Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 450 posts

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#111

Post by jibe »

joe_the_user wrote: post #48
HideousKojima wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the high voltage lines that would bring the power into San…

In this article, I don't see evidence for "environmentalists" being the ones block wind-power, sounds more like argument between levels of the French state [1]. But just as much, the mantle of environmentalist can be taken by anyone, notably just nimbys. There's not a copyright on the term. But it winds-up even worse when others point to these idiot uses of the term environmentalist and then try to push actually envi…

The Green parties of Europe, which are the political face of the environmental movement, all oppose nuclear power. Perhaps most strongly in Germany, but The Greens in France oppose it as well.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#112

Post by HideousKojima »

goodpoint wrote: post #73
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days? The problem is - the average "environmentalist" is not trying to maximize for anything. It's a broad bucket that almost everyone is falling into and there's almost zero common ground, no organization, etc. Of course there are going to be people that oppose almost everything that label them…

Additionally any twitter bot or "crisis actor" paid by an oil company can claim to belong to the category. It's far too easy to blame "environmentalists" for everything.

In my example, it was other kids at my school and their parents protesting it for environmental reasons. And mind you, the powerlines weren't even passing through our town so it wasn't NIMBYism.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#113

Post by Gwypaas »

panick21_ wrote: post #110
Gwypaas wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With government subsidies everything can be made to look cheap. Not saying we should not subsidize some energy production, but nuclear seems like a woefully inefficient use of it. >In 2010, as part of the progressive liberalisation of the energy market under EU directives, France agreed the Accès régulé à l'électricité nucléaire historique (ARENH) regulations that allowed third party suppliers access up to about a qu…

All power in Europe is subsidies in so many different ways. An accurate comparison of prices is basically impossible. I would argue, by literally any meassure, French investment in nuclear in the 60-70 was absolutely paid off. CO2 saved in the 80s is far better then CO2 saved now. The only reason nuclear didn't become universal in the US is cheap coal plants. The US would be 100x better off if they had build a few 10…

The main reason is cost. Then gas plants undercut everything which had a steam cycle and the nuclear industry has been living on government handouts ever since. Alternating between "small and modular" and "big and efficient" to have something to try and hype with.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St...

> By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[48]

> Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[49][50][51]

> Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[52] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States:

> Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[53]

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#115

Post by Nbox9 »

d--b wrote: post #71

Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy. But whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

> It's particularly smart in this moment

It may be particularly smart for this moment in internal French politics, but energy independence is a smart move for any sovereign.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#116

Post by nixass »

grammers wrote: post #95
d--b wrote: post #71

Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy. But whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

Exactly. Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is just a political move for the upcoming election.

>Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is just a political move for the upcoming election.

Of course, that's why it says first reactor will go live in 2035, not in a day

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#117

Post by jibe »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #61
valarauko wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It needs to be about minimizing total damage, even if it means damaging isolated areas intentionally. I think that's an arithmetic everyone largely accepts, but they just don't want to be the specific ones paying the price while others seemingly get only the benefits. NIMBYism, if you will.

It's 100% NIMBYism. Just like the complaints about how higher-density housing may hurt 'the environment' for whatever city people live in. Like, if everyone blocks high density housing, those people don't just disappear, they're gonna end up living in low density housing, and that's obviously much worse for the environment: takes up more space, which means cutting into nature more, and generally takes more energy for…

It isn’t really NIMBYism to oppose remote desert solar plants, it is just people who care, perhaps without fully weighing cost/benefit, about any negative effect on nature.

There is a rational case that the huge footprint of solar and wind ends up doing more damage than more compact nuclear or natural gas plants. I suspect most of those opposing solar also oppose nuclear and gas.

I’d call it Nothing Is Good Enough Syndrome instead of NIMBY.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#118

Post by p1mrx »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #7

I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power, and crisis with Russia makes gas less accessible. France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power. They may pull this off. 2035 is a really long time to wait for new power to the grid though.

Moltex's approach to molten salt reactors looks interesting: https://youtu.be/7qJpVClxzVM?t=536

Instead of pumping radioactive molten salt between a reactor and heat exchanger, they plan to leave it sitting in stainless steel tubes, and use simple convection to extract the heat.

Oak Ridge rejected this idea in the 1950s because they were trying to power an aircraft, but convection makes more sense when the reactor isn't moving.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#119

Post by rodgerd »

d--b wrote: post #71

Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy. But whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

A point which may not be well-understood by people unfamiliar with French economic history is that for much of post-WW II period, France's power prices have been dramatically lower that other Western European countries (for industry, anyway).

One of the challenges that moves to get away from nuclear generation have caused is the prospect of hurting the French industrial base more than it's already been undermined by offshoring.

(The other concern is keeping an independent nuclear arsenal, which is completely coupled to having reactors.)

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#120

Post by Johnny555 »

socialdemocrat wrote: post #7

I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power, and crisis with Russia makes gas less accessible. France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power. They may pull this off. 2035 is a really long time to wait for new power to the grid though.

Are there any large MSR's in commercial use? I see a lot of test/development reactors on the wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Commercial...

Building one MSR sounds like a good way to prove the design, but I wouldn't want to see them build 6 at the same time. The EPR design that they are building is well tested.

Post reply on HN