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

171–180 of 309 posts

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#171

Post by ohgodplsno »

_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…

Not really. While it is true that we have not been building nuclear reactors in the last 40 years (and that, therefore, all knowledge is basically lost, leading to the insane delays we're seeing in the EPR), this is mostly a political maneuver to win the ecologist vote. Hollande closing down Fessenheim when it was good for an additional 20 years at the very least is a prime example of the clownery at the head of this country.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#172

Post by PaulHoule »

lazide wrote: post #56
forty wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politi…

If Amory Lovins had designed a nuclear reactor that would be unaffordable to build it would be

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)

You can make the case that regulation inflates the cost of nuclear power plants, and that's somewhat true, but the deep problem is the cost of the steam turbine and other facilities (e.g. heat exchangers) to accept energy at the low temperatures that the LWR works at.

All of that is so big and expensive it would be hard to make the economics work even if you got the heat for free.

A liquid metal fast reactor or a molten salt reactor or a high temperature gas cooled reactor could power a closed-cycle gas turbine

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1221819

which would fit in the employee break room of the turbine house at a nuclear plant. Such a "fourth-generation" nuclear power plant might have compelling economics to build, but it's hard to believe anybody is going to start and finish an LWR outside of China.

It's little appreciated that the cost of the steam turbine is what killed coal circa 1980. Once GE adapted aerospace turbines for low-capital cost power plants on the ground, it made no sense to build more thermal coal plants.

In the late 1970s you see various attempts to save the coal industry, plausibly you could have gotten better capital costs pyrolyzing the coal and running the gas through a gas turbine. This kind of technology is making a comeback because it can be coupled with carbon storage to make CO2 free or CO2 negative energy.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#173

Post by forty »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #158
lazide wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politi…

Indeed! Rail and nuclear power seem to play out the exact same tragedy. Very sad.

If you like trains and nuclear, you should move to France, we have lots of both. And pastry too ;)

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#174

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#175

Post by pixiemaster »

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…

they have also build hundred of steam reactors that have a modular heating system - while currently served with a coal system can be exchanged by nuclear heating anytime

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#176

Post by godelski »

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…

France is only reducing to 50%. That still means France will be the world leader in nuclear energy. I'm not sure why both pro nuclear and anti-nuclear people see this as the end of nuclear power in France. Far from it. Energy should be well diversified. This is a good move for France and nuclear in general. There are some advantages to solar and wind but they can't support the entire network itself. France's goal is to start by increasing solar and wind and completely eliminate coal first. This move is neither anti-nuclear nor pro-coal.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#177

Post by pydry »

misiti3780 wrote: post #80
corban1 wrote: post #69

Nuclear is clean, it is safe but it is not cheap. It's safe and clean because of it's moderately priced. I stand by nuclear because it's cleanness and safeness which can't be compared to anything else. What will we generate electricity with in non-windy cloudy days? Coal? LNG? ESS? Note that all of those options are more dangerous, more expensive and more dirty than nuclear.

Not sure about Europe, but nuclear seems to be expensive in the US because construction costs are high because of overcautious regulation[1]. It was considerably cheaper in the 50/60s here, and it seems like mostly a policy issue [1] https://rootsofprogress.org/devanney-on-the-nuclear-flop

Nuclear is expensive with a $200 million liability cap for accidents. By comparison, that's roughly 0.2-0.5% of what the total cost of dealing with Fukushima will cost.

If we think it's over-regulated the first regulation that should go should be that $200 million liability cap.

Then perhaps private insurers can decide for themselves what level of safety is required to protect them from a potential $1 trillion cleanup cost they'd be on the hook for.

If the nuclear industry can convince them it's worth it at all, that is.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#178

Post by DaedPsyker »

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…

How many have been affected by emissions because we let perfect be the enemy of good? We don't go out with a bang with coal, no spectacular single point to focus attention. Nonetheless people are dying early right now this minute because it's easier to dismiss the actual long drawn out deaths than the theoretical ones.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#179

Post by derriz »

Manuel_D wrote: post #133
forty wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Comparing non-dispatchable sources with dispatchable sources is comparing apples to oranges. Solar is cheap, until you saturate daytime consumption and have to start building storage. Similar with wind.

Nuclear isn't dispatchable - most reactors have a design output and are not intended to be ramped up and down. They require a big chunk of actual dispatchable power (natural gas mainly) to provide demand following. LACE is a measure which takes into account the value of the generated electricity as well as the cost of production but nuclear does poorly here also as much of its output occurs when wholesale prices are low.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#180

Post by the8472 »

_ph_ wrote: post #131
kspacewalk2 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Maybe I have not made that point clear enough in my post: currently they are failing to build replacement plants at a cost at which they could replace all of the existing reactors. Unless they can come up with an entirely new design which considerably cuts cost compared to what is considered a "current design" right now, there will be a reduction in capacity.

Building them in series tends to make per-unit cost come down.
Post reply on HN