6 ms·

No mention of France, who have lower emissions. They just never went up as much, because they converted to nuclear much earlier.

adrianN 3y ago
France is currently reducing the share of nuclear in favor of renewable energy. They don’t plan to build enough new reactors to even replace what they currently have and electricity demand will increase a lot in the future as transportation, heating and industry are switched away from fossil fuels.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  This was the plan a couple of years ago. Didn't work out, so it is no longer the plan. They are still investing somewhat in renewables, mostly off-shore wind, but the focus has shifted back to nuclear expansion.
  - adrianN 3y ago
    Oh yeah? How many new reactors are they planning to build in the next twenty years? How many reach EOL in that time?
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      Oh yeah? Oh yeah! 6 initially, 8 more after that. And they will extend the life of their existing fleet. "Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels" https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-nuclear-renaissance-to-end-the-france-s-reliance-on-fossil-fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n... "At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero" https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla...
      - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
        Political grandstanding in the face of reality. > Schneider: Most of them are countries that are already operating nuclear power plants and have their own interest in trying to drag money support, most of which by the way would go into their current fleets. Take EDF [France’s state-owned utility company], for example. Through the French government, EDF is lobbying like mad to get support from the European Union—European taxpayers’ money—for its current fleet. It’s not even for new construction, because the French know that they won’t do much until 2040 anyway. There is also another aspect that is related and that illustrates how this pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic. > The pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity is not to be discussed first in terms of pros or cons, but from the point of view of feasibility. And from this point of view, just looking at the numbers, it’s impossible. We are talking about a target date of 2050, which is 27 years from now. In terms of nuclear development, that’s tomorrow morning. If we look at what happened in the industry over the past 20 years since 2003, there have been 103 new nuclear reactors starting operation. But there have been also 110 that closed operation up until mid 2023. Overall, it’s a slightly negative balance. It’s not even positive. Now if you consider the fact that 50 of those new reactors that were connected to the grid were in China alone and that China closed none, the world outside China experienced a negative balance of 57 reactors over the past 20 years. https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/ https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneid... Meanwhile China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor. https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718
        mpweiher 3y ago
        Yeah, "anti nuclear advocate Mycle Schneider pooh poohs most recent move towards more nuclear" probably isn't the grand revelation you make it out to be. The fact that most of the world under-invested in nuclear the last two decades or so is well-known. Extrapolating past trends linearly into the future is ... unwise. Particularly when there has been a significant policy shift, not in small part due to the disaster of the German "Energiewende". The Tragedy of Germany’s Energy Experiment https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-ger... Germany’s Energiewende: A Disaster In The Making https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/germanys-energiewende-a-disaster-in-the-making/ https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/germanys-energiewende-a... Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later https://www.americanexperiment.org/germanys-energy-disaster-20-years-later/ https://www.americanexperiment.org/germanys-energy-disaster-... Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germanys-energy-crisis-dispels-several-myths/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany... "Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy." As for China: "As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China That is almost a tripling in both numbers and capacity. Because you need some reliable power.
  - mp05 3y ago
    My life at the holiday table has gotten easier when someone inevitably brings up climate change in whatever capacity. I simply state that, until the mainstream consensus is "build the hell out of nuke plants", I don't want to hear about it. As cool as it was to strap DC motors to your car, they still rely on a carbon-fueled grid and I'm still amazed at the horror on some faces when reminded of the fact. Anyway, another example of France keeping it real yet again.
    - matthewdgreen 3y ago
      “Build the hell out of nuclear plants” isn’t going to have any impact, and having this attitude means you aren’t informed about the state of the world. There are two types of energy technology right now: those that can be constructed in a factory and deployed on an exponential curve (so far that’s solar and wind, and maybe battery storage in the future) and those that aren’t on this trajectory. Unless someone figures out modular reactors, and gets them deployed by the thousands quickly, nuclear isn’t going to matter. This chart (which I keep posting, apologies HN) helps to illustrate the dynamic: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-Dec-19-2023-7-30-19-AM.jpeg?rlkey=02v59xv0aqhiuwrdl2fgvs7e6&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-De...
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        1. That turns out not to be the case. Yes, nuclear currently is not built very efficiently, but the efficiency of the plants is so amazing that they are quite competitive. 2. There are several companies that are planning to build reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce is one. I was wondering where they're going to put all those reactors, and the only reasonable answer I could find was upgrading old coal plants. In fact, that appears to be exactly the plan: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-to-build-mini-nukes-in-ukraine/ar-AA1lDv0n https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-t... Pretty cool, when you think of it: all that big and heavy custom infrastructure is already in place. The reactor is built in a factory and shipped there. And there are a LOT of coal powered plants in the world about to be or already decommissioned.
- realusername 3y ago
  > France is currently reducing the share of nuclear in favor of renewable energy. That was the plan indeed until about 2020 when they realised that renewables could not sustain the French demand. The Russian war was the final nail in the coffin of the all renewable plan. The law reducing the share of nuclear then got scrapped and the custom electricity market applied there negociated in the EU designed to prop-up competitors is in grand danger of being scrapped as well.
ponorin 3y ago
... except the carbon intensity (carbon emission per electricity generated) of France stayed basically flat throughout the last 20 years, and it actually slightly increased in 2022 compared to years before, likely due to corrosion issues in reactors and droughts which led to reduced nuclear output. Are they being complacent because they already are "ahead of the game?" Also I find it interesting that Germany gets the brunt of the critic for not using nuclear even though they managed to steadily reduce carbon intensity (at least pre covid) of their grid, meanwhile Japan, whose carbon intensity shot up after 2011 because of a certain event and still hasn't returned to pre-2011 level, gets a pass since it apparently killed no people with radiation during the process.
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  > except the carbon intensity (carbon emission per electricity generated) of France stayed basically flat throughout the last 20 years, and it actually slightly increased in 2022 compared to years before, likely due to corrosion issues in reactors and droughts which led to reduced nuclear output. Are they being complacent because they already are "ahead of the game?" Well, it stayed flat because it was already very low to begin with. Only Sweden was below that, and they are the only countries which didn't "improve". See [0] for the CO2 emissions to produce 1 kWh of electricity in the EU. It stops at 2020, so it doesn't say anything about your point on 2022. But it shows that Germany, even though they reduced CO2 emissions by a hefty amount, are still quite terrible compared to France, emitting more than three times the CO2 per kWh. [0] https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-du-climat-decembre-2022/en/10-ghg-emissions-from-the-energy https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi...
ZeroGravitas 3y ago
You are clearly talking about only electricity production. The article is talking about all sectors. The UK and France have both reduced their per capita intensity over the last few decades but after an early lead by France, the UK has caught up and may well overtake.

