6 ms·

The "very big CO2" problem is another argument against nukes: you displace much more CO2, and notably sooner, by spending the money building out renewables inst

The "very big CO2" problem is another argument against nukes: you displace much more CO2, and notably sooner, by spending the money building out renewables instead. Furthermore, the near-zero opex for renewables frees up more money to build out more renewables and eventually, when needed, storage.

panick21_ 4y ago
Well, France in 15 years made its grid nearly 100% green. For the last 50+ years France had really low energy prices, high energy reliability, an incredibly green grid, no emissions, almost no money going abroad instead supporting high paid technical jobs domestically. The cost for that transformation was mostly on the books of the utility and were being paid down despite the low energy prices they were offering. That a huge success, and any signification technical industrial nation could do the same. France was already going towards that path so if you would replicate it it would likely be 25 years but i that time you could like build 80 much more modern higher utilization reactors. Germany had a Green transformation that with all the subsidies and everything will have cost 100s of million and they still have lots of coal (and their remaining nuclear) and will not have fully solved the problem for quite a while yet. In the time since French built nuclear the Germans mostly paid higher electricity prices and the most recent subsidy for energy prices will cost Germany 100s of billions. Not to mention the huge cost in terms of health and the environment to operate all the coal plants. So had the Germany 'Energiewende' been to go from 30% to 100% nuclear, they could likely have done it in 20 years flat. Assuming a start date of 2000, that would be now. They could be 100% nuclear by now with reliable low cost energy prices, a 100% green grid. I don't think there is really any question if this would have been possible. Germany had all the knowlage and skills required. Even assuming some plants are delayed, they by now could easily finish 8 plants at the same time, they would be done within the next couple of years for sure. This could have been financed easily as well. Assuming they build 50 new reactors (lets say 1.4GWe), assuming a conservative of 5 billion per reactor (prices way lower if you actually mass produce). 250 billion $, that's 6% of their GDP. Germany debt is 60%, and would go to 66%. German 30 year bond yields of 2%. In return they would get assets that would produce green energy reliably at fixed price for literally the next 80-100 years. And that is assuming they do it with mostly the same tech that France did. This would have clear been a superior path for Germany in almost any way you look at it. Their citizens would breath clean air now. They would have reliable low energy prices (as most of the French consumers of nuclear plants still enjoy). And they could tell Russia to go fuck themselves. Likely the would also get contract from the Polish and all over Europe and continue to build them making it a profitable export.
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  You neglect that they would have to be breeder reactors, or run out of fuel. And, that those would cost many times over what the renewables they could build, instead, cost. And would cost overwhelmingly more to operate than their neighbors' renewables. Those neighbors will be selling power at far below the nukes' base operating cost. France would then have to choose between mothballing their reactors and buying neighbors' power, or taxing their own citizens to keep the breeders operating at their radically higher cost. The latter would be an unpopular choice. In summer, of course, the reactors would all need to be shut down in any case, because there is not enough water in the rivers to cool them. France would be buying neighbors' power, then. They could continue, in fall, or spend big bucks to fire up the reactors again. French tolerance for folly has limits.

panick21_ 4y ago

Well, France in 15 years made its grid nearly 100% green. For the last 50+ years France had really low energy prices, high energy reliability, an incredibly green grid, no emissions, almost no money going abroad instead supporting high paid technical jobs domestically. The cost for that transformation was mostly on the books of the utility and were being paid down despite the low energy prices they were offering. That a huge success, and any signification technical industrial nation could do the same. France was already going towards that path so if you would replicate it it would likely be 25 years but i that time you could like build 80 much more modern higher utilization reactors. Germany had a Green transformation that with all the subsidies and everything will have cost 100s of million and they still have lots of coal (and their remaining nuclear) and will not have fully solved the problem for quite a while yet. In the time since French built nuclear the Germans mostly paid higher electricity prices and the most recent subsidy for energy prices will cost Germany 100s of billions. Not to mention the huge cost in terms of health and the environment to operate all the coal plants. So had the Germany 'Energiewende' been to go from 30% to 100% nuclear, they could likely have done it in 20 years flat. Assuming a start date of 2000, that would be now. They could be 100% nuclear by now with reliable low cost energy prices, a 100% green grid. I don't think there is really any question if this would have been possible. Germany had all the knowlage and skills required. Even assuming some plants are delayed, they by now could easily finish 8 plants at the same time, they would be done within the next couple of years for sure. This could have been financed easily as well. Assuming they build 50 new reactors (lets say 1.4GWe), assuming a conservative of 5 billion per reactor (prices way lower if you actually mass produce). 250 billion $, that's 6% of their GDP. Germany debt is 60%, and would go to 66%. German 30 year bond yields of 2%. In return they would get assets that would produce green energy reliably at fixed price for literally the next 80-100 years. And that is assuming they do it with mostly the same tech that France did. This would have clear been a superior path for Germany in almost any way you look at it. Their citizens would breath clean air now. They would have reliable low energy prices (as most of the French consumers of nuclear plants still enjoy). And they could tell Russia to go fuck themselves. Likely the would also get contract from the Polish and all over Europe and continue to build them making it a profitable export.

moloch-hai 4y ago
You neglect that they would have to be breeder reactors, or run out of fuel. And, that those would cost many times over what the renewables they could build, instead, cost. And would cost overwhelmingly more to operate than their neighbors' renewables. Those neighbors will be selling power at far below the nukes' base operating cost. France would then have to choose between mothballing their reactors and buying neighbors' power, or taxing their own citizens to keep the breeders operating at their radically higher cost. The latter would be an unpopular choice. In summer, of course, the reactors would all need to be shut down in any case, because there is not enough water in the rivers to cool them. France would be buying neighbors' power, then. They could continue, in fall, or spend big bucks to fire up the reactors again. French tolerance for folly has limits.