Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nuclear Power in France

world-nuclear.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 309 posts

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#51

Post by cogman10 »

shakow wrote: post #34
andrewxdiamond wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is always touted as such a good idea on this site, but I want to take the opposite stance. - Nuclear power has inherit risks that are not present in other forms of modern energy generation. You can claim that todays designs are 99.9999999% safe, but there is no such thing as 100%. If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable. - Nuclear waste is difficult t…

> If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable. We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Why not the thousands of people who died of dam break, the millions who die of lung failure due to exposure to polluants, or, the elephant in the room, the dozens of millions whoe die and will die of climate change? Sure, it's very sad that a han…

> Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP?

Here's an infographic on that very subject :)

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#52

Post by ortusdux »

dragonelite wrote: post #15
ronnier wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is investing in nuclear power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-wil... > As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down. Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now, but the country intends nuclear to eventually…

They are also running 4th generation thorium molten salt reactors prototypes and thinking of having a commercial viable design in 2030. From what I gathered the waste is not that suitable for nuclear weapon usage. So those Reactors could be exported to SCO/BRI/global south countries. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w

The problem with molten salt based reactors is that the high temperature radioactive molten salts destroy their containment vessels. I've yet to see a system design where the salt facing components are expected to last more that 7-10 years, which really hurts profitability.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#53

Post by toomuchtodo »

eldaisfish wrote: post #48
toomuchtodo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, even assuming curtailment, renewables + storage are cheaper than nuclear. EDIT (sources): https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/06/28/los-angeles-seeks-rec... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-sola... https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1144654725901504512 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/solar-challenging-nuc... https://www…

are you certain this remains true on a grid dominated by wind and solar? it is true at the moment because the grid just deals with the vagaries of these sources and other generators (and consumers) bear the cost. Will this continue to be the case?

Renewables have zero marginal cost to generate. When the spot price goes negative, they can simply stop exporting. Other generators are paying others to take power and for the fuel they're using to generate. As renewables penetration increases, it only puts more pain on legacy generators and increases the arb opportunity for storage (which can charge when power is cheap, and discharge when demand is high). This is the entire model around Tesla's Autobidder platform [1] and their energy trading division [2], and their desire to become a virtual utility (with the value in energy orchestration between system components).

[1] https://www.tesla.com/support/energy/tesla-software/autobidd...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/tesla-plans-begin-tr...

EDIT: @eldaisfish: Energy storage growth in the US: https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/batterystor...

Tesla currently orchestrates 1.2Gwh of storage, and their Megapack manufacturing facility will have the capacity to build 40Gwh of storage per year: https://electrek.co/2021/03/16/tesla-autobidder-managing-ove..., https://electrek.co/2021/10/08/tesla-megafactory-aims-40-gwh...

The Hornsdale Power Reserve (built and orchestrated by Tesla) is used for grid services (frequency and voltage response, "continuous power"), and has exceeded expectations: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/05/20/hornsdale-and-its-big...

Utility scale PV can also provide grid forming services at minimal cost (firmware upgrade to inverters): https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/renewables-rescue-st...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#54

Post by gizmondo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #36
baud147258 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

are alternatives really cheaper when you need to build more to compensate for the moments when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow?

Yes, even assuming curtailment, renewables + storage are cheaper than nuclear. EDIT (sources): https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/06/28/los-angeles-seeks-rec... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/07/01/new-sola... https://twitter.com/mzjacobson/status/1144654725901504512 https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/08/09/solar-challenging-nuc... https://www…

Source?

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#55

Post by pjscott »

I often hear opponents of nuclear power say that it takes too long to construct, so it's interesting to look at the timelines for these reactors -- most of them took about 5-6 years from the start of construction to being hooked up to the power grid, and there was a lot of concurrent construction, so their peak throughput was several reactors per year. More recently France seems to have lost the ability to build nuclear plants quickly; their only one under construction has been under construction for the past 14 years, and is projected to finish in 2023.

