4 ms·

'carbon budget' is not the way. If these environmentalists didn't push to shut down the nuclear reactors, we would have more than enough energy. We should be

'carbon budget' is not the way. If these environmentalists didn't push to shut down the nuclear reactors, we would have more than enough energy. We should be set on using more energy, not less and there are plenty of ways to generate it other than burning carbon.

varelse 3y ago
[dead]
Retric 3y ago
It wasn’t environmentalists that killed nuclear but power companies due to them not being economically competitive compared to other investments. In theory it seems like a solid choice, but in practice it simply hasn’t lived up to the promises for a wide range of different reasons. Even China nuclear’s biggest recent success has been fairly anemic. In 2022 they hit 417,800 / 8,388,600 = 5% despite rolling out more nuclear every year since 2008. Back in 2008 there where at 68,394 / 3,481,985 = 2% nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China Meanwhile PV Solar went from 75,256 in 2016 to parity with nuclear in 2022 417,700 GWh/year. Wind was at parity with nuclear in 2012 (97,394 nuclear vs 95,978 wind) but by 2022 it was almost double nuclear at 824,000 GWh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China And that’s in a country with extremely low construction costs and little concern for environmental issues etc.
- aeternum 3y ago
  China is not immune from the international environmentalists. Most of those reactors since 2008 were Westinghouse and thus subject to plenty of (non-Chinese) regulatory pressure. They are now switching to much more modern designs and even successfully demonstrated modular reactors (Huaneng Group Co.) that can basically be dropped into coal plants to convert the to much more environmentally friendly nuclear. It's important to recognize that costs of nuclear in many countries are high because of the environmentalists. It's very easy to generate endless lawsuits, or convince your state/country to shut down perfectly safe reactors just because they are nuclear. This behavior just destroys the value prop. Look at the number of reactors California has shut down, and France's pledge to go from 70% to 50% nuclear by 2035. The environmentalists stage protest after protest, then when they succeed at getting some shutdown they say "oh look, they're not economically viable".
  - Retric 3y ago
    France reduced nuclear due to capacity factor. 70% of the power generated in France was nuclear, but significantly less than 70% of the electricity used in France came from nuclear. They needed to import power in high demand periods and export it in low which at market rates was a large net loss, on top of this they couldn’t export enough so they needed to curtail generation which raised cost per kWh. Other countries installing wind/solar impacts how much nuclear power France can export going forward. Even with the vast subsidies France was willing to supply it’s just hard to justify internally. > It's important to recognize that costs of nuclear in many countries are high because of the environmentalists. It's very easy to generate endless lawsuits, or convince your state/country to shut down perfectly safe reactors just because they are nuclear. This behavior just destroys the value prop. Things aren’t that simple. It’s a long and complicated history with different issues happening at different time periods in different countries. Other countries aren’t like the US, and we ran into capacity factor issues with nuclear. The US stopped adding nuclear largely because increasing demand for electricity stalled out. EV’s might slowly push demand up, but battery backed PV is simply cheaper across most of the US.
    - seec 3y ago
      That's complete nonsense and the fact that France had to import some electricity has everything to do with the massive regulations and environmentalism. Reactors were shut down because of fear mongering (needing "repairs/maintenance" that was not actually needed, and shut downs for a lack of funding and support). Nuclear has been politically dead in France for over 20 years and only recently got a bit a traction (because there is no other choice anyway). In fact, most of the problem in France are due to German environmentalists that successfully imposed laws regarding electricity for the EU. Many of those laws were written purely to make EDF less competitive because otherwise nobody could compete with cheap nuclear energy. The reason France export when electricity is cheap and import when it should be expensive is purely because of regulation. They are forced to sell a fixed amount at fixed low price. So realistically you better do it when the electricity is at the lowest point. In winter thanks to Germany reliance on coal and because of their imposed regulation at Bruxelles they can sell their polluting electricity much cheaper than actual cost (without externalities from CO2). If EDF could compete fair and square it would be completely different. And historically France has always been a net exporter of electricity, way before shitting on the CO2 released by coal was fashionable and way before renewable technology were half viable (they still aren't, no matter the propaganda). From Wikipedia : " Since 1990, each year, France roughly exports 10% of its annual production. Its annual exchange sold has always remained positive.[7] France was the leader in the export of electricity in 2008: 48 TWh followed by Paraguay 46 TWh and Canada 32 TWh.[41]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France And in French, they say in 2019 France was the first electricity exporter in the whole world: "La France était en 2020 le premier pays exportateur d’Europe, par son solde exportateur de 43,2 TWh, et en 2019 le premier pays exportateur au monde, effectuant 17,3 % des exportations mondiales." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_en_France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_en_Franc... You say things are not so simple, they are, you just want to make them complicated for political reasons. Nuclear is an extremely successful technology and without the fear mongering, massive regulation and anti-competitive behavior from Germany it would look even better.