adrianN 3y ago

France is currently reducing the share of nuclear in favor of renewable energy. They don’t plan to build enough new reactors to even replace what they currently have and electricity demand will increase a lot in the future as transportation, heating and industry are switched away from fossil fuels.

mpweiher 3y ago
This was the plan a couple of years ago. Didn't work out, so it is no longer the plan. They are still investing somewhat in renewables, mostly off-shore wind, but the focus has shifted back to nuclear expansion.
- adrianN 3y ago
  Oh yeah? How many new reactors are they planning to build in the next twenty years? How many reach EOL in that time?
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    Oh yeah? Oh yeah! 6 initially, 8 more after that. And they will extend the life of their existing fleet. "Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels" https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-nuclear-renaissance-to-end-the-france-s-reliance-on-fossil-fuels https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n... "At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero" https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-declaration-triple-nuclear-energy-capacity-2050-recognizing-key https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla...
    - ViewTrick1002 3y ago
      Political grandstanding in the face of reality. > Schneider: Most of them are countries that are already operating nuclear power plants and have their own interest in trying to drag money support, most of which by the way would go into their current fleets. Take EDF [France’s state-owned utility company], for example. Through the French government, EDF is lobbying like mad to get support from the European Union—European taxpayers’ money—for its current fleet. It’s not even for new construction, because the French know that they won’t do much until 2040 anyway. There is also another aspect that is related and that illustrates how this pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic. > The pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity is not to be discussed first in terms of pros or cons, but from the point of view of feasibility. And from this point of view, just looking at the numbers, it’s impossible. We are talking about a target date of 2050, which is 27 years from now. In terms of nuclear development, that’s tomorrow morning. If we look at what happened in the industry over the past 20 years since 2003, there have been 103 new nuclear reactors starting operation. But there have been also 110 that closed operation up until mid 2023. Overall, it’s a slightly negative balance. It’s not even positive. Now if you consider the fact that 50 of those new reactors that were connected to the grid were in China alone and that China closed none, the world outside China experienced a negative balance of 57 reactors over the past 20 years. https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneider-on-the-cop28-pledge-to-triple-nuclear-energy-production-trumpism-enters-energy-policy/ https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneid... Meanwhile China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor. https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718 https://twitter.com/yo_ean/status/1718633487454904718
      - mpweiher 3y ago
        Yeah, "anti nuclear advocate Mycle Schneider pooh poohs most recent move towards more nuclear" probably isn't the grand revelation you make it out to be. The fact that most of the world under-invested in nuclear the last two decades or so is well-known. Extrapolating past trends linearly into the future is ... unwise. Particularly when there has been a significant policy shift, not in small part due to the disaster of the German "Energiewende". The Tragedy of Germany’s Energy Experiment https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-germany.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-ger... Germany’s Energiewende: A Disaster In The Making https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/germanys-energiewende-a-disaster-in-the-making/ https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/germanys-energiewende-a... Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later https://www.americanexperiment.org/germanys-energy-disaster-20-years-later/ https://www.americanexperiment.org/germanys-energy-disaster-... Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germanys-energy-crisis-dispels-several-myths/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany... "Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy." As for China: "As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China That is almost a tripling in both numbers and capacity. Because you need some reliable power.
