5 ms·

Obtaining electricity thanks to industrial renewable (see Lazard's LCOE) is way (and more and more) cheaper than with nuclear. There are many ways to alleviate

Obtaining electricity thanks to industrial renewable (see Lazard's LCOE) is way (and more and more) cheaper than with nuclear. There are many ways to alleviate unwanted impacts of 'intermittency' (PEM membranes, central plant enabling many sites exposed to different wind regimes to feed it, batteries...) Hydrogen overproduction (from the grid perspective) isn't a challenge because various industries need huge amounts (~94 millions metric tons/an) of it. Therefore the 'hydrogen' approach favors renewable sources.

yawaramin 2y ago
Most of what you are talking about is theoretical and the real costs will become apparent only once someone tries actually doing it. Meanwhile, nuclear power is proven technology for decades, worldwide.
- natmaka 2y ago
  The LCOE (total cost of production) is quite solidly established ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and favors renewable sources over nuclear. > the real costs will become apparent It is mainly true for the hydrogen part (water electrolysis) of the system, which is common to nuclear and renewable sources.
  - godelski 2y ago
    Established by make sure you know the assumptions it makes too. Don't just take data at face value, make sure you know what the data actually is telling you and importantly what it doesn't tell you.
- ViewTrick1002 2y ago
  Incredible how the technology that has delivered 3 reactors, all with enormous subsidies, since the late 90s now is "proven". Rather, we spent enormous subsidies on nuclear power and it was proven to not provide energy at commercially workable rates.
  - yawaramin 2y ago
    I'm talking about nuclear power plants in general, which have been in use since the '50s. Not a specific type of reactor. If 'it was proven' then I guess France's electricity shouldn't be cheaper than Germany's? Oh wait...
    - natmaka 2y ago
      The point is about total cost, and considering all public money invested the French nuclearization isn't a cheaper way. Just compare tax pressure in France and Germany, and their public fundings for the grid. Moreover in case of any mishap (major accident, hot waste wandering around...) all bets are off.
      - yawaramin 2y ago
        What tax pressure are you talking about? Germany has higher income tax than France. Also, even if nuclear power is a bit more expensive–why should we race to the bottom price tag when we're trying to fight a climate crisis? Isn't preserving vast natural areas and ecologies (instead of covering them up with solar and wind farms) worth a bit more money? Isn't it worth it to reduce pressure on strip-mining huge amounts of earth to eke out some meagre amounts of minerals for batteries? > Moreover in case of any mishap Reactors are designed to shut down (full containment) and have been for many years now, so no 'all bets' are not off. That's just FUD.
        natmaka 2y ago
        > Germany has higher income tax than France. All taxes considered (not only income tax) "the highest shares of taxes and social contributions as a percentage of GDP being recorded in France (48.0 %), Belgium (45.6 %) and Austria (43.6 %)." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Tax_revenue_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-becomes-the-worlds-most-heavily-taxed-country-1544004004 https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-becomes-the-worlds-most-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oecd-tax/government-tax-takes-at-record-high-with-france-in-top-spot-oecd-idUSKBN1O411Y/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oecd-tax/government-tax-t... > Isn't preserving vast natural areas and ecologies (instead of covering them up with solar and wind farms) worth a bit more money? Indeed, however the burden related to renewable sources is often way less than presented as off-shore wind turbines (globally the biggest reserve) don't use any land and offer sanctuaries to exhausted seas, while solar panels on roofs and agrivoltaics... aren't really a burden, either. > Isn't it worth it to reduce pressure on strip-mining huge amounts of earth to eke out some meagre amounts of minerals for batteries? These raw materials have substitutes and they are recycled. Uranium is a fuel (disappearing gradually), has no substitute, is hardly recycled in practice and as ore grades are diminishing greenhouse-gas emission associated to its obtention will augment. >> Moreover in case of any mishap > Reactors are designed to shut down (full containment) Clearly write: "a major nuclear accident in France is simply absolutely not possible" and everyone knowing about all this will immediately grasp that you don't know what you are writing about. An hydrogen / vapor explosion is possible, and it may let dangerous stuff escape in the wild, and this is true in France. The subject of debate is not this danger but the associated risk (probability and effects of such an events).

