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

121–130 of 309 posts

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#121

Post by sliken »

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #92
jasamer wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You could, but you'd need grid access for when the sun goes down, and the variability of sun and wind is one of the leading justifications for nuclear.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#122

Post by blamazon »

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?

In the data provided, the majority believes that burning coal does not cause climate change, while nuclear power does. In fact, it is the reverse--coal's impact on climate change is exponentially more than nuclear.

Thus, if the data is accurate, and if the majority rules directly, from these viewpoints it suggests that investments would be made into coal, and reduced from nuclear, which is aligned with creating more climate change, not less.

So, this implies that, for these data, democracy and taking action against climate doom are compatible.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#123

Post by oezi »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #24

Japan is turning the nukes back on, France with the Eastern Europeans is taking on Germany's reckless move https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-coun... . The current energy crunch is demonstrating how "renewables now, nukes of off now, batteries later" is irresponsible both environmentally and politically, I hope it's a turning point. At the vary least, turning off the nukes is a reward one earns a…

Two counterpoints:

- Isn't the current gas shortage just Putin trying to ram through Nordstream 2?

- Isn't it great to have high prices fossil energy sources to drive renewable investment and stop wasteful use of fossils?

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#124

Post by ElKrist »

unchocked wrote: post #27

I've been prodding friends in the climate movement about their community's historical opposition to nuclear power lately. In my view, opposing nuclear power after 1989 (Hansen's testimony to the US Senate) is anti-climate. I've held up France as an example of where we could be in an alternate history where states did not bow to anti-nuclear activism. Unfortunately, from the article, it seems France is heading in that…

A few things to give you some hope:

* The target to reduce the share of nuclear to 50% does not directly imply that nuclear production will decline as much. The reason is that the share of electricity (from nuclear, hydro renewables.. combined) in total energy consumption should increase (electrical vehicles, hydrogen production etc.).

* Most French people still believe nuclear emits CO2. I expect that to change as people get more and more informed on climate change. Once more people realize it's one of the cleanest source for greenhouse gases, I expect a stronger support for nuclear

* The sovereignty aspect (France does not extract uranium on its soil but has well established logistics) is more important in the French debate recently, probably increased since Covid. The lack of wind in UK recently causing price to soars, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline for Germans to get gas from Russia.. are not examples France wishes to follow

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#125

Post by bildung »

lm28469 wrote: post #63
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…

> 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% You're breathing coal and gas byproducts every single day, byproducts which are taking years of life expectancy, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone, but oh god "Chernobyl bad, let's close perfectly safe and working nuclear react…

> Germany is firing up coal plants because they're decomissining their nuclear reactors in favour of intermittent energy sources

No they aren't, they are decomissioning coal plants, too, and at a much faster rate than nuclear.

From 2013 to 2020 nuclear as share of Germany's energy mix went from 17% to 13%. https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...

During the same time, coal went from 45% to 23%. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Germany

> Germany kwh price is 2x compared to France

The difference is taxes, not production costs. Have a look at price composition for Germany: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/what-german-house...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#126

Post by yodsanklai »

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…

> Compared to other readily available green power sources

1. No power source is green. They all take a toll on the environment. 2. You can't compare nuclear to solar/wind, as solar/wind is intermittent. Currently, dismantling a nuclear power plant means replacing it by fossil fuel. See what is happening in Germany for instance.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#127

Post by gilbetron »

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

Night and northern climate.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#128

Post by smotah »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #24

Japan is turning the nukes back on, France with the Eastern Europeans is taking on Germany's reckless move https://www.euronews.com/2021/10/11/led-by-france-10-eu-coun... . The current energy crunch is demonstrating how "renewables now, nukes of off now, batteries later" is irresponsible both environmentally and politically, I hope it's a turning point. At the vary least, turning off the nukes is a reward one earns a…

Unsurprisingly Germany lobbied EU members such as Austria, Denmark, Luxembourg and Spain to block the inclusion of nuclear power in the "green taxonomy" (allowing it to be subsided like new renewables are), while pushing for natural gas (emitting 40 times more CO2 than nuclear). Such geopolitical move is definitely illogical and favoring climate change acceleration.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#129

Post by malka »

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

I enjoy having clean electricity when it rains, during the night, or when there is no wind.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#130

Post by saalweachter »

shakow wrote: post #94
andrewxdiamond wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, c…

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

You don't even need to jump to climate change when you have coal seam fires and ash ponds.

Post reply on HN