varelse 3y ago

[dead]

Retric 3y ago

It wasn’t environmentalists that killed nuclear but power companies due to them not being economically competitive compared to other investments. In theory it seems like a solid choice, but in practice it simply hasn’t lived up to the promises for a wide range of different reasons. Even China nuclear’s biggest recent success has been fairly anemic. In 2022 they hit 417,800 / 8,388,600 = 5% despite rolling out more nuclear every year since 2008. Back in 2008 there where at 68,394 / 3,481,985 = 2% nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China Meanwhile PV Solar went from 75,256 in 2016 to parity with nuclear in 2022 417,700 GWh/year. Wind was at parity with nuclear in 2012 (97,394 nuclear vs 95,978 wind) but by 2022 it was almost double nuclear at 824,000 GWh. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China And that’s in a country with extremely low construction costs and little concern for environmental issues etc.

aeternum 3y ago
China is not immune from the international environmentalists. Most of those reactors since 2008 were Westinghouse and thus subject to plenty of (non-Chinese) regulatory pressure. They are now switching to much more modern designs and even successfully demonstrated modular reactors (Huaneng Group Co.) that can basically be dropped into coal plants to convert the to much more environmentally friendly nuclear. It's important to recognize that costs of nuclear in many countries are high because of the environmentalists. It's very easy to generate endless lawsuits, or convince your state/country to shut down perfectly safe reactors just because they are nuclear. This behavior just destroys the value prop. Look at the number of reactors California has shut down, and France's pledge to go from 70% to 50% nuclear by 2035. The environmentalists stage protest after protest, then when they succeed at getting some shutdown they say "oh look, they're not economically viable".
- Retric 3y ago
  France reduced nuclear due to capacity factor. 70% of the power generated in France was nuclear, but significantly less than 70% of the electricity used in France came from nuclear. They needed to import power in high demand periods and export it in low which at market rates was a large net loss, on top of this they couldn’t export enough so they needed to curtail generation which raised cost per kWh. Other countries installing wind/solar impacts how much nuclear power France can export going forward. Even with the vast subsidies France was willing to supply it’s just hard to justify internally. > It's important to recognize that costs of nuclear in many countries are high because of the environmentalists. It's very easy to generate endless lawsuits, or convince your state/country to shut down perfectly safe reactors just because they are nuclear. This behavior just destroys the value prop. Things aren’t that simple. It’s a long and complicated history with different issues happening at different time periods in different countries. Other countries aren’t like the US, and we ran into capacity factor issues with nuclear. The US stopped adding nuclear largely because increasing demand for electricity stalled out. EV’s might slowly push demand up, but battery backed PV is simply cheaper across most of the US.
  - seec 3y ago
    That's complete nonsense and the fact that France had to import some electricity has everything to do with the massive regulations and environmentalism. Reactors were shut down because of fear mongering (needing "repairs/maintenance" that was not actually needed, and shut downs for a lack of funding and support). Nuclear has been politically dead in France for over 20 years and only recently got a bit a traction (because there is no other choice anyway). In fact, most of the problem in France are due to German environmentalists that successfully imposed laws regarding electricity for the EU. Many of those laws were written purely to make EDF less competitive because otherwise nobody could compete with cheap nuclear energy. The reason France export when electricity is cheap and import when it should be expensive is purely because of regulation. They are forced to sell a fixed amount at fixed low price. So realistically you better do it when the electricity is at the lowest point. In winter thanks to Germany reliance on coal and because of their imposed regulation at Bruxelles they can sell their polluting electricity much cheaper than actual cost (without externalities from CO2). If EDF could compete fair and square it would be completely different. And historically France has always been a net exporter of electricity, way before shitting on the CO2 released by coal was fashionable and way before renewable technology were half viable (they still aren't, no matter the propaganda). From Wikipedia : " Since 1990, each year, France roughly exports 10% of its annual production. Its annual exchange sold has always remained positive.[7] France was the leader in the export of electricity in 2008: 48 TWh followed by Paraguay 46 TWh and Canada 32 TWh.[41]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France And in French, they say in 2019 France was the first electricity exporter in the whole world: "La France était en 2020 le premier pays exportateur d’Europe, par son solde exportateur de 43,2 TWh, et en 2019 le premier pays exportateur au monde, effectuant 17,3 % des exportations mondiales." https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_en_France https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_en_Franc... You say things are not so simple, they are, you just want to make them complicated for political reasons. Nuclear is an extremely successful technology and without the fear mongering, massive regulation and anti-competitive behavior from Germany it would look even better.