yawaramin 2y ago

Most of what you are talking about is theoretical and the real costs will become apparent only once someone tries actually doing it. Meanwhile, nuclear power is proven technology for decades, worldwide.

natmaka 2y ago
The LCOE (total cost of production) is quite solidly established ( https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-... ) and favors renewable sources over nuclear. > the real costs will become apparent It is mainly true for the hydrogen part (water electrolysis) of the system, which is common to nuclear and renewable sources.
- godelski 2y ago
  Established by make sure you know the assumptions it makes too. Don't just take data at face value, make sure you know what the data actually is telling you and importantly what it doesn't tell you.
ViewTrick1002 2y ago
Incredible how the technology that has delivered 3 reactors, all with enormous subsidies, since the late 90s now is "proven". Rather, we spent enormous subsidies on nuclear power and it was proven to not provide energy at commercially workable rates.
- yawaramin 2y ago
  I'm talking about nuclear power plants in general, which have been in use since the '50s. Not a specific type of reactor. If 'it was proven' then I guess France's electricity shouldn't be cheaper than Germany's? Oh wait...
  - natmaka 2y ago
    The point is about total cost, and considering all public money invested the French nuclearization isn't a cheaper way. Just compare tax pressure in France and Germany, and their public fundings for the grid. Moreover in case of any mishap (major accident, hot waste wandering around...) all bets are off.
    - yawaramin 2y ago
      What tax pressure are you talking about? Germany has higher income tax than France. Also, even if nuclear power is a bit more expensive–why should we race to the bottom price tag when we're trying to fight a climate crisis? Isn't preserving vast natural areas and ecologies (instead of covering them up with solar and wind farms) worth a bit more money? Isn't it worth it to reduce pressure on strip-mining huge amounts of earth to eke out some meagre amounts of minerals for batteries? > Moreover in case of any mishap Reactors are designed to shut down (full containment) and have been for many years now, so no 'all bets' are not off. That's just FUD.
      - natmaka 2y ago
        > Germany has higher income tax than France. All taxes considered (not only income tax) "the highest shares of taxes and social contributions as a percentage of GDP being recorded in France (48.0 %), Belgium (45.6 %) and Austria (43.6 %)." https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Tax_revenue_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-becomes-the-worlds-most-heavily-taxed-country-1544004004 https://www.wsj.com/articles/france-becomes-the-worlds-most-... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oecd-tax/government-tax-takes-at-record-high-with-france-in-top-spot-oecd-idUSKBN1O411Y/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oecd-tax/government-tax-t... > Isn't preserving vast natural areas and ecologies (instead of covering them up with solar and wind farms) worth a bit more money? Indeed, however the burden related to renewable sources is often way less than presented as off-shore wind turbines (globally the biggest reserve) don't use any land and offer sanctuaries to exhausted seas, while solar panels on roofs and agrivoltaics... aren't really a burden, either. > Isn't it worth it to reduce pressure on strip-mining huge amounts of earth to eke out some meagre amounts of minerals for batteries? These raw materials have substitutes and they are recycled. Uranium is a fuel (disappearing gradually), has no substitute, is hardly recycled in practice and as ore grades are diminishing greenhouse-gas emission associated to its obtention will augment. >> Moreover in case of any mishap > Reactors are designed to shut down (full containment) Clearly write: "a major nuclear accident in France is simply absolutely not possible" and everyone knowing about all this will immediately grasp that you don't know what you are writing about. An hydrogen / vapor explosion is possible, and it may let dangerous stuff escape in the wild, and this is true in France. The subject of debate is not this danger but the associated risk (probability and effects of such an events).