Jan Wildeboer 😷
Next week, France is forced yet again to reduce output and in some cases completely shut down nuclear reactors as the high temperatures heats up the cooling water they take from rivers beyond acceptable limits. This is the new normal now and will only get worse over the following years as we collectively ignore #ClimateChange
Pino Carafa@jwildeboer and sadly we have already reached a stage where the efforts were are putting in now, and redoubled efforts we could start putting in soon (but we won't) will not be enough to reverse the trend for a long, long time (if at all). So we have no choice. Yes we must do better to tackle climate change. But we must also start looking at how we can live with the damage that has already been done.
Tiber Sept@rozeboosje @jwildeboer ... and will be done. This isn't going to get better. This a game now of how to outsurvive the bastards that cause all this. Tips are welcome
@tibersept @jwildeboer I know this is totally selfish but I think I read somewhere that Ireland would be one of the places where the climate would remain tolerable... 🤷♂️
@tibersept @jwildeboer True. But I'll probably be dead by then ... current predictions are for the end of the century. Even my daughter will be very old by then. (An even more selfish view....)
noplasticshower@jwildeboer everything is fine #climatechange
aeris@jwildeboer And our Cour des Comptes said it only concern 1 to 2% of nuclear power.
In the same time, solar panel must be cooled with water to stay at 25°. Each ° above is 0.2% to 0.5% less power.
In the same time, solar panel must be cooled with water to stay at 25°. Each ° above is 0.2% to 0.5% less power.
@jwildeboer And nuclear plant can work without open water source. We just built reactor near such source because it's easier. We can just cool plant with closed source, like Palo Verde, in California desert, which use waste water of the near city.
Lukas Grossar@aeris @jwildeboer The temperature coefficient also works the other way, every °C below 25 °C increases their efficiency by the same percentage. When I did the calculations for the power limits of my installation I had to calculate the "worst" case scenario with regards to the highest power output at -8 °C.
Breizh@aeris @jwildeboer And it’s mostly for power plants without cooling tower.
Like in Bugey, where the two reactors without cooling towers will be replaced by new ones with cooling towers to fix the problem.
(And, if instead of directly reusing the output of cooling towers, you discharge it into the river, you can even cool the watercourse, as is done at Civaux on the Vienne)
@[email protected] @jwildeboer So, I see this is relevant, but is it the most important aspect? According to your statement, at 50°C we'll have 13% less power from each panel max ... as compared to playing with the cooling system of nuclear reactors. I bet accidents never happened this way
UPDATE: I was arguing here against bots, I deleted all my follow-up posts as they were mostly to trick the bots to do basic calculations.
@tibersept @jwildeboer We don't play with the cooling system. We lower down 1 to 2% of power to avoid any damage to nature and plant.
@tibersept @jwildeboer And also please stop forget that solar plant are 5× deadly than nuclear one.
@tibersept @jwildeboer And don't forget too that scotish wind plant did more than 250 direct deaths in 20 years for not even one hundredth power production of Tchernobyl.
Job
trusty falxter 🧠
@aeris @jwildeboer @tibersept It was 1–2% on average AFAIR, that may sound low, but during short critical periods, this causes noticeable energy shortages in the grid. Temperature limits for rivers have even been raised to avoid shutdowns, showing the issue isn’t trivial.
Nuclear plants can be built without natural water sources using closed cooling or wastewater, but France didn’t do this because it’s more expensive and complex. Alternative cooling would increase costs and possibly water use.
Here, many solar parks and private systems exist, but none with water cooling. Especially with PV surplus, using water to improve efficiency makes little sense.
@flxtr @aeris @jwildeboer @tibersept Well, France did do it on a lot of reactors particulary on smaller rivers. On the big ones it wasn’t necessary, but now it is, so that’s why all new nuclear plants on rivers (not the ones on the ocean) will have closed cooling.
The fact that we can run nuclear power plants on smaller rivers is a proof that we can solve the problem on the bigger rivers by using the same technology, which gave a lot more margin (it do use a bit more water, but nothing dangerous for the river and its wildlife, since you’re not heating the watercourse).
