Nuclear Power in France • Hacker News Board

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#231

Post by lm28469 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:13 PM UTC

bildung wrote: post #125

lm28469 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#232

Post by 3pt14159 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:14 PM UTC

tehjoker wrote: post #219

beebmam wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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 missiles and therefore immediate range. If you want to strike anywhere on command with little notice, silos are best. If you want to hit foreign target with absolutely minimal response time, submarines usually win out, since most major capitals are by the ocean. But even beyond this consideration, it is good to have a diversity of options to reduce the risk of a catastrophic vulnerability existing. For example, some hypothetical weapon that could eliminate all your submarines without warning.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#233

Post by XiJinpinggg » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

culi wrote: post #153

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…

The obsession with solar panels is currently driving a major ecological catastrophe. Solar panels are known to leak lead in the environment. We also have no good way to recycle them once the cells are done for good (currently, the average lifespan of a panel is about 20 years). There is already a massive buildup of solar waste full of extremely toxic components and we're not even close to seeing the worst of it consi…

Degrowth = recession = Less funds to invest in renewables.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#234

Post by evilos » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #208

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…

" When you throw in endless political tarpits and their side effects... " Like "where are you going to put the waste?" and "I don't want my property values to go to zero when an accident occurs"? :-) If one were suitably cynical, one might suggest China does not have that kind of problem.

Fun fact: all the nuclear waste that the US has ever produced fits in football field at a height of 30 feet.

Currently, spent fuel just stays at the nuclear plants because there is so little of it and it's not a problem. You just put them in sealed casks and they sit there. You don't really want to lose access to the spent fuel either because if you develop breeder reactors that spent fuel is now just 'fuel'.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#235

Post by corban1 » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:20 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…

Do cars pay for the possibility of crude oils spilled in the ocean? Was the Deepwater Horizon insured for the full amount of dealing with the disaster? Does coal energy plants pay for future diseases of people breathing air from their chimney? Does wind turbines pay for people that suffer from low frequency sounds and solar flickers?

All energy sources have uncertainties. We've been using much much more dangerous energy sources than nuclear. So the question is yours; why do you assume the worst only for nuclear when nuclear is the only source that is preparing for the worst?

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#236

Post by ortusdux » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #111

ortusdux wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with molten salt based reactors is that the high temperature radioactive molten salts destroy their containment vessels. I've yet to see a system design where the salt facing components are expected to last more that 7-10 years, which really hurts profitability.

There are two problems. One is corrosion/radiation damage to the reactor vessel which is probably made with something like http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-... The other is that most of these designs have a graphite moderator, and the graphite gets damaged in the reactor environment.

I would consider graphite moderators under the umbrella of salt facing components.

High Ni alloys such as Hast-N have their own issues - mainly radiation induced Ni -> He embrittlement and tellurium embrittlement. That being said, they are very promising.

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#237

Post by XiJinpinggg » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:21 PM UTC

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…

They reversed it: https://archive.is/cCDfv

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#238

Post by juanjmanfredi » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:22 PM UTC

andrewxdiamond wrote: post #71

dehrmann wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear power has inherit risks that are not present in other forms of modern energy generation. The risk is mostly that there's a large, high-profile accident every 20 years. Coal power has probably killed more regular people (not miners) than nuclear due to its emissions, but it's metered out slowly, so it's less scary. People are more afraid of flying than driving for the same reason.

I do not consider coal to be a modern source of fuel, it’s clearly a legacy source that we need to be rid of.

For what it's worth, nuclear energy kills fewer people per kilowatt hour than any other energy source, including solar and wind. This is as of 2012.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#239

Post by Manuel_D » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:28 PM UTC

derriz wrote: post #225

Manuel_D wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Nuclear plants are also "intermittent" - the average US reactor spends 32 days offline per year. Does that mean a grid relying heavily on nuclear needs massive amounts of storage? No - it means you need to have redundant capacity which is the solution also used for wind and solar. The benefit of nuclear in this regard isn't that it's "non-intermittent" - it's that the most common failure modes for a nuclear nuclear a…

A capacity factor of over 90% is exceptionally good. Wind and solar are 35% and 25% respectively [1]. And this down time for refuelling and other tasks is scheduled in advance. This not at all comparable to solar and wind's uncontrollable intermittency. A nuclear grid requires vastly less overproduction than a renewable grid. As you point out, renewable sources end up falling back on fossil fuels to pick up the slack. That's not an option if our goal is zero emissions.

1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capaci...

Re: Nuclear Power in France

#240

Post by asdff » Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

systemvoltage wrote: post #148

01100011 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remain a supporter of democracy but do have serious doubts regarding the ability of the majority of humankind to maintain a sufficient understanding of the increasingly complex world they control. Large portions of the US population seem to have problems with basic reasoning skills. I'm not sure the school system or western culture is capable of rectifying that anytime soon.

Representative democracy helps in this regard.

It also makes it easy for charlatans to take the helm by appealing to nonsense.