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

381–390 of 450 posts

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#381

Post by mrep »

panick21_ wrote: post #199
Gwypaas wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source regarding actually seeing negative learning effects I linked in the original comment states in the abstract. > The French nuclear case illustrates the perils of the assumption of robust learning effects resulting in lowered costs over time in the scale-up of large-scale, complex new energy supply technologies. The uncertainties in anticipated learning effects of new technologies might be much larger that o…

What matter to me is that within one generation they totally de-carbonized the grid from oil and coal to nuclear and have successfully been in running it that way for decades. Germany has been doing a Green New Deal style thing with Renwables for 2 decades now, in my opinion they could have easily been heading to 100% CO2 free by now if they had just started to build nuclear plants. The French certainty made mistakes…

Nuclear looks to be about 3x as expensive as wind/solar [0] and that is assuming you use it at 100% of its capacity due to the high building cost and low marginal costs. Just looking at California, winter nights drop to about half of electric demand as summer days [1] so you'd have to pay even more for spare capacity.

I think it would far cheaper to just build like 2x the wind/solar you need and use the surpluses to make methane [2] which is easily stored and already used for 40% of the US electrical grid [3].

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...

[1]: http://www.caiso.com/TodaysOutlook/Pages/default.aspx

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_of_the_Unit...

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#382

Post by snak »

jokoon wrote: post #348
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.

A 17min explanation on molten salts by a nuclear physics professor: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F92L6F0INYk

Excellent explanation, thanks for sharing!

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#383

Post by jsnell »

inter_netuser wrote: post #290
jsnell wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Finnish Green Party no longer opposes nuclear power as of last year.

How did that transition happen?

It's been a gradual process over the last two decades.

The cynical view would be that during that time they left the government twice to protest the government approving new nuclear power projects, and paid a heavy political price for that. They can't afford to do it a third time, and given Finland's position (can't rely on solar or wind during winter, can't build more hydro, can't depend on imports during the production troughs) it is highly likely that more nuclear will be approved at some point.

The non-cynical view is that the world has actually changed over that time. Reducing CO2 emissions is more urgent than ever, and there's no longer time to hope that we can instead reduce energy usage which used to be their preferred solution.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#384

Post by tim333 »

epistasis wrote: post #243
Xixi wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also keep in mind, a lot of the cost of Hinkley Point is not so much the cost to build the reactors, but the financing. Speaking from memory, we are talking about borrowing at something like 10% over 35 years. If France finances these new power plants, financing cost goes virtually to zero. So even if actually building the new reactors cost the same (unlikely, I hope they learnt a thing or two over the last 10 years.…

Finance is not free, there is always opportunity cost.

Interest rates are very low still though. Governments can borrow at nearer to 1% than 10%.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#385

Post by tinus_hn »

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.

This is not about climate, it’s about geopolitics and Russian gas.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#386

Post by tim333 »

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.

Serious I'd think would involve a global solution that actually makes a difference. I haven't seen much of that yet. A lot of talk and local restrictions that don't do much while CO2 emissions go up and up.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#387

Post by Archelaos »

shawabawa3 wrote: post #369
Archelaos wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

sorry you're correct i was inaccurate. Coal has only increased in 2021, but fossil fuels have increased since 2002 (from 69.9GW to 78.9GW), i misremembered that statistic as coal instead of fossil fuels

The consumption of natural gas itself has indeed increased. But the sum of natural gas + coal has still decreased a lot. From aprox. 350 TWh per year in the early 2000s to 251,6 TWh in 2021. The partial replacement of coal by natural gas is at least in part caused by the transition to renewable energies. Until the transition is complete, natural gas is the best fossil fuel option to even out fluctuations in the production of renewable energy, because gas power plants can be switched on and off very quickly at peak times (in strong contrast btw to nuclear power plants) and they can be built relatively decentralized, each with a small volume. Therefore it is not likely that we will see a major drop in natural gas consumption in Germany in the next two decades.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#388

Post by loup-vaillant »

Reason077 wrote: post #346
loup-vaillant wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, now France is not being serious about climate, and has not been since at least 10 years, when we had Hollande on the throne. We've had talks about closing down nuke plants that are still in working order, the next one is taking forever, and we still have many people who want to shut it all down in the very name of the environment (overall, the French people are woefully misinformed about the pros and cons of nu…

> "windmills & solar panels, which requires many more times the ground surface and/or concrete" There is no scenario where a comparable wind or solar farm requires more concrete than a nuclear plant. Not even close. A modern nuclear plant requires hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of concrete (ie: over a million tonnes), as well as hundreds of thousands of tonnes of steel. Yes, a solar farm may require more land…

Yes, a modern nuclear plant requires tons & tons of concrete. Yes, it costs tons & tons of money. It also gives you gigantic amounts of energy, and you can adjust its output. Windmill and solar panels only produce energy when there's wind or sun, so their actual energy output is much lower than their peak power output, and you can't decide to turn them on or off at will like you can with a nuke plant to adjust it to the energy needs of the country.

You want to be renewable only? Then you need to install several times the power output you need, and enough energy storage to have your energy at will: dams, batteries… This is going to cost a lot.

Also, shutting down a nuke plant takes about a minute, then you need very little water to keep it cool. Completely dismantling it takes much longer of course, but it takes so little surface compared to its energy output that you might as well just leave it there to rot.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#389

Post by MagnumOpus »

pydry wrote: post #322
phicoh wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring storage, wind and solar are now very cheap. For example, companies now pay to rent pieces of North Sea to place wind parks there.

Pumped water storage also isnt that expensive.

Pumped water storage is unsurprisingly limited by the same factors as hydro - there aren't that many steep mountains suitable to put lakes on top in most places.

Re: France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors

#390

Post by lagadu »

chha wrote: post #354
lagadu wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Portugal and Spain we have pumping stations doing exactly that. I couldn't find a link in English but maybe you'll find this useful: https://www.iberdrola.com/sustentabilidade/central-hidreletr...

Nice! It turns out we have a few (12) pumping stations here as well, but there is little information on how often they've been used. The high electricity prices we've seen lately have reactualized this, with spikes of around $1 USD/kWh. Current water levels are at approx 47% capacity [1], compared to around 64% same time last year. Unless we get a wet spring and summer it could get exciting come next year... [1] - ht…

Same, we're also facing issues with water level this year, to the point that several of the dams were ordered to stop producing electricity in order to save the water.
Post reply on HN