4 ms·

Has worked out just fine for France. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

natmaka 2y ago
The real cost (including public money) of it is mind-boggling, and a serious accident cannot be ruled out. If uranium becomes difficult to import France will badly suffer. Then problems induced by real decommission costs and waste long-term management will hit.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  And yet, electricity prices in France are lower than other large European countries: https://www.energycouncil.com.au/news/international-electricity-price-comparisons/ https://www.energycouncil.com.au/news/international-electric... It has 58 nuclear power plants without any serious accidents in the past 50+ years. That's a pretty good record. People always bring up Fukushima, but what killed ~20,000 people was the tsunami, not the reactor meltdown. The 2004 tsunami killed > 200,000 people. It hasn't stopped people worldwide from living near the coast.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > electricity prices in France are lower than other large European countries Allow me to repeat: the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. See the Cour des comptes report published in 2012 At Fukushima the evacuation triggered by the nuclear major accident officially killed more than 2,200 persons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#Other_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ), moreover the cost of the cleanup is huge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup ). One hardly sees how any renewable-based plant, even exposed to a tsunami, would have triggered such evacuation or cleanup.
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      > the evacuation triggered by the nuclear major accident officially killed more than 2,200 persons that's not what the article you linked to says
      - natmaka 2y ago
        Please search and find in its main framed concise exposé: "Deaths 1 confirmed from radiation (lung cancer, 4 years later), and 2,202 from evacuation."
        Herz 2y ago
        Attributing deaths to nuclear power due to political choices makes no sense. These fatalities were completely unjustified and driven by baseless fears. Besides, what is the point of counting deaths? In Germany, an estimated 1,100 deaths per year result from the use of fossil fuels to replace the shutdown of nuclear power plants. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/20/3/1311/6520438 https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/20/3/1311/6520438 Fatalities are strongly correlated with pollution, and deaths caused by hydroelectric power are significantly higher. Unfortunately, decarbonization is crucial. Otherwise, in the coming decades, we won't be discussing a few thousand deaths but several million. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Nuclear power often faces harsh criticism, being labeled the worst of all energy sources. However, this perception changes when it's compared in context with other sources. We are in a critical period and cannot afford to exclude any energy sources simply because we like them less than others.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > Attributing deaths to nuclear power due to political choices makes no sense. > These fatalities were completely unjustified At Fukushima part of the nuclear was judged necessary due to the nuclear accident.plant There is nothing 'political' here (appart for the mere decision of building such a plant). Prime Minister Naoto Kan testified that, during the nuclear accident, experts calculated that the worst case would imply to evacuate up to Tokyo. You probably aren't an expert and weren't there at the time. They were. If, instead of this plant, the field was occupied by wind-turbine or photovoltaic panels this part of the evacuation wouldn't be triggered. And this part of the evacuation officially caused 2200+ deaths. Please note that N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy. On March 10, 2011, he felt assured that "nuclear power was safe and vital for Japan." After Fukushima he became hostile to nuclear power. Like it or not, those a solid facts. > Besides, what is the point of counting deaths? It is one way to assess real risk, which in turn is one parameter when it comes to decide which set of types of energy source is the more adequate. > In Germany, an estimated 1,100 deaths per year result from the use of fossil fuels to replace the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Germany's quick nuclear phaseout is indeed debatable upon this perspective. The best way is IMHO to avoid fossil fuels and nuclear altogether. > Fatalities are strongly correlated with pollution Indeed. Nobody here advocates any fossil fuel. > deaths caused by hydroelectric power are significantly higher > https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 > We are in a critical period Indeed. > and cannot afford to exclude any energy sources The challenge (climate...) is huge and our time and resources are scarce, therefore we have to prefer to most efficient ways. Nuclear isn't arbitrarily excluded, there are arguments against it (risk tied to accidents/waste/proliferation, dependency towards uranium, total cost...), alleviated by renewable sources.
- akvadrako 2y ago
  Uranium exists almost in every country and is like 1% of the cost of nuclear power. It's availability is not a risk. There is enough of it to power Earth for millions of years.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Nope. "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium Nuclear produces about 9% of electricity worldwide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_mix#World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_mix#World ), which in turn is about 22% of the consumed (final)) energy. Nuclear produces less than 2% of our energy. This is roughly linear: 130 years at 2%, therefore 65 years at 4% (and no one will nowadays invest in a reactor with no hope to exploit it for at the very least 60 years) Exploiting uranium ore of a lesser grade is possible but quickly gets more expensive and adds to nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions ( see the study "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation" in "Journal of Industrial Ecology" (2012, Warner, Heath)): up to 110g eqCO2/KWh .
    - insane_dreamer 2y ago
      Those are _identified_ reserves. The same was said about peak oil until much larger deposits were found and/or new extraction methods discovered. Not saying it's unlimited, but at current consumption rates we're much more likely to run out of petroleum than uranium[0]. But of course we've been saying we have "50 years left" of petroleum for decades, so who knows. And that doesn't account for alternative fuel sources such as thorium[1] [0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6 [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-potential-in-nuclear-energy-new-iaea-analysis https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-pote...
      - natmaka 2y ago

