Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof • Hacker News Board

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#101

Post by exabrial » Sat, Apr 09, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

krageon wrote: post #58

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's stupid to fret about nuclear waste. All plants, worldwide over all human history, for 20% of the power production of the entire planet, 100% green, have produced less than one half of one football field of barrels. We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Thanks to mining byproducts, nuclear produces less and lower level radioactive waste than solar or wind Zero humans in history have di…

> less than one half of one football field This is not a useful metric, except to impress folks that know almost nothing about the field. Even then it is misleading, because the storage requirements are so strenuous that it cannot be assumed to be done well. > We can stop climate change on one field of barrels every 31 years Instead, we will have radioactive children in 50 years. > Zero humans in history have died fr…

If you're going to have strong opinions, at least be educated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#102

Post by JohnHaugeland » Sat, Apr 09, 2022, 3:31 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #65

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Fukushima cleanup, unique in history and resulting from radically unlikely natural disasters, cost less than half what the fuel it replaced that decade would have This is without considering the cost of climate change or all those prevented deaths

The tsunami was the secondary cause, and believing that no-one could predict such a tsunami is misleading. Proof: another nuclear plant was less distant from the tsunami and survived, because someone (Y. Hirai) foresaw it and could impose his views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... The hard truth is: even a predictable cause can trigger a disaster. And many aren't predictable. Fukushima…

Your stories notwithstanding, every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon.

> The question isn't "is a disaster possible?" but "when, and of which magnitude?".

Yeah. And solar out-kills nuclear by a factor of nearly 20.

Your problem is that you're trying to consider nuclear in isolation, with no null hypothesis.

Every single replacement causes more death and more radioactive waste, no exceptions, even when you fold in the worst nuclear disasters in history.

.

> Fukushima is by many criteria a "lucky" case

This is an absurd and incorrect viewpoint. Please do not hold yourself forwards as knowledgeable in these matters.

The Fukushima design was well known to be flawed, and the United States had been suing Japan to shut it down for ten years before this happened.

The seawall did not meet Japan's national standards.

You might as well call Union Carbide lucky. Go be an apologist on someone else's time.

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#103

Post by JohnHaugeland » Sat, Apr 09, 2022, 7:02 PM UTC

natmaka wrote: post #98

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Victims: there are dissenting opinions Nobody cares. There's truth. No evidence exists of these fictional things you're trying to discuss. Anti-vaxxers speculate that vaccines secretly killed millions of people. That seems absurd, no? Like. We'd be able to find them? Then why does this seem any different? We're able to find evidence of deaths from 20,000 years ago, in caves, buried under 500 feet of dirt Why can't…

Russia's demographics show surges of deaths during this period, there is no doubt about it. The causes are a matter of polemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#After_W... Russian Academicians publish a scientific meta-study about Russia, let me prefer this over "JohnHaugeland" bluntly pretending "nobody cares". Past victims statistics: I referenced Ourworldindata's work, their detailed work seems…

I'm not interested in holding a discussion with someone who denies the Banqiao dam burst deaths, and wants to take unsourced blog statistics by a single dude over the World Health Organization and the United Nations

I am not interested in someone who says "here's a list of numbers, the United Nations must be wrong, the causes are a matter of polemics."

Polemics are generic archetypal verbal attacks. The United Nation's health statistics do not get interpreted in terms of verbal attacks.

You make vague references to "Russian academicians" and claim they said things, but don't provide evidence. The Russian academics still haven't admitted Kyshtym happened.

There is a point at which if someone listens to clowns but not the world's authorities, they and everything they believe should just be discarded without further commentary

The science is clear: arguing with an anti-vaxxer or a flat earther just drives them further into their delusion. The common sense is also clear: the regular person does not get satisfaction, but rather more frustration, at the end. The current position of psychology is that the reason anti-vaxxers exist is that they have genuinely mis-identified their addiction to argument as being seen as knowledgeable, and that even when legitimate experts show up with evidence, their unwillingness to budge convinces them that they're even righter. They really think this makes them look good.

Psychology currently frames this as the result of severe self doubt, as "you need to argue with me so that I can show myself that I could win."

Of course I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who denies basic facts, and refers vaguely to evidence they haven't provided. Nobody should. That's how you get flat earthers.

Deniers don't deserve argument, and trying to talk to them like normal people hurts them mentally.