@tibersept @aeris @jwildeboer We’re not playing with it, we’re just lowering the heat output to avoid overheating the watercourse. We could continue to use it to max power without safety issue, but it could hurt the wildlife.
Do you know how a thermal (not only nuclear, but fossile ones too) electrical plant works?
@[email protected] @tibersept @jwildeboer And there is this trouble only on high temperature, which is basically on summer so also the least energy consumption point. And so the moment nuclear plant are stopped for refill. So usually not a trouble, we ALREADY have to stop ~30% of the park to go from 70GW on winter to 50GW on summer.
@[email protected] @tibersept @jwildeboer Fun fact too : it's less CO2 intensive to go on gaz backup (300g/kWh) for the 2% lower nuclear power (6g/kWh) for 50GW so 11g/kWh than producing 50GW from wind turbin (14g/kWh)
@aeris @jwildeboer @tibersept (especially since wind turbins needs a lot more of backup in practice…)
@[email protected] @tibersept @jwildeboer And so, once again, the ONLY trouble with 1-2% lower nuclear power plant is where to produce those missing part. And this is NOT a trouble if we know in advance we will need such cut. This is called : planning.
You can produce that with another underpowered not overheating nuclear plant, with one planned for refill, or with any other production mean (gaz, wind, solar…)
You can produce that with another underpowered not overheating nuclear plant, with one planned for refill, or with any other production mean (gaz, wind, solar…)
"Mediocre Bunny" Evelyn@jwildeboer Well, fuck.
*I guess they'll just have to make up the difference by burning fossil fuels**
**jk (kind of 
)
Ms. Denie@Gorfram @jwildeboer I suspect France would be well served by battery + solar investments.
It's probably cheaper to build by now.
fcalva@A_denie @Gorfram @jwildeboer No. See Aeris' post above for example. And as expensive as a nuclear plant is (especially once you have massacred the professional expertise), renewables have very low power density even if a single solar panel or wind turbine seems cheap.
NoBorg@jwildeboer
No, they don't go beyond acceptable limits. Au contraire, the reason why they may diminish production is precisely to respect newer limits and regulations that protect flora and fauna (don't create conditions that would endanger trout fish):
https://www.franceinfo.fr/environnement/energie/nucleaire/vague-de-chaleur-on-vous-explique-pourquoi-les-centrales-nucleaires-sont-forcees-de-ralentir-pour-ne-pas-trop-rechauffer-les-cours-d-eau_7332477.html
No, they don't go beyond acceptable limits. Au contraire, the reason why they may diminish production is precisely to respect newer limits and regulations that protect flora and fauna (don't create conditions that would endanger trout fish):
https://www.franceinfo.fr/environnement/energie/nucleaire/vague-de-chaleur-on-vous-explique-pourquoi-les-centrales-nucleaires-sont-forcees-de-ralentir-pour-ne-pas-trop-rechauffer-les-cours-d-eau_7332477.html
Vague de chaleur : on vous explique pourquoi les centrales nucléaires sont forcées de ralentir pour ne pas tro
EDF a prévenu que quatre sites situés sur le Rhône et la Garonne pourraient être contraints de baisser leur production d'électricité afin de respecter les seuils d'échauffement des cours d'eau qui servent à refroidir les réacteurs.
@jwildeboer
And France is not forced to reduce, as you claim. The warning talks about "a possibility" that they would have to diminish production, not a sure measure. They were just informing of a possibility. And anyhow it won't have a big impact since electricity consumption is at its lowest during Summer; that's why usually maintenance is scheduled during the summer months.
McWabbit 🇺🇦🍋🌻🍉@jwildeboer Another reason to look for and implement better alternatives than "just build more nuclear power plants".
Solar and wind are the way to go and can be quickly scaled with innovation, rather than one big static bunker that will create more headaches in the long run.