natmaka 2y ago

The real cost (including public money) of it is mind-boggling, and a serious accident cannot be ruled out. If uranium becomes difficult to import France will badly suffer. Then problems induced by real decommission costs and waste long-term management will hit.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
And yet, electricity prices in France are lower than other large European countries: https://www.energycouncil.com.au/news/international-electricity-price-comparisons/ https://www.energycouncil.com.au/news/international-electric... It has 58 nuclear power plants without any serious accidents in the past 50+ years. That's a pretty good record. People always bring up Fukushima, but what killed ~20,000 people was the tsunami, not the reactor meltdown. The 2004 tsunami killed > 200,000 people. It hasn't stopped people worldwide from living near the coast.
- natmaka 2y ago
  > electricity prices in France are lower than other large European countries Allow me to repeat: the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. See the Cour des comptes report published in 2012 At Fukushima the evacuation triggered by the nuclear major accident officially killed more than 2,200 persons ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties#Other_reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... ), moreover the cost of the cleanup is huge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_disaster_cleanup ). One hardly sees how any renewable-based plant, even exposed to a tsunami, would have triggered such evacuation or cleanup.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > the evacuation triggered by the nuclear major accident officially killed more than 2,200 persons that's not what the article you linked to says
    - natmaka 2y ago
      Please search and find in its main framed concise exposé: "Deaths 1 confirmed from radiation (lung cancer, 4 years later), and 2,202 from evacuation."
      - Herz 2y ago
        Attributing deaths to nuclear power due to political choices makes no sense. These fatalities were completely unjustified and driven by baseless fears. Besides, what is the point of counting deaths? In Germany, an estimated 1,100 deaths per year result from the use of fossil fuels to replace the shutdown of nuclear power plants. https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/20/3/1311/6520438 https://academic.oup.com/jeea/article/20/3/1311/6520438 Fatalities are strongly correlated with pollution, and deaths caused by hydroelectric power are significantly higher. Unfortunately, decarbonization is crucial. Otherwise, in the coming decades, we won't be discussing a few thousand deaths but several million. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy Nuclear power often faces harsh criticism, being labeled the worst of all energy sources. However, this perception changes when it's compared in context with other sources. We are in a critical period and cannot afford to exclude any energy sources simply because we like them less than others.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > Attributing deaths to nuclear power due to political choices makes no sense. > These fatalities were completely unjustified At Fukushima part of the nuclear was judged necessary due to the nuclear accident.plant There is nothing 'political' here (appart for the mere decision of building such a plant). Prime Minister Naoto Kan testified that, during the nuclear accident, experts calculated that the worst case would imply to evacuate up to Tokyo. You probably aren't an expert and weren't there at the time. They were. If, instead of this plant, the field was occupied by wind-turbine or photovoltaic panels this part of the evacuation wouldn't be triggered. And this part of the evacuation officially caused 2200+ deaths. Please note that N. Kan was advocating nuclear energy. On March 10, 2011, he felt assured that "nuclear power was safe and vital for Japan." After Fukushima he became hostile to nuclear power. Like it or not, those a solid facts. > Besides, what is the point of counting deaths? It is one way to assess real risk, which in turn is one parameter when it comes to decide which set of types of energy source is the more adequate. > In Germany, an estimated 1,100 deaths per year result from the use of fossil fuels to replace the shutdown of nuclear power plants. Germany's quick nuclear phaseout is indeed debatable upon this perspective. The best way is IMHO to avoid fossil fuels and nuclear altogether. > Fatalities are strongly correlated with pollution Indeed. Nobody here advocates any fossil fuel. > deaths caused by hydroelectric power are significantly higher > https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy This is highly debatable: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35521090 > We are in a critical period Indeed. > and cannot afford to exclude any energy sources The challenge (climate...) is huge and our time and resources are scarce, therefore we have to prefer to most efficient ways. Nuclear isn't arbitrarily excluded, there are arguments against it (risk tied to accidents/waste/proliferation, dependency towards uranium, total cost...), alleviated by renewable sources.
akvadrako 2y ago
Uranium exists almost in every country and is like 1% of the cost of nuclear power. It's availability is not a risk. There is enough of it to power Earth for millions of years.
- natmaka 2y ago
  Nope. "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium Nuclear produces about 9% of electricity worldwide ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_mix#World https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_mix#World ), which in turn is about 22% of the consumed (final)) energy. Nuclear produces less than 2% of our energy. This is roughly linear: 130 years at 2%, therefore 65 years at 4% (and no one will nowadays invest in a reactor with no hope to exploit it for at the very least 60 years) Exploiting uranium ore of a lesser grade is possible but quickly gets more expensive and adds to nuclear greenhouse-gas emissions ( see the study "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nuclear Electricity Generation" in "Journal of Industrial Ecology" (2012, Warner, Heath)): up to 110g eqCO2/KWh .
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    Those are _identified_ reserves. The same was said about peak oil until much larger deposits were found and/or new extraction methods discovered. Not saying it's unlimited, but at current consumption rates we're much more likely to run out of petroleum than uranium[0]. But of course we've been saying we have "50 years left" of petroleum for decades, so who knows. And that doesn't account for alternative fuel sources such as thorium[1] [0] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6 https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=38&t=6 [1] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-potential-in-nuclear-energy-new-iaea-analysis https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/thoriums-long-term-pote...
    - natmaka 2y ago