2 ms·

I think whether we should build new nuclear plants is a question that can be discussed between reasonable people. On the other hand, shutting down nuclear plant

by tormeh 4y ago

I think whether we should build new nuclear plants is a question that can be discussed between reasonable people. On the other hand, shutting down nuclear plants while there are still fossil fuel plants in operation seems ill-advised to me.

dathinab 4y ago
Note that most nuclear power plants are so old that they _need_ to be shut down or they will become a risk. After Fukushima the shutdown of some of them was pulled up by a small amount of years, undoing that decision does make sense and should be done (and somewhat had been done in a roundabout way where the one side can pretend they didn't do it and the other side can complain they didn't do it but should it matter its basically as if the did it). The problem is that they use the situation as an excuse to push other things which are neither necessary nor sane.
cauch 4y ago
The situation is of course more complicated than that. The grid is like a big Tetris board, and nuclear power plants are big multi-prong pieces: they can be good to cover a large surface, but sometimes, they block situations were a better configuration (which is at the end cleaner) is possible. For example, the evolution of the grid may make a specific nuclear power plant not totally needed (because this region can now get cheap import, because the heavy industries in this area have changed, ...) while still expensive to maintain. In this case, shutting it down is a good idea. Another example, if you say "yeah, maybe we will built a nuclear power plant there, maybe, who knows", the risk of investing in a renewable power plant that would replace a dirty power plant may be not attractive to investors, and the dirty power plant will continue for years. But if you say you will exit the nuclear, then the renewable power plant is suddenly very attractive and the dirty power plant can, at the end of the process, be replaced. Another example, the grid needs a balance between production and demand, but demand is not flat during the day, there are peaks. Nuclear power plants, especially the not recent ones, may not efficiently produce non-flat production. In this case, the grid can evolve in a situation where too much "flat production" exists, and where a "flat production" power plant is the one that is not competitive anymore due to the maintenance costs. ...
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Again, it's a matter of investment. Keeping the old nuke running for ten more years costs more and winds up being less reliable than a new wind farm. The moral is 'don't let your leader gut zero carbon investment for a 'job' in the gas industry'. Not 'spend your limited zero carbon investment in a much worse way'.

by tormeh 4y ago

dathinab 4y ago

Note that most nuclear power plants are so old that they _need_ to be shut down or they will become a risk. After Fukushima the shutdown of some of them was pulled up by a small amount of years, undoing that decision does make sense and should be done (and somewhat had been done in a roundabout way where the one side can pretend they didn't do it and the other side can complain they didn't do it but should it matter its basically as if the did it). The problem is that they use the situation as an excuse to push other things which are neither necessary nor sane.

cauch 4y ago

The situation is of course more complicated than that. The grid is like a big Tetris board, and nuclear power plants are big multi-prong pieces: they can be good to cover a large surface, but sometimes, they block situations were a better configuration (which is at the end cleaner) is possible. For example, the evolution of the grid may make a specific nuclear power plant not totally needed (because this region can now get cheap import, because the heavy industries in this area have changed, ...) while still expensive to maintain. In this case, shutting it down is a good idea. Another example, if you say "yeah, maybe we will built a nuclear power plant there, maybe, who knows", the risk of investing in a renewable power plant that would replace a dirty power plant may be not attractive to investors, and the dirty power plant will continue for years. But if you say you will exit the nuclear, then the renewable power plant is suddenly very attractive and the dirty power plant can, at the end of the process, be replaced. Another example, the grid needs a balance between production and demand, but demand is not flat during the day, there are peaks. Nuclear power plants, especially the not recent ones, may not efficiently produce non-flat production. In this case, the grid can evolve in a situation where too much "flat production" exists, and where a "flat production" power plant is the one that is not competitive anymore due to the maintenance costs. ...

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Again, it's a matter of investment. Keeping the old nuke running for ten more years costs more and winds up being less reliable than a new wind farm. The moral is 'don't let your leader gut zero carbon investment for a 'job' in the gas industry'. Not 'spend your limited zero carbon investment in a much worse way'.