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#104

Post by FrenchAmerican » Sat, Apr 09, 2022, 10:45 PM UTC

bushbaba wrote: post #86

FrenchAmerican wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The good thing is that there is an independent Authority which decides if it is safe or not to extend the lives. For once, it is truly acting as supposed, forcing the nuclear operator to make the current maintenance. I really think that ANRS takes no risk. Almost all pieces of the oldest nuclear plants have been replaced. The pieces that can't are crucial but don't deteriorate fast by nature ; it is quite well monito…

How long does the pollution from solar panels, coal, and natural gas last?

My point is to not build new nuclear centrals. France should maintain its current centrals so that no coal is used and as little natural gas as possible.

Recycling solar panels (and other stuff used to produce renewable energies) is a real issue. But I wonder why pronuclear fanatics are so sure that we will find technical solutions to dismantle old nuclear centrals and safety stock tens of thousand tons of nuclear waste... but always point the issues and challenges of renewable energies as totally impossible to get over.

Nuclear energy is not the solution for a sustainable world. So France should invest heavily in research and development on renewables energies to find solutions that scale to the needs of 9+ billions people.

There are plenty of discoveries and breakthroughs to make, patents to deposit so that France can reindustrialize and have an positive industrial balance in 20 years.

At the same time, nuclear fission should be pursued. It will cost tens of billions but that's worth it. The EU ought to keep up with China and the US leading that field. The ITER project is international but is getting behind.

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#105

Post by natmaka » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 3:56 AM UTC

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #103

natmaka wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia's demographics show surges of deaths during this period, there is no doubt about it. The causes are a matter of polemics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia#After_W... Russian Academicians publish a scientific meta-study about Russia, let me prefer this over "JohnHaugeland" bluntly pretending "nobody cares". Past victims statistics: I referenced Ourworldindata's work, their detailed work seems…

I'm not interested in holding a discussion with someone who denies the Banqiao dam burst deaths, and wants to take unsourced blog statistics by a single dude over the World Health Organization and the United Nations I am not interested in someone who says "here's a list of numbers, the United Nations must be wrong, the causes are a matter of polemics." Polemics are generic archetypal verbal attacks. The United Nation…

Sorry but I see no argument here.

I referenced published documents, everyone is free to read, counter-argument, and even rant on.

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#106

Post by natmaka » Sun, Apr 10, 2022, 4:13 AM UTC

JohnHaugeland wrote: post #102

natmaka wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tsunami was the secondary cause, and believing that no-one could predict such a tsunami is misleading. Proof: another nuclear plant was less distant from the tsunami and survived, because someone (Y. Hirai) foresaw it and could impose his views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onagawa_Nuclear_Power_Plant#20... The hard truth is: even a predictable cause can trigger a disaster. And many aren't predictable. Fukushima…

Your stories notwithstanding, every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon.   > The question isn't "is a disaster possible?" but "when, and of which magnitude?". Yeah. And solar out-kills nuclear by a factor of nearly 20. Your problem is that you're trying to consider nuclear in isolation, with no null hypothesis. Every single replacement causes more death and more radioactive waste, no…

> every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon.

No energy production mean reached zero carbon. Nuclear is far from this goal and cannot attain it on any financially realistic way.

Even France, which produces most of its electricity using nuclear reactors since the 90's, couldn't. Proof (red surfaces represent fossil fuels used for electricity production in France): https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi...

In France the 'nuclear success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewable sources must replace it.

The fraction of consumed energy produced by renewables is booming, even in good old Europe. Proof: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/nrg_ind_ured/...

Overall there is a working and more and more adopted way to build future energy systems... and another one...: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/nuclear-renewables-electr...

> solar out-kills nuclear

This is false, as any serious meta-study shows: https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Moreover those victims are past ones, and a new major nuclear disaster may cause many victims while solar-panels induced major disasters aren't even possible.

Re: Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

#107

Post by spupe » Mon, Apr 11, 2022, 9:12 AM UTC

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #99

synotna2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, hopefully we have unicorns in the distant future Today and the immediate future need solutions that we can already build

All of those options are available to us right now, they are literally being rolled out as we speak. There is a much bigger question about our ability to build nuclear on the scale required.

Honest question, do you know a serious source I can read about how this rollout is being executed? I am only familiar with European energy policy, and grid storage currently is a pipe dream, more efficient construction is very slowly being rolled out and so far doesn't make a dent in the problem, and the renewable mix being expanded is inevitably intermittent (mostly solar and wind, with the rest being negligible), as hydro is a very small component of the mix so far and in the medium term future. The only question about our ability to build nuclear is cost-efficiency and regulations.