Jenkins. Tom Jenkins. 🤮🤢🤮@McWabbit @jwildeboer on the contrary: build more plants in other regions to power BIG BEAUTIFUL pumps to transport water where it is needed for cooling. Case closed.
d@nny disc@ mc²@jwildeboer solar panels also reduce in efficiency as temperature rises; the "temperature coefficient" is one of the many considerations in which panel to buy. panels with too-high temperature coefficients will need to be replaced with newer more efficient panels over time to cope with warming temperatures, much like nuclear power plants and indeed all energy infrastructure requires.
@jwildeboer solar panels do indeed require less up-front government investment than nuclear plants, so if you don't like governments investing in their own sovereign infrastructure, then delegating the responsibility of solar panel installation to individuals and offering handouts to corporations as subsidies is a great way to lead the country into austerity.
@jwildeboer would be curious how long it's been since those nuclear plants have been replaced or updated and what technology they're using. surely comparing 50-year old reactor technology to subsidized solar panel tech from current year isn't quite apples to apples. no way to verify this from your post though.
@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer The temperature coefficient was definitely something I looked at when selecting which solar panels to install on my roof, but the loss is usually less then 0.5%/°C and solar panels heating up is primarily driven by the radiation they are designed to receive and less by the surrounding temperature.
The cooling cutoff for atomic reactors is also more of a environmental protection topic than a technical one, since AFAIK they're primarily shut down to avoid killing all of the fish in the rivers.
@tongpu @jwildeboer so surely the environmental costs of silicon photovoltaic manufacturing and cobalt mining in the global south are incorporated into the estimated environmental impact of large-scale solar deployment, right? or does that not count because it happens to someone else? "killing all of the fish in the rivers" is a hilariously violent way to invoke the thing that does not happen because nuclear plants comply with local environmental regulations, as in OP.
@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer I was just trying to put numbers to the loss of efficiency with the increase in temperature in solar panels. And I think https://mastodon.social/@dotstdy/114766522332687748 explains the environmental impact best, "killing fish" was just the simplest way to put it. At least for me it was never about discussing solar vs. nuclear, as both of these technologies should be allowed to coexist.
Nemo_bis 🌈@hipsterelectron IEA has the answers you're looking for https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050
@nemobis that is a technical and scientific analysis and not a political one
@jwildeboer if we're concerned about local heat pollution i assume we would also wind down local data centers too right? yet you advocate for more local data centers to run "local" "AI" here. https://social.wildeboer.net/@jwildeboer/114279031256479061 the reason i became disgusted with my prior employer the US department of energy was their acceptance of siting "AI" data centers on top of nuclear power plants, which worsens the heat pollution and water usage of both to subsidize statistical bullshit for private industry instead of contributing to public services for all. if local heat pollution and freshwater extraction is a concern, then we should hold these data centers to the same standards, which means not building LLMs at all, regardless of who owns them.
Jan Wildeboer 😷:krulorange: (@[email protected])
It's a new version of #InnerSourcing, that is starting to grow, IMHO. We will see more investments in bare metal, a modest growth of BYODC (Build Your Own Data Center). Hybrid cloud solutions. And smaller, self-owned and trained AI models. All of this will be based more on compliance and risk avoidance and not a big patriotic/nationalistic move as some like to promote. 2/4
@jwildeboer i notice for example that your employer stands to profit from building more local data centers, but not from local nuclear power plants. i hope to see you holding their feet to the fire as well.
Josh Simmons@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer I believe the issue here is mostly unrelated to the technology per-se, it's more to do with location. The reactors at risk of needing to reduce capacity are built on relatively "small" water sources where there's risk of impacting ecology and other users of the river. Note though, we're talking about "a few tenth's of a degree" for a reactor, it's not exactly boiling the river. The issues in France in 2022 were mostly due to so many reactors already being offline.
