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

271–280 of 309 posts

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#271

Post by rangoon626 »

somethoughts wrote: post #265
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://…

Don't shoot the messenger but my take is that environmentalism is much more than just climate change. It just feels like it because carbon emissions is the current topic and perhaps is the most pressing topic because most of the worlds energy is generally carbon based. The actual issue that environmentalist want solved is less overall production, reduction in all pollution and impact on the environment. And perhaps a…

Exactly.

Grifters like Al Gore want to use this cause as a money printing machine.

Actual environmentalists want the living standards of everyone _else_ to decline, along with population.

You know western society is in a hard decline when it's been taken over by greedy plutocrats and death cults.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#272

Post by namibj »

iforgotpassword wrote: post #142
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 risk is different. For coal, more or less everybody gets a few years off of their life expectancy, some a bit more who live closer to a plant, but roughly speaking, it's something everybody suffers from. With nuclear, those who live closer to a plant risk much more devastating damage in case something goes wrong. If you normalize both then nuclear comes out much safer, but that's not how humans work. I live 60km…

Keep in mind that German law blocks them from using the high-level waste site in northern Europe.

And yes, Asse is a symptom of turbocapitalism. A regulatory failure. Just look at superfund sites to get a perspective.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#273

Post by cinntaile »

lazide wrote: post #267
cinntaile wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I take it you didn’t read my earlier comment? There is no engineering reason for those reactors to cost $10bln. Literally zero. There are lots and lots of other reasons why they will probably cost even more than $10bln/ea though. Just like there is literally zero engineering reason for the ‘high speed’ rail in California to cost the insane sums it is currently consuming, and will continue to consume. The reason why t…

Life is pretty darn good in lalaland where everything is just a technological problem ready to be solved. I wish I could live there.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#274

Post by blamazon »

blamazon wrote: post #122
misiti3780 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Aren’t* ;)

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#275

Post by tehjoker »

3pt14159 wrote: post #232
tehjoker wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ars…

It isn't really a Triad these days. It's more like a hexaiad when you consider the various forms that nuclear weapons can take. But as to your question, silos benefit from very reliable coms. It's possible to communicate to subs, but it is slow and unreliable. Airpower suffers from jamming and signs of strike, since the planes need to be put in the air and that is observable. There is also a limit to the size of the…

Good answer, thank you!

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#276

Post by mcguire »

shakow wrote: post #269
mcguire wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably something to do with the nearly 2000 sq mi of "exclusion zones" from Chernobyl and Fukushima. (Which, admittedly, is great for the local wildlife.) " Ah yes, remind me how many windmills we would need to produce as much energey as a NPP? About 1500.

> About 1500. Nope. Average charge load for a windmill is ~35%, vs. over 90% for NPPs. Thus, you would need roughly thrice as many, and that in places with alternating winds – otherwise you would just get blackouts.

Already factored in.

I can't find my original reference, but here's once that doesn't factor in the difference: https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-how-much-powe...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#277

Post by jhgb »

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…

> China has 49 nuclear reactors in operation

> Nuclear provides only 2% of China’s electrical power now

So only ~2500 more reactors to go? That sounds like a century of work.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#278

Post by jhgb »

sudosysgen wrote: post #141
bipson wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still not "sustainable". And not really cheap either.

It is actually quite sustainable. The reactor core is not a large cost for a GW over 15 years. The US navy swaps out reactor cores for 100-200 million dollars, and those are in submarines and ships. There is basically no maintenance outside of those. For comparison, a GW of wind capacity is 1.6 billion every 20 years. For solar panels for 1GW of average generation you'll be paying 10 billion dollars or so every 25-30…

> For solar panels for 1GW of average generation you'll be paying 10 billion dollars or so every 25-30 years.

Where do you live that panels cost you $1.5+/Wp?

Furthermore, where do you live that panels will cost you $1.5+/Wp even thirty years from now?

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#279

Post by jhgb »

spfzero wrote: post #223
sudosysgen wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have to be disposed of. That creates waste. This is the same as with any other power generation method that exceeds it's lifespan. 15 years is not that different from 20 years for a wind turbine or 30 years for a solar panel.

Solar panels are lasting about 10-15 years in practice. About half of what was expected.

I call BS on that. This was the performance of ancient modules (early 1980s) after 25 years of operation: https://energiforskmedia.blob.core.windows.net/media/19320/p...

And this was for modules manufactured in a period with 5-10 year warranties for the product. Today you get 25 year warranties. So you're basically claiming that QA massively worsened in the meantime.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#280

Post by jhgb »

lm28469 wrote: post #231
bildung wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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%…

These aren't the numbers I have https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/p...

So a decrease from 48.6 GW of coal capacity in 2002 to 43.5 GW of coal capacity in 2020 is "firing up coal plants" to you?
Post reply on HN