France in the 1970s is existence proof that nuclear plants aren't inherently slow to build, so I have to wonder: what happened? (And what other technology are we in danger of losing?)

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#56

Post by lazide »

forty wrote: post #45
woko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government policy for a reduction to 50% is not based on issues with nuclear power itself. As far as I have seen, there are mainly 2 reasons mentioned in the public debate: i) a concern about the disposal of nuclear wastes and the long-term cost of their storage, and ii) the desire to follow other countries' policies, with a focus on wind, water and sunlight, rather than leading the way with the cheapest and most…

Where have you seen nuclear is the cheapest solution for electrity production? Nuclear has some benefits, but price does seem to be one of them (and actually one of the reasons for preferring renewable)

On a ‘basic capacity price’ type basis, nuclear is dirt cheap. When you throw in endless political tarpits and their side effects (like having no economies of scale at all despite the clear opportunity for them) then yes, it is very expensive. shrug

Most nuclear projects outside of China basically turned into exercises in endless planning churn and endless delays for no rational reason to appease anti-progress political factions long ago. For an example of a similar money pit/tarpit playing out in a similar way, check out “High Speed” Rail in California.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#57

Post by woko »

forty wrote: post #45
woko wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government policy for a reduction to 50% is not based on issues with nuclear power itself. As far as I have seen, there are mainly 2 reasons mentioned in the public debate: i) a concern about the disposal of nuclear wastes and the long-term cost of their storage, and ii) the desire to follow other countries' policies, with a focus on wind, water and sunlight, rather than leading the way with the cheapest and most…

Where have you seen nuclear is the cheapest solution for electrity production? Nuclear has some benefits, but price does seem to be one of them (and actually one of the reasons for preferring renewable)

For instance, it is discussed in this press article [1] published in 2016 and available in French. It is mentioned that nuclear power costs 60€/MWh, compared to 80€/MWh for wind power. It is also mentioned quite often in the French press: I have seen it mentioned a few days ago. The source mentioned in the 2016 press article is an official report [2] published in 2014.

However, it is true that the maintenance cost increases as the power plants get older.

[1] https://www.francetvinfo.fr/replay-radio/le-vrai-du-faux/le-... (in French)

[2] https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/le-cout-de-productio... (in French)

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#58

Post by darth_avocado »

I love how a bunch of plants have been pushed at the border. Strategically that seems like a bad decision in an event of a war. But in an event of an accident, you push at least some of the risk to your neighbors.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#59

Post by shakow »

cududa wrote: post #40
shakow wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If humans build it, it will fail, and a single catastrophic nuclear plant failure isn’t acceptable. We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Why not the thousands of people who died of dam break, the millions who die of lung failure due to exposure to polluants, or, the elephant in the room, the dozens of millions whoe die and will die of climate change? Sure, it's very sad that a han…

One Japanese technician died due to not following safety protocols. That’s it. Thousands a year die in coal mines

> Thousands a year die in coal mines

And that's only counting direct casualties. If we were to count long-term illnesses/deaths or consequences on the population like the people reaching gazillions of deads at Tchernobyl do, it would be up to one death out of 10 (https://ourworldindata.org/air-pollution).

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#60

Post by mytailorisrich »

ronnier wrote: post #3
redm wrote: post #2

"Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035." I'm no expert on Nuclear power but it seems to me were going in the wrong direction. At a time when we're investing so much money in other fuels, we could be investing that in better nuclear power, like Small Modular Reactors [1], Sodium Cooled Fission, Small Pellet reactors, etc. [2] [1] https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-sm... [2] https://…

China is investing in nuclear power. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/04/23/china-wil... > As of this month, China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation with a capacity of 47.5 GW, third only to the United States and France. And 17 under construction with a capacity of 18.5 GW. None have been shut down. Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now, but the country intends nuclear to eventually…

China actually has a couple of French-built nuclear power plants. There's been a long standing cooperation in that domain.
Post reply on HN