Nuclear Power in France • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#91

Post by cogman10 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

eldaisfish wrote: post #65

cogman10 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

this is an oversimplified and thus misleading comparison. A nuclear (or any fuel-controlled generator) can generate power at-will i.e. on demand. No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes. These comparisons are usually presented as an aggregated amount of energy over a year and completely ignore the fact that…

What? This infographic is proving the point that nuclear generates a BUNCH of power and a single plant would require vast amounts of renewables to replace it. Did you actually read it before ranting?

> No wind or solar generator can do this and before you say batteries, no battery in existence can power a medium-sized city for more than a few minutes.

This is a silly argument. The only real limiting factor on the capacity of a battery, at this point, is manufacturing capacity. That is changing very quickly as more than a few companies are looking at expanding their battery production capabilities.

Beyond that, grid batteries are good for any grid configuration. Batteries have rapid response to demand surplus and deficits. They are a grid stabilizing technology. Even if we had a 100% coal grid, you'd still want batteries for when the coal plants max out or to smooth out the cooldown time for the coal plants.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#92

Post by andrewxdiamond » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

jasamer wrote: post #44

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…

> They also require ... absurd amounts of space. I'd have thought that nuclear requires the least amount of space of all energy sources.

Plants require dedicated space that cannot be used for anything else. Plants also require security barriers and other obstructions that take up more space.

You could (potentially) put a full solar array, enough to power your house, on your roof right now, and not take up any additional space.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#93

Post by smotah » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

orangepurple wrote: post #29

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 nuclear core meltdowns can be fully contained by design the risk is mitigated. For instance with newer designs of smaller portable reactors by NuScale

That's also utility of the "core catcher" component of some gen III reactor designs, that are specifically made to cool down corium in case of a core meltdown. For SMR, the risk is mitigated because the reactor isn't sufficiently powerful to melt itself.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#94

Post by shakow » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:13 PM UTC

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #68

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…

The tone here is much more patronizing than required. > We do people focus so much on the danger aspect of nuclear energy only? Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable. A damn break is deadly, a nuclear meltdown is potentially significantly way worse. > Such a way to waste my Sunday. Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it, regardless of t…

> Because nuclear is the only one with multigenerational risks that can make entire regions inhabitable.

I'm glad to know climate change will be a solved problem for my children.

> Hiding waste is not a viable solution to dealing with it

Why? Is just dropping it in the atmosphere better?

> and you came safely use the land underneath for farming or other uses.

Not really. There are safety margins, noise regulations, concrete platforms, electrical connections, ...

> Not to mention the ecological devastation related to ruining a square mile of land permanently for centuries

They don't remove the foundations either when windmills are done.

> I said solar.

So the energy for which you would require dozens of millions of square mils of surface, a cleaning system to prevent them to lose 30% of their efficiency in a year, whose construction process is incredibly polluant, and that doesn't work for half a year in half of the world? That sounds like a great large-scale solution.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#95

Post by kazinator » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #19

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://…

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 something is 99.9999999% safe, it's not going to have a catastrophic failure. It will have some rare minor failures, whose effects are mitigated by a cascade of multiple safeguards.

> Our current strategies include finding a secret underground cave

Let's ignore how radioactive minerals are already found in caves.

Just don't ventilate your above-ground cave, and you've got radon gas.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#96

Post by cogman10 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:14 PM UTC

lm28469 wrote: post #72

cogman10 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

This isn't France though, we're much more limited in term of sun and windmill efficient land over here and 80% of our electricity comes from nuclear, not 20% as in the US

Did you actually read the infographic? It is saying that you'd need a lot of renewable resources to replace a single nuclear plant.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#97

Post by 01100011 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

logicalmonster wrote: post #25

> However, 58% thought that nuclear power caused climate change while only 46% thought that coal burning did so This raises some interesting thoughts about the nature and importance of democracy.

I remain a supporter of democracy but do have serious doubts regarding the ability of the majority of humankind to maintain a sufficient understanding of the increasingly complex world they control.

Large portions of the US population seem to have problems with basic reasoning skills. I'm not sure the school system or western culture is capable of rectifying that anytime soon.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#98

Post by nickik » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #19

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://…

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…

I think all of those are not really true when we are thinking about modern plants that you would build if you were really serious.

If you really go into nuclear today you would try to use something like Terrestrial Energy Molten Salt reactor or something like that.

- Nuclear kills less people, that is worth some tiny risk

- Nuclear waste is actually a resource for the future. You can get things like nuclear batteries, medical isotopes and so on. Not to mention reusing the fuel in next generation reactors.

- Nuclear plants take ages to build because they are big, next generation reactors are 10-20x smaller

- Next generation Nuclear reactors are built underground and have a very strong defense on top. In war time you could reinforce that. That said, for most nation that matters, this is not a huge concern.

> I cannot fathom why nuclear is preferred to a safe, distributed, clean grid of solar panels.

Because its reliable and produces energy even if a vulcano covers the sun and you have a few days without win. It gives you power when and where you need it, no need for a gigantic storage and transmission infrastructure. Maximum reuse of existing infrastructure.

> Maybe one day when humanity is a space faring race we could look to nuclear to support us then, but using nuclear on earth today is a bad decision.

That crazy. Just based on first principle nuclear is the best and most dense energy source. We can use it with 60s tech, and we could do much better today. Why would we only use it in some far future when the technology exists now.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#99

Post by p_j_w » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

baud147258 wrote: post #47

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…

> They also require massive amounts of concrete (bad for the environment, locally and globally) and absurd amounts of space. All the other types of power plants use massive amount of concrete too and space (except solar panel installed on roofs)

Solar panels aren't all that great at EOL, either. They've got some toxic materials in them and aren't, as yet, easily recyclable. They beat the shit out of fossil fuels as far as the environment goes, but they're hardly without their own problems.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#100

Post by bittercynic » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 5:16 PM UTC

misiti3780 wrote: post #74

logicalmonster wrote: post #25

> However, 58% thought that nuclear power caused climate change while only 46% thought that coal burning did so This raises some interesting thoughts about the nature and importance of democracy.

how so?

It seems like a pretty big problem when the electorate is this misinformed on an issue that's so straightforward, and important.