3 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > It's the same reason it was just nationalized. These 'fake private' industries don't make much sense anyway. The energy grid in these countries is centrally planned and was built as such. > The nuclear lobby does share the oil industry's utter disdain both for the environment and environmentalists though They certainty don't hate smart enviornmentalists who have for 50 years tried to move to green energy. Of course they hate the kind of Greenpeace environmentalists who have for 50 years demonized the industry with absurd claims. > The greens never had enough political power to do that. Go and learn your history. The Greens in coalition with the left made it a explicit point to kill Superphénix. > 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. And yet every single time in the last 5 years I have gone to electricity map I see France in a green color and Germany in a brown color. Amazing how France has been able to have a green grid when Germany was literally just coal. CO2 saved in the past is far more important then CO2 saved now. What France did in the 70-90s is what everybody could have done and we would have non of the problems we have now. Not to mention the 100000s of people who suffering from health defects and early deaths because of the greens implicit protected coal. > 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. Carbon intensity in Germany right now: 316g (we are literally talking middle of the day with massive solar) Carbon intensity in France right now: 65g Oh btw, France right now is exporting green power to Germany. Its amazing how ignorant people can be. Look at France transformation in the 70-90s and how much nuclear they built how quickly. That was with 1960 technology. Germany from 2000-2020 could have been significantly faster with newer technology. Its absolutly absurd to suggest that Germany from 2000-2020 couldn't have built 40 nuclear reactors. Had they been serious they could have built double that. You can even just built them at current location of coal plants and then turn of those coal plants once the reactor is done, minimal disruption of the overall grid. And again, you constant claim of '5x' as expensive simply doesn't hold up if you are mass producing plants. Its just nonsense. You are concluding from individual projects that were built in isolation in countries that had lost experience.

by pydry 4y ago

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.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > It's the same reason it was just nationalized. These 'fake private' industries don't make much sense anyway. The energy grid in these countries is centrally planned and was built as such. > The nuclear lobby does share the oil industry's utter disdain both for the environment and environmentalists though They certainty don't hate smart enviornmentalists who have for 50 years tried to move to green energy. Of course they hate the kind of Greenpeace environmentalists who have for 50 years demonized the industry with absurd claims. > The greens never had enough political power to do that. Go and learn your history. The Greens in coalition with the left made it a explicit point to kill Superphénix. > 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. And yet every single time in the last 5 years I have gone to electricity map I see France in a green color and Germany in a brown color. Amazing how France has been able to have a green grid when Germany was literally just coal. CO2 saved in the past is far more important then CO2 saved now. What France did in the 70-90s is what everybody could have done and we would have non of the problems we have now. Not to mention the 100000s of people who suffering from health defects and early deaths because of the greens implicit protected coal. > 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. Carbon intensity in Germany right now: 316g (we are literally talking middle of the day with massive solar) Carbon intensity in France right now: 65g Oh btw, France right now is exporting green power to Germany. Its amazing how ignorant people can be. Look at France transformation in the 70-90s and how much nuclear they built how quickly. That was with 1960 technology. Germany from 2000-2020 could have been significantly faster with newer technology. Its absolutly absurd to suggest that Germany from 2000-2020 couldn't have built 40 nuclear reactors. Had they been serious they could have built double that. You can even just built them at current location of coal plants and then turn of those coal plants once the reactor is done, minimal disruption of the overall grid. And again, you constant claim of '5x' as expensive simply doesn't hold up if you are mass producing plants. Its just nonsense. You are concluding from individual projects that were built in isolation in countries that had lost experience.