4 ms·

Could someone who disagrees with the above comment explain what’s wrong with it? Edit: it was downvoted but seems to have come back up.

epistasis 3y ago
I didn't disagree with the comment, but I fear that pro-nuclear advocates have become almost as irrational as the far more irrational anti-nuclear advocates that they fight against all the time. Wrestling with pigs makes you muddy too, after all. Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself anti-nuclear according to any of the standard anti-nuke arguments, and was extremely pro-nuclear power in the US in the 2000s. However the experiences of advanced economies with very high productivity and labor costs (France, US, Finland) have completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear in the future, as the tech doesn't work that well and is very expensive. Even the country very best at construction, China, is only planning another 50GW or so, which is a tiny tiny fraction of any other new energy source that they are investing in. And if the best in the world at large construction projects is only putting in a token effort, I don't know why we in the US, who suck at large construction, should attempt more boondoggles. And in researching the history of nuclear, I find that it has always been this way, not so great. I think it only gets ardent supporters these days because of its prominence in SF.
Krssst 3y ago
> since at times more then half of it’s nuclear power plants are off-line Happened a few times only in 2022 because of covid + an issue affecting many plants being discovered as far as I know. Now being fixed. Otherwise worked pretty well for decades. NREs being extremely often at <50% capacity, even practically zero in windless nights, is expected behavior.
tinco 3y ago
Because it's a ridiculous comment. France has been relying on nuclear power for a huge chunk of their national energy use for over 50 years. France is nuclear power greatest success story. The amount years of improved air quality, the enormous amount of CO2 prevented, the relative political independence of France, all of these are taken for granted without measure. And then the counter argument is that they recently stopped? How is that an argument against nuclear power? The reason they're relying on German coal right now is because they stopped building new nuclear plants because gas was too cheap, there was too much geopolitical stability for it to be strategically advantageous and it was not politically attractive to spend money on. None of these are arguments against nuclear, but the results of short sighted decisions. Nuclear is only more expensive than gas if you don't count the effect on climate, the dependence on oil producing nations, the health effects of airborne particles.
- rtpg 3y ago
  France is a nuclear success story, but they're also a good indicator that even when you're all bought in, there are logistics difficulties that come from your power generation being centralized to certain locations. France has like 80% nuclear power, and most of the nuclear plants are actually underutilized! Why would France not use the plants at 100%? Because electricity is kind of fungible, except at massive scales where it totally isn't, and you can't "just" have power generated in the south be used in the north. Nuclear is more expensive than gas, but once again it is worth pointing out that it is more expensive than solar and wind! Does this mean that we can replace all of the reactors with solar or wind? Obviously not. But if you're sitting there trying to produce energy in places that are not as close to the existing reactors, building energy production facilities that don't take decades to build (for "building big things takes time" reasons) and can work without a constant inflow of water (which is a practical and real concern for these power plants).
  - preisschild 3y ago
    > France has like 80% nuclear power, and most of the nuclear plants are actually underutilized! Why would France not use the plants at 100%? Because more electricity is needed in during certain times, like during the day or when it's winter.
    - rtpg 3y ago
      But that's the point, really. Nuclear reactors are not economical if you're not really going for it, so in an environment where you are relying heavily on nuclear reactors, suddenly your entire endeavor is not very practical without massive state aid. This is less of a problem in other places that have less nuclear power setup because they can be used to cover the baseline. Now, EDF is turning off reactors over the weekend cuz the power isn't needed, and in periods of high demand EDF doesn't actually have the capacity, because they don't have much peak generation! Building more nuclear plants to cover peaks would make everything even more expensive, And decomissioning reactors entirely would cause their own massive issues because, again, electricity generation is not fungible. One would (correctly!) point that most renewables don't help with peak generation either, and you would be right. But if you're planning on decomissioning a nuclear power plant, replacing some of that capacity with renewables at least gets your operating costs down. And energy storage solutions that are more fungible... well... you walk and chew bubble gum. Use what you have, and build what makes sense. Just in 2023 your choices for clean power generation for energy storage are vast.

