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

331–340 of 450 posts

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#331

Post by adrianN »

ike0790 wrote: post #235

Looks like a G20 country is serious about the impending "climate emergency". Regardless of the motives and timing behind this, I think its great to see a country is actually being serious and practical. Anyone going on about the climate and refuses to put nuclear energy at the forefront of the conversation is unserious and is only interested in virtual signaling in my opinion.

Six new nuclear power plants are most likely not even enough to replace those that will be shut down due to old age in the next decade or two. It's not anywhere near enough to reach climate targets.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#332

Post by hardlianotion »

sendben2 wrote: post #269
simion314 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs. That is the easier part, show me the battery deployments please , the ones that can backup the country/state for a week.

Yes. This. Storage is still expensive. Also France is already a world leader in nuclear grid energy. They already have a long history of building and maintaining nuclear plants.

The nuclear grid in France is ageing, as is the expertise needed to construct and maintain. The decision seems to come at a critical time to maintain France's nuclear capability.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#333

Post by nix23 »

popol12 wrote: post #327
immmmmm wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Switzerland, 60% of my electricity comes from hydro. Ok ok, De Gaulle was maybe more concerned about energy independence. France doesn't do too bad? Any link? As far a i remember only a few African countries do "not too bad", but perhaps you were referring to former colonies as well. > I live in France, never heard of this "Net Zero" you're talking about. I then suggest some good climate information channel…

And whose country's electricity is pumping water up Switzerland's reversible dams during the night ?

I don't understand the down-votes you get..it's mostly Frances nuclear-power.

But little correction: During the Night IN Wintertime

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#334

Post by lm28469 »

immmmmm wrote: post #303
gobip wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France is not serious about climate? If you're in a neighbor country of France: congrats, your electricity is much more polluted than France's is. Énergie Nucléaire was a thing of De Gaulle, but not for these reasons. France needed independence and needed to provide electricity, and the only way was nuclear (at the time). Given the current situation, I think France didn't do too bad. Only one candidate in France on p…

I live in Switzerland, 60% of my electricity comes from hydro. Ok ok, De Gaulle was maybe more concerned about energy independence. France doesn't do too bad? Any link? As far a i remember only a few African countries do "not too bad", but perhaps you were referring to former colonies as well. > I live in France, never heard of this "Net Zero" you're talking about. I then suggest some good climate information channel…

> I live in Switzerland, 60% of my electricity comes from hydro.

Switzerland in an anomaly on virtually every metrics you can come by.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#335

Post by hardlianotion »

phicoh wrote: post #297
tjoff wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... very slight difference between excess energy and let's import a contries worth of energy. The cost of transmission will be insane, the grid is not meant for those kinds of transfers.

The cost of nuclear is also insane at the moment. For example, the Netherlands has plenty of space for wind on the North Sea. But sometimes of course there is no wind. If there is no wind in the Netherlands, there is a good chance there will be wind north of Scotland. With the current prices for nuclear power plants, you can easily run cables from the Netherlands to the north of Scotland and still be cheaper than nuc…

In 2021/22 year there was low levels of wind powered generation in the whole system.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#336

Post by epistasis »

simion314 wrote: post #260
epistasis wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will be serious if they actually build it, unlike Flamanville. While you call non-nuclear options "virtue signaling," the attempts at building it in France and the US have been virtue signaling. We don't have the industrial capacity to build nuclear. Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs. Locking in the high costs of nuclear, for the 60 year lifet…

>Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs. That is the easier part, show me the battery deployments please , the ones that can backup the country/state for a week.

We are just as of 2020 reaching cost effectiveness for batteries, and planning by utilities is often on five year time lines and uses outdated data, so they are slow to pick up new technology.

Nonetheless, storage is ready, and even in profit driven grids like Texas' ERCOT:

> Citing lower costs and increased renewables, momentum continued in the growth of battery energy storage systems in 2021, roughly doubling with 1,262 MW online, compared to 640 MW in 2020. ... with the next two largest systems in Texas, namely the 102-MW Gambit Battery Energy Storage Park and the 100-MW North Fork Battery Storage Project.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights...

If you want week long batteries, you'll first have to show the need for that, but something like that won't be built until it is needed: enough cheap solar and wind on the grid.

With how slow utilities are to adopt cheap new technologies, that will be a while. But cost-optimization strategies for carbon free grids tend to select a lot of excess solar and wind capacity, and almost no nuclear at all. Though I would say that those models are flawed in that they assume that nuclear can be built, when the last decades have shown that it can not really be built.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#337

Post by dgellow »

yason wrote: post #265
epistasis wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will be serious if they actually build it, unlike Flamanville. While you call non-nuclear options "virtue signaling," the attempts at building it in France and the US have been virtue signaling. We don't have the industrial capacity to build nuclear. Meanwhile, we are deploying GW of solar, wind, and storage on time, on budget, ar ever decreasing costs. Locking in the high costs of nuclear, for the 60 year lifet…

The cost of nuclear goes down if we build more of smaller standardized reactors rather than a huge, advanced plants every few decades where everything is new and untested each time, warranting long periods of validation and certification, and where the people building it have changed after each built power plant.

From what I understand small modular reactors are not ready for production. Macro announced government money to help their research. The goal is to a have a prototype end of 2020s.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#338

Post by enaaem »

stubish wrote: post #205
robertlagrant wrote: post #2

I keep hearing from people who think nuclear's a bad idea that "France is ramping down its reliance on nuclear power, so what does that tell you?" I wonder whether any will change their minds based on this news.

I don't think it will change any minds. Bringing a new power plant online in 15 years is irrelevant to just about everybody. Most people are concerned about switching to renewables right now . It might have interested people 20 years ago, maybe even 10.

The best time to invest in nuclear was 15 years ago. The second best time is now.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#339

Post by immmmmm »

bvrlt wrote: post #329
immmmmm wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Switzerland, 60% of my electricity comes from hydro. Ok ok, De Gaulle was maybe more concerned about energy independence. France doesn't do too bad? Any link? As far a i remember only a few African countries do "not too bad", but perhaps you were referring to former colonies as well. > I live in France, never heard of this "Net Zero" you're talking about. I then suggest some good climate information channel…

> I live in Switzerland, 60% of my electricity comes from hydro. Hydro isn't the panacea. It's destroying ecosystems. Climate change is a problem but the biodiversity collapse another one. https://eu.patagonia.com/fr/en/stories/telling-the-dam-truth...

i agree a 100% sir!

i was just replying to a comment saying that nuclear is cleaner

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#340

Post by yreg »

Archelaos wrote: post #326
shawabawa3 wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has been burning more and more coal since shutting down their nuclear plants in favour of renewables What a great green strategy that was

This is not true. The agreement between the federal government and the energy supply companies to phase out nuclear energy dates back to 14 June 2000. The first nuclear power plant was shut down permanently in Nov. 2003. At this time the power generation from coal (both hard coal and lignite) was around 300 TWh/year. It almost halfed to 162.6 TWh in 2021. The all time low was in 2020, though, due to the pandemic. For…

You are right to correct the GP.

Imagine the lives that could be saved if they replaced the coal with renewables first and phased out nuclear second.

Post reply on HN