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

111–120 of 309 posts

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#111

Post by PaulHoule »

ortusdux wrote: post #52
dragonelite wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are two problems.

One is corrosion/radiation damage to the reactor vessel which is probably made with something like

http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-...

The other is that most of these designs have a graphite moderator, and the graphite gets damaged in the reactor environment.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#112

Post by cogman10 »

Pyramus wrote: post #90
cogman10 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the things you've listed, I think the costs are really the only argument against nuclear. The inherit risks are supremely low and the catastrophic failure mode for nuclear plants isn't a nuclear winter, in the absolutely worst case it's a contamination of the area where the plant was built (Modern nukes are all about containing failures. So even while they've optimized for not failing, they've also optimized for w…

> The inherit risks are supremely low and the catastrophic failure mode for nuclear plants isn't a nuclear winter, in the absolutely worst case it's a contamination of the area where the plant was built. Well, not really. While the probability of an accident is indeed low (but not super low by any means, as near misses are often not publicised), the damage/cost of an accident follows a heavy-tailed distribution. As a…

> So high in fact, that there is no market price for it. As a result no nuclear power plant worldwide is insured

That's a very confident and incorrect statement.

https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/n...

As for accident vs costs of cleanup, like I said, new plants are designed not only to eliminate accidents from causing failures, but also such that if a failure happened, it would be completely contained.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#113

Post by kspacewalk2 »

_ph_ wrote: post #109
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://…

France isn't reducing the capacity as a targetted policy but out of necessity. They have 58 nuclear power plants, most of them quite old (before 80ies). To maintain the current level, they would have to be replaced not too far in the future, but currently only 1 or 2 new reactors are under construction and both late and way over budget. So there currently is no route in maintaining the current capacity. Consequently…

Consciously deciding to not replace capacity when the need for replacement is known decades in advance is a targeted policy.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#114

Post by bipson »

sudosysgen wrote: post #76
ortusdux wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, the reactor cores would have to be replaced every 12-15 years. But if the reactors are mass produced and designed to swap out the cores, it doesn't have to be too expensive.

Still not "sustainable".

And not really cheap either.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#115

Post by agumonkey »

nitrogen wrote: post #81
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.

Or at least the success and role of schools and the media.

And long term emergent structures of society. Not to step too much in conspiracy but an economy first system might naturally steer toward medium level education so that money flows without people thinking too hard or be able to be independent from the usual marketing tricks. It's almost a natural order, smart and cynical will be rewarded by high ranks, while the clueless mass will be spun to fuel the system.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#116

Post by dane-pgp »

01100011 wrote: post #97
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.

> Alvin Toffler argued that society is undergoing an enormous structural change, a revolution from an industrial society to a "super-industrial society". This change overwhelms people. He argues that the accelerated rate of technological and social change leaves people disconnected and suffering from "shattering stress and disorientation"—future shocked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Shock

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#117

Post by agumonkey »

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.

Democracy is probably not what's it said to be, it's a necessary emotional escape valve. People are too random to be heard with 100% equal value as you point at. The hierarchy filters through knowledge to steer.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#118

Post by sliken »

lazide wrote: post #62
cogman10 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of the things you've listed, I think the costs are really the only argument against nuclear. The inherit risks are supremely low and the catastrophic failure mode for nuclear plants isn't a nuclear winter, in the absolutely worst case it's a contamination of the area where the plant was built (Modern nukes are all about containing failures. So even while they've optimized for not failing, they've also optimized for w…

Even crazier - attacking the power lines doesn’t even require bolt cutters. A ballon or toy drone and some aluminized string or thin wire is more than enough to have it blow itself up.

Maybe for a short outage, I'd expect it to vaporize without the power line noticing. Even if noticed, automated systems will send a test voltage along the lines periodically.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#119

Post by worrycue »

_ph_ wrote: post #109
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://…

France isn't reducing the capacity as a targetted policy but out of necessity. They have 58 nuclear power plants, most of them quite old (before 80ies). To maintain the current level, they would have to be replaced not too far in the future, but currently only 1 or 2 new reactors are under construction and both late and way over budget. So there currently is no route in maintaining the current capacity. Consequently…

> currently only 1 or 2 new reactors are under construction and both late and way over budget.

So in a few decades France has forgotten how to build reactors on time and in an affordable way?

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#120

Post by oezi »

nickik wrote: post #98
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…

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…

Nuclear at this point is dead in the water. The upward trajectory of renewables is so strong that building nuclear plants is no longer viable. If anybody would change course now and start planning and building new nuclear plants it will be at least 10 years before these go online. By this time wind and solar will be another magnitude cheaper and nuclear will not be able to compete.
Post reply on HN