- mp05 3y ago
  My life at the holiday table has gotten easier when someone inevitably brings up climate change in whatever capacity. I simply state that, until the mainstream consensus is "build the hell out of nuke plants", I don't want to hear about it. As cool as it was to strap DC motors to your car, they still rely on a carbon-fueled grid and I'm still amazed at the horror on some faces when reminded of the fact. Anyway, another example of France keeping it real yet again.
  - matthewdgreen 3y ago
    “Build the hell out of nuclear plants” isn’t going to have any impact, and having this attitude means you aren’t informed about the state of the world. There are two types of energy technology right now: those that can be constructed in a factory and deployed on an exponential curve (so far that’s solar and wind, and maybe battery storage in the future) and those that aren’t on this trajectory. Unless someone figures out modular reactors, and gets them deployed by the thousands quickly, nuclear isn’t going to matter. This chart (which I keep posting, apologies HN) helps to illustrate the dynamic: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-Dec-19-2023-7-30-19-AM.jpeg?rlkey=02v59xv0aqhiuwrdl2fgvs7e6&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-De...
    - mpweiher 3y ago
      1. That turns out not to be the case. Yes, nuclear currently is not built very efficiently, but the efficiency of the plants is so amazing that they are quite competitive. 2. There are several companies that are planning to build reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce is one. I was wondering where they're going to put all those reactors, and the only reasonable answer I could find was upgrading old coal plants. In fact, that appears to be exactly the plan: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-to-build-mini-nukes-in-ukraine/ar-AA1lDv0n https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-t... Pretty cool, when you think of it: all that big and heavy custom infrastructure is already in place. The reactor is built in a factory and shipped there. And there are a LOT of coal powered plants in the world about to be or already decommissioned.
realusername 3y ago
> France is currently reducing the share of nuclear in favor of renewable energy. That was the plan indeed until about 2020 when they realised that renewables could not sustain the French demand. The Russian war was the final nail in the coffin of the all renewable plan. The law reducing the share of nuclear then got scrapped and the custom electricity market applied there negociated in the EU designed to prop-up competitors is in grand danger of being scrapped as well.

ponorin 3y ago

... except the carbon intensity (carbon emission per electricity generated) of France stayed basically flat throughout the last 20 years, and it actually slightly increased in 2022 compared to years before, likely due to corrosion issues in reactors and droughts which led to reduced nuclear output. Are they being complacent because they already are "ahead of the game?" Also I find it interesting that Germany gets the brunt of the critic for not using nuclear even though they managed to steadily reduce carbon intensity (at least pre covid) of their grid, meanwhile Japan, whose carbon intensity shot up after 2011 because of a certain event and still hasn't returned to pre-2011 level, gets a pass since it apparently killed no people with radiation during the process.

vladvasiliu 3y ago
> except the carbon intensity (carbon emission per electricity generated) of France stayed basically flat throughout the last 20 years, and it actually slightly increased in 2022 compared to years before, likely due to corrosion issues in reactors and droughts which led to reduced nuclear output. Are they being complacent because they already are "ahead of the game?" Well, it stayed flat because it was already very low to begin with. Only Sweden was below that, and they are the only countries which didn't "improve". See [0] for the CO2 emissions to produce 1 kWh of electricity in the EU. It stops at 2020, so it doesn't say anything about your point on 2022. But it shows that Germany, even though they reduced CO2 emissions by a hefty amount, are still quite terrible compared to France, emitting more than three times the CO2 per kWh. [0] https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-du-climat-decembre-2022/en/10-ghg-emissions-from-the-energy https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi...

ZeroGravitas 3y ago

You are clearly talking about only electricity production. The article is talking about all sectors. The UK and France have both reduced their per capita intensity over the last few decades but after an early lead by France, the UK has caught up and may well overtake.