Nuclear Power in France • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#211

Post by misiti3780 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #177

misiti3780 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cleanu…

ok, that sounds like a policy issue though - no ?

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#212

Post by cesarb » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:25 PM UTC

quotemstr wrote: post #137

usui wrote: post #33

Reducing nuclear power in France seems to be one of the worst decisions you could make in a time when the rest of the world has its head in the sand. From OP: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr... > France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this. > In November 2018, a draft of the country's new en…

> Reducing nuclear power in France seems to be one of the worst decisions you could make in a time when the rest of the world has its head in the sand. When people claim to have goal A but do things that run counter to A, you must conclude that their real goal is not goal A but instead some other goal B. When environmentalist types rail against nuclear power, they reveal their true preferences. They care more about d…

> When environmentalist types rail against nuclear power, they reveal their true preferences. They care more about dismantling technological civilization than they do about reducing emissions. If they really cared about emissions as much as they claim to care, they'd support nuclear power out of necessity. They don't, so it's fair to conclude they have unstated goals.

There's an alternative explanation: that their "true preferences" and "unstated goals" are against nuclear weapons (and the pollution associated with their use), and nuclear power is seen as an enabler of nuclear weapons. (You also have to keep in mind that greenhouse gases are not the only type of pollution "environmentalist types" are concerned about.)

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#213

Post by cesarb » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:27 PM UTC

darth_avocado wrote: post #58

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.

A more logical explanation is that most country borders are on rivers, and nuclear power plants need a lot of cooling.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#214

Post by cinntaile » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:28 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #210

PaulHoule wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Eh, the basic economics of a PWR or even BWR are quite sound and you don’t need fancy tech to change that. Even with very expensive uranium and very expensive turbines, it doesn’t change that (depending on the number of orders of magnitude we’re talking about of course). And if you’re making 10x-100x of the things in a few years, it actually gets cheaper for both, since you can build a series of turbines, or reopen a…

Nuclear is very expensive, that's why even countries very positive to nuclear aren't happily replacing their old reactors. France did the math recently, 100 billion euros for 10 new reactors. The old ones are better from an economical point of view so it's much better to try and keep them going.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#215

Post by NaNDude » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

derriz wrote: post #179

Manuel_D wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

nuclear dispatching is mostly done over international distribution in UE. the requirements in more dispatchables power like gaz or hydro is'nt comparable with weather randomized energy sources with poor efficiency which usually require a 1:1 alternative dispatchables sources (gaz or hydro again). France electric energy mix is/was around 70-80% nuclear.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#216

Post by Manuel_D » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:31 PM UTC

derriz wrote: post #179

Manuel_D wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A better term might be "non-intermittent". Nuclear plants produce the same amount of energy regardless of time of day or wind speed. And power output can be modulated with more aggressive cooling. Same thermal output of the reactor, but lessened electrical output.

By comparison, any plan for a renewable grid requires massive storage capacity. Most hand-wave this away by assuming some new technology will effectively make storage free.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#217

Post by tehjoker » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:35 PM UTC

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

Thorium reactors produce isotopes that can be converted into U238, which is less desirable than U235 for weapons purposes, but can be converted into a usable if annoying and expensive to manage bomb due to its high gamma production.

https://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/nfc/power-weapons...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#218

Post by Gupie » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:37 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.

As it has been said democracy is rubbish, the only thing going for it is that it is better than the alternatives.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#219

Post by tehjoker » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:38 PM UTC

beebmam wrote: post #21

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…

Part of this is due to China's new expansion of their nuclear arsenal: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57995185

Why would they build land based missiles? My understanding is that that part of the US triad is basically pork due to the capabilities of sea and air and the fact that they are static installations that can be easily targeted.

I can only speculate that it could make sense for China if their sea and air power are substantially less capable.

It's pretty amusing for US officials to express concern over an increasing arsenal when they are themselves spending over a trillion dollars on that exact thing while they deliberately provoke China over the Taiwan issue, placing US soldiers in Taiwan, which is considered Chinese territory.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-troops-have-been-deployed-i...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#220

Post by Gupie » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 7:45 PM UTC

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.

Is it safe considering the 1000 square miles of Ukraine that Chernobyl made uninhabitable? How safe are they against terrorist attacks, an attack by a rogue state or in a conventional war?