epistasis 3y ago

I didn't disagree with the comment, but I fear that pro-nuclear advocates have become almost as irrational as the far more irrational anti-nuclear advocates that they fight against all the time. Wrestling with pigs makes you muddy too, after all. Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself anti-nuclear according to any of the standard anti-nuke arguments, and was extremely pro-nuclear power in the US in the 2000s. However the experiences of advanced economies with very high productivity and labor costs (France, US, Finland) have completely soured me on the possibility of nuclear in the future, as the tech doesn't work that well and is very expensive. Even the country very best at construction, China, is only planning another 50GW or so, which is a tiny tiny fraction of any other new energy source that they are investing in. And if the best in the world at large construction projects is only putting in a token effort, I don't know why we in the US, who suck at large construction, should attempt more boondoggles. And in researching the history of nuclear, I find that it has always been this way, not so great. I think it only gets ardent supporters these days because of its prominence in SF.

Krssst 3y ago

> since at times more then half of it’s nuclear power plants are off-line Happened a few times only in 2022 because of covid + an issue affecting many plants being discovered as far as I know. Now being fixed. Otherwise worked pretty well for decades. NREs being extremely often at <50% capacity, even practically zero in windless nights, is expected behavior.

tinco 3y ago

Because it's a ridiculous comment. France has been relying on nuclear power for a huge chunk of their national energy use for over 50 years. France is nuclear power greatest success story. The amount years of improved air quality, the enormous amount of CO2 prevented, the relative political independence of France, all of these are taken for granted without measure. And then the counter argument is that they recently stopped? How is that an argument against nuclear power? The reason they're relying on German coal right now is because they stopped building new nuclear plants because gas was too cheap, there was too much geopolitical stability for it to be strategically advantageous and it was not politically attractive to spend money on. None of these are arguments against nuclear, but the results of short sighted decisions. Nuclear is only more expensive than gas if you don't count the effect on climate, the dependence on oil producing nations, the health effects of airborne particles.

rtpg 3y ago
France is a nuclear success story, but they're also a good indicator that even when you're all bought in, there are logistics difficulties that come from your power generation being centralized to certain locations. France has like 80% nuclear power, and most of the nuclear plants are actually underutilized! Why would France not use the plants at 100%? Because electricity is kind of fungible, except at massive scales where it totally isn't, and you can't "just" have power generated in the south be used in the north. Nuclear is more expensive than gas, but once again it is worth pointing out that it is more expensive than solar and wind! Does this mean that we can replace all of the reactors with solar or wind? Obviously not. But if you're sitting there trying to produce energy in places that are not as close to the existing reactors, building energy production facilities that don't take decades to build (for "building big things takes time" reasons) and can work without a constant inflow of water (which is a practical and real concern for these power plants).
- preisschild 3y ago
  > France has like 80% nuclear power, and most of the nuclear plants are actually underutilized! Why would France not use the plants at 100%? Because more electricity is needed in during certain times, like during the day or when it's winter.
  - rtpg 3y ago
    But that's the point, really. Nuclear reactors are not economical if you're not really going for it, so in an environment where you are relying heavily on nuclear reactors, suddenly your entire endeavor is not very practical without massive state aid. This is less of a problem in other places that have less nuclear power setup because they can be used to cover the baseline. Now, EDF is turning off reactors over the weekend cuz the power isn't needed, and in periods of high demand EDF doesn't actually have the capacity, because they don't have much peak generation! Building more nuclear plants to cover peaks would make everything even more expensive, And decomissioning reactors entirely would cause their own massive issues because, again, electricity generation is not fungible. One would (correctly!) point that most renewables don't help with peak generation either, and you would be right. But if you're planning on decomissioning a nuclear power plant, replacing some of that capacity with renewables at least gets your operating costs down. And energy storage solutions that are more fungible... well... you walk and chew bubble gum. Use what you have, and build what makes sense. Just in 2023 your choices for clean power generation for energy storage are vast.