cabinet member in charge of energy is literally a former Greenpeace executive who doubled down on closing the three remaining plants in Germany THIS YEAR. German is insane.

_ph_ 4y ago
What you write ist plain untrue. The cabinet member who is a former Greenpeace executive is part of the foreign ministry, the job is to talk to other countries about actions against the climate change. In no way is she responsible for the German energy politics. And please refrain from calling a whole country as insane, especially based on wrong information.
- anm89 4y ago
  So Germany is sane? People freezing to death in the richest country in the EU because it doesn't feel nice to admit that addressing your needs involves tradeoffs doesn't seem very sane to me.
  - _ph_ 4y ago
    Yes, Germany is sane. And no one is freezing to death here. The gas storages are almost filled (91%), so Germany won't run out of gas. I don't know why people need to tell so many lies about the German situtation at the moment. Yes, severe mistakes have been made in the past, mostly to have such a large dependency on Russia. But no need to invent things.
    - anm89 4y ago
      It's September ...
      - _ph_ 4y ago
        Yes and? Gas consumption for heating is going to rise, but that is only one part. Germany has storage for 3 full months and of course the gas deliveries to Germany are going to continue and being intensified. There is no reason to assume that Germany would run out of gas. (And of course, private heating would be cut last, so no danger of freezing, if there every were any in Germany)

pmlnr 4y ago

Yeah... about that. I was completely pro-nuclear until very recently, when I learnt that: - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel - even France is getting their from Kazahstan So in light of these: more solar and wind, combined with possibly metan generation to store it as per https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-need-a-lot-of-solar-panels/ https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/22/were-going-to-...

oneoff786 4y ago
Kazakhstan is not part of Russia. Russia appears to be a very small supplier? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium_production https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_uranium...
- tschwimmer 4y ago
  Uranium != nuclear fuel. Uranium has to be processed and enriched for use in reactors. I wouldn't be surprised if your list is raw, mined uranium and Russia imports and processes it.
  - oneoff786 4y ago
    At a glance, Russia does not appear to be a noteworthy importer of uranium ore. I would be somewhat surprised to learn Russia is exporting large quantities of enriched uranium across the globe.
panick21_ 4y ago
> - the summer droughts caused nuclear reactors to stop due to the lack of water That very much depends on specific technology and is not inherent in all nuclear. If and how much water is needed depends very much on what and where you are building. If we were not stuck with technology from 1960 this wouldn't have been an issue for decades, but instead of innovating the last 40 years nuclear industry had to fight a battle for survival and with very little research. > - russia provides ~40% of ALL nuclear fuel This is because Russia had a explicit policy of underbidding nuclear everybody in nuclear fuel providing. This is not inevitable, there is plenty of nuclear material in lots of places and many places that can make fuel. Nuclear fuel is far easier to transport then gas.

pydry 4y ago

>We need more nuclear power plants They're 5x more expensive than wind and solar and about 2x more expensive than a wind+solar+pumped storage combo. In France their capacity factor has declined to ~72% which is only about 5% above the best wind farms. What's the up side? I dont see it any more. It's an overpriced means of generating electricity that is slightly less variable that has a lead time of 19.5 years more than a solar farm.

panick21_ 4y ago
This 5x number is nonsense. Its generalizing for a few projects that happened in a time when there was very limited constructionist and because of 40 years of neglect not even a workforce that was available. > wind+solar+pumped storage combo Pumped storage is available in most places. And there is literally no alternative. Its insane to build a society on a technology that if something goes wrong, society only has 1-2 days of electricity storage. > In France their capacity factor has declined to ~72% which is only about 5% above the best wind farms. The best windfarms that only exist in a few places and is certainty not generally that high. An France this year had some issues that happened because nuclear was neglected for years as their leadership jumped on the all renewables trend. France had advanced reactors in the 90s and guess what, instead of building them they were killed in the endless attempted by some forces (usually greens and left) to prevent nuclear from happening. Had France simply build 3-5 of those plants they had ready in the late 90s they would be amazing by now. > slightly less variable Is actually much less variable if you look at it in totality. > lead time of 19.5 years Again this is just generalizing from the worst possible example. If a country actually commits to building a significant amount of plants rather then a single project that constantly on the verge of being canceled things look quite different. Had Germany in 2000 simply started to build as many reactors as possible they would be finishing them at many a year now and building them at a rate of 4-5 years a pop. They would be far more green and far more reliably then what they have actually managed with their green revolution (and huge investment in gas).
- pydry 4y ago
  >This 5x number is nonsense. Sadly it doesnt surprise me that youre surprised. You ought to check lazard for a full LCOE comparison. I didnt just make it up. >France had advanced reactors in the 90s and guess what, instead of building them they were killed in the endless attempted by some forces (usually greens and left) to prevent nuclear from happening. The greens never had enough political power to do that. Cost was the only reason France's nuclear industry struggled. It's the same reason it was just nationalized. The nuclear lobby does share the oil industry's utter disdain both for the environment and environmentalists though, something it has apparently passed on to some of its more enthusiastic supporters. It is so very, very obvious how much they hate the Germans with a for proving nuclear power doesnt need to be part of any green transition, for instance. This why certain groups will never shut up about the "environmental damage" done by Germany shutting down just two nuclear plants and never even mention Poland being 80% coal fired. >Had Germany in 2000 simply started to build as many reactors as possible Then theyd have run out of money. It's a good thing they didnt choose the 5x more expensive, slightly more dangerous and slower option. Unlike the nuclear industry they gave half a damn about global warming. Maybe if Poland did the same thing they wouldnt be 80% coal powered.