@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer also France has pretty modern reactors, and a very low carbon footprint for electricity due to that huge nuclear generation. (2/3's of electricity generation in france comes from nuclear power, 1KWh in France "costs" ~44g CO2, compared to say, the US where 1KWh costs ~384g CO2, or Australia, where 1KWh costs ~552g CO2)
@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer of course there's one huge issue which isn't related to energy generation at all, which just that rising temps and lower water levels in these rivers impact irrigation and thus food supply. that's a *much* bigger issue in the short term than say, nuclear v.s. solar, both of which are huge positives in terms of global warming impact.
@dotstdy @jwildeboer the environmental costs of solar installation are largely externalized to the global south, which is an undercurrent that should be made explicit in these discussions https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/114766596111499322 the reason OP has emotional weight is because it refers to heat pollution near the homes it powers, which is why it's regulated much more stringently than outsourced photovoltaic and battery manufacturing. we're not going to get through this if we just push our waste elsewhere and play accounting tricks.
d@nny disc@ mc² (@[email protected])
@[email protected] @[email protected] so surely the environmental costs of [silicon photovoltaic manufacturing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystalline_silicon#Energy_costs_of_manufacture) and [cobalt mining](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt#Extraction) in the global south are incorporated into the estimated environmental impact of large-scale solar deployment, right? or does that not count because it happens to someone else? "killing all of the fish in the rivers" is a hilariously violent way to invoke the thing that does not happen because nuclear plants comply with local environmental regulations, as in OP.
@dotstdy reducing local power usage would seem to be a critical necessity but OP is actually interested in building more local data centers https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/114766496838386949
d@nny disc@ mc² (@[email protected])
@[email protected] i notice for example that your employer stands to profit from building more local data centers, but not from local nuclear power plants. i hope to see you holding their feet to the fire as well.
@dotstdy @jwildeboer thank you, that is super helpful to know. so it would seem that france is the "best case" in this regard, and i retract that comparison. sorry about that.
Magnus Ahltorp@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer The big difference is that solar is presented as an unpredictable and erratic source, while nuclear is presented as stable.
In reality nuclear is a much more fickle source that needs gigantic backup power resources to prevent grid collapse when a reactor needs to shut down quickly. Not because of the power source in it self, but because each reactor is such a large part of a grid’s production. Nuclear reactors are so big they have names.
@ahltorp @jwildeboer no, the big difference is that the environmental costs of solar deployment are externalized to the global south by outsourcing to countries with less stringent environment regulations. in reality photovoltaics and batteries require immense energy to produce and rely upon an immense amount of mining which is disastrous for the local environment. https://circumstances.run/@hipsterelectron/114766596111499322
@ahltorp i actually want to have names for the source of my energy so the government is accountable if it goes out instead of a recursive web of private subcontractors
@hipsterelectron @jwildeboer Uranium is by far (75%) mostly mined in the global south, with disastrous effects on the local environment.
@ahltorp it is also mined on indigenous land in the US, directly contravening their Native sovereignty and continuing the Native american genocide the US government began centuries ago. you won't catch me defending that. if we want to compare the two technologies, let's compare them apples to apples instead of playing accounting games. OP mentions complying with environmental regulations, because nuclear plants are built in the EU (or US, UK, etc). if we want to get through this as a species, we need to adhere to environmental regulations everywhere.
@ahltorp @hipsterelectron @jwildeboer But the volumes are laughable compared to the cobalt and rare earths needed for solar panels, or batteries. You only need hundreds of tonnes vs. tens of thousands (and that's with very low adoption rates)
@fcalva @hipsterelectron @jwildeboer In Sweden it’s in the news quite frequently. The national grid authority has to have reserves according to N+1.
@ahltorp @hipsterelectron @jwildeboer Those plants are very old ones that were already extended past their designed lifespan - since private utilities are reluctant to invest in new ones.
@ahltorp @hipsterelectron @jwildeboer Frequent outages at these specific plants isn't a (direct) problem of nuclear ? Newer and better maintained plants don't have those problems. Not mentioning it's likely advantageous for that private utility's margins to keep prices high.
House Panther 
@jwildeboer That’s not good at all! 😬