5 ms·

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 b

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.
  - insane_dreamer 2y ago
    > the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. I agree French taxes are high, but Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and that's just on the supply side. There are subsidies on the demand side as well for power and heating bills. Also, if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant[0] [0] https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe
    - audunw 2y ago
      Frances energy costs are about as ideal as they could possibly get right now. They have significant maintenance and decommissioning costs ahead of them. Right now it feels like they’re basically building up a form of debt, where they’re just hoping the nuclear power plants won’t experience unforeseen issues due to their age. This has become problematic. They recently had to import energy from Germany for an extended period due to nuclear power plants being shut down. They’ve also had to temporarily shut some down due to heat. Thermal power plants, especially old ones, are increasingly disadvantaged in a warming climate. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 They also contribute directly to global warming (thermal forcing). Not a huge amount, but surprisingly significant. Shouldn’t shut them down as long as we’re using fossil fuels. But once those are cut the planet may be too warm for us to afford having thermal power plants. Every little bit counts when the climate is on the edge of total disaster
    - natmaka 2y ago
      > Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy? 100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor. 100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree. Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket. > if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success. Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €. > Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»). About the Messmer Plan ("French nuclearization"): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
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

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.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > the taxpayer (France is the worldwide champ when it comes to taxes) pays a hefty part of it. I agree French taxes are high, but Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry, and that's just on the supply side. There are subsidies on the demand side as well for power and heating bills. Also, if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant[0] [0] https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe https://selectra.info/energie/electricite/prix/europe
  - audunw 2y ago
    Frances energy costs are about as ideal as they could possibly get right now. They have significant maintenance and decommissioning costs ahead of them. Right now it feels like they’re basically building up a form of debt, where they’re just hoping the nuclear power plants won’t experience unforeseen issues due to their age. This has become problematic. They recently had to import energy from Germany for an extended period due to nuclear power plants being shut down. They’ve also had to temporarily shut some down due to heat. Thermal power plants, especially old ones, are increasingly disadvantaged in a warming climate. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abd4a8 They also contribute directly to global warming (thermal forcing). Not a huge amount, but surprisingly significant. Shouldn’t shut them down as long as we’re using fossil fuels. But once those are cut the planet may be too warm for us to afford having thermal power plants. Every little bit counts when the climate is on the edge of total disaster
  - natmaka 2y ago
    > Americans pay an estimated $20 billion a year in subsidies to the oil and gas industry We agree: this is inept. However we probably also agree on the goal (get rid of fossil fuels), therefore the question is about the approach: which proportion of nuclear and of renewable energy? 100% nuclear is impossible: not enough uranium, too expensive as it implies over-provisioning reactors which are financially potentially realistic only with a high load factor. 100% renewable is in balance: some think it can be done, other disagree. Nearly all experts (see IEA, IPCC, McKinsey, Bloomberg...) predict that renewable will, once fossil fuels will be nearly dealt with, produce approximately 70% of our electricity (gridpower). This has a heavy implication for nuclear as it will reduce its load factor => its TCO will skyrocket. > if there weren't nuclear power energy subsidies, would French prices be higher than their neighbors? That's the question. This is IMHO certain, see the Cour des comptes' report. EDF history ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc... ) provides many hints: jumpstarted by nationalisations (gifts!), immediately obtaining a monopoly (gift!), benefiting from military and fundamental research budgets (gifts!), very favorable loans from the gov, gov acting as a guarantor for market-provided loans, gov periodically injecting money and often not even obtaining its dividends (or obtaining as stock, that is to say at null value as most of the assets are nuclear plants which cannot be sold, along with huge debts...), speaking of debts: abyssal debts (approx 55 billions €, mid-2024)... not really a resounding success. Moreover recent nuclear-reactor building projects are expensive failure (Finland, France, China, U.K.). In France the reactor was scheduled to be delivered in 2012 for approx 3,3 billions € and we are waiting for it in 2024 after dissipating around 20 billions €. > Domestic energy prices in France are 1/3 lower than the EU average, which is significant This is only about electricity (not "energy": in France fossil fuel are very expensive) and its end-user price is only 22% less than the UE average («prix de l'électricité en moyenne inférieurs de 22 % à ceux pratiqués dans l'UE»). About the Messmer Plan ("French nuclearization"): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-plan https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...

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