DamonHD@otfrom @jwildeboer One reason that nuclear is not a panacea as some zealots would like to believe, but in conjunction with (eg) solar and storage can still be v useful. I am in favour of new nukes, but not somehow instead of renewables.
fcalva@DamonHD @otfrom @jwildeboer Nuclear is a cheaper way to replace fossil fuels (at least once you get the construction going, and not just building one plant after 40 years of nothing)
@fcalva @otfrom @jwildeboer The 'cheaper' is widely contested for a number of reasons, but indeed also not building any for decades and forgetting how to do it does not help!
@DamonHD @otfrom @jwildeboer What reasons ? The upfront cost is high (it's also why there are few privately built nuclear plants), but the running costs per Wh are very low.
@fcalva @otfrom @jwildeboer I don't want to get into a spat about this - I favour nukes - but eg externalities from the lack of commercial insurance and decommissioning and the very long tail management of some of the waste. Half the UK energy ministry's budget goes straight to decommissioning without the SoS getting much say as he told me.
leftlink@leftlink @fcalva
I think 'baseload' is an emergent thing that would go away if we managed systems differently.
Nukes can however replace a bunch of storage, especially anything over a few hours which is currently difficult, eg to help with dunkelflauten.
A agree with inflexibility: *no* GB nuke load follows AFAIK, though one nominally can.
@leftlink @DamonHD Their lifespan is short, and building cost per Wh is, again, really high.
Solar is mostly so cheap to install right now because the ground was broken for the installation/manufacturing industry by governement subventions. The same could be done for nuclear except it would be a lot more worth it (And the chinese are doing it !)
Solar is mostly so cheap to install right now because the ground was broken for the installation/manufacturing industry by governement subventions. The same could be done for nuclear except it would be a lot more worth it (And the chinese are doing it !)
@fcalva @DamonHD Nuclear life span isn't much longer, everyone just keeps using it way beyond its lifespan because it's too expensive to rebuild. Wind turbines run 30 years easily aswell.
Also nuclear isnt new, it's old and it's not getting much cheaper. I don't think China is going to, they are going all in solar as far as new capacity is looking.
Also nuclear isnt new, it's old and it's not getting much cheaper. I don't think China is going to, they are going all in solar as far as new capacity is looking.
Emil Jacobs - Collectifission@DamonHD @leftlink @fcalva Yeah, interesting reasoning here. Like I've said many times before, we need it all: solar, wind, nuclear. There is no route to zero carbon emissions on a reasonable timescale or at all otherwise.
As for the OP on heatwaves, I wrote a bit on that a few days ago: https://greennuclear.online/@collectifission/114722748870414238
As for lifetimes on nuclear reactors: more and more second generation units (mostly PWR units) are extended to 80 years. Not because "it's too expensive to rebuild", but because they're incredibly durable assets that pass safety check upon safety check.
This brings me to costs: @fcalva is quite correct that *running* nuclear plants is extremely cheap. It is in fact the cheapest energy source we have (yes, cheaper than renewables). So keeping existing assets running as long as economically and safely viable, this is a no brainer.
Building new units *can* be expensive, but as China is showing the world (again, after the French already proved this in the 1980s) if you build many, costs per unit will drop. We, in the West, are currently building new units for around $15,000 per kW, but the Chinese have let these costs drop towards $2000 per kW, making them cheaper than new gas installations!
Anyway, the cost argument is irrelevant in my opinion, because we simply can't power all of society cleanly without nuclear (see first paragraph or, if you google translate, read my opinion piece here: https://www.collectifission.nl/nl/de-kostendiscussie-is-irrelevant/)
As for it being 'old', I find that one particularly funny. Not only doesn't it actually mean anything, it's also factually incorrect with wind energy being around for around a thousand years and the first solar PV cells being pioneered in the 19th (!) century.
China is quite right building ten new reactors every year, together with building more solar and wind than the rest of the world combined 👍
Emil Jacobs - Collectifission (@[email protected])
We have a heatwave and, right on cue, antis are scaremongering again on French nuclear reactors shutting down. A few facts, to inoculate yourself against the FUD: - The French nuclear fleet has seen production losses of 0.3% annually since the year 2000 due to warm weather [1]. This is expected to rise slightly in the coming decades due to climate change. - The summer has traditionally been a slow season for EDF, with lower demand compared to winter. EDF uses this time to put reactors into maintenance. - Yes, 2022 was an exceptional year, with issues found in the piping of a few units, which triggered a wider ad hoc maintenance program. - The problem is not that there isn't enough cooling water. The issue is protecting wildlife, which may be affected if too much warm water is released in an already hot river. - The solution is known: build cooling towers. The affected Bugey NPP that is now circulated in media as being affected, has cooling towers for units 4 and 5, but uses water from the Rhône river directly for units 2 and 3. The latter are affected. Building cooling towers for them is always a possibility, but isn't done (yet) because of the low impact annually (see point 1). Hope this helps! [1] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-reduce-nuclear-power-output-as-french-river-temperatures-rise #Nuclear #NuclearEnergy #Climate #ClimateChange #France
@collectifission @DamonHD @fcalva
Read your essay, I don't think you've considered primary energy use as the 900 TWh, so electrifying should reduce the demand a good bit.
Although increase in industry/ people might offset it again.
I would on principle still agree, because I don't see the scaling needed to reach the targets of renewables either.
Problem is, nuclear wont get us there either, as is being demonstrated in GB, they can't finish one plant in time or budget.
Also regarding old age and checks, being from the Netherlands, you probably know the nuclear plant in Tihange in Belgium? Don't know about reliability on that one :D
@leftlink “Read your essay, I don't think you've considered primary energy use as the 900 TWh, so electrifying should reduce the demand a good bit.
Although increase in industry/ people might offset it again.”
I’m making this exact argument 🙂
And yes, nuclear as *projects* is expensive, I agree. Nuclear as *mass produced commodity* is cheap. I’m repeating myself, but China proves this point, again.
As for Tihange-2: it was actually the reactor I changed my mind on, as it was proven to be safe! I wrote on this before: https://www.collectifission.nl/en/fud-fear-uncertainty-doubt-a-lookback-on-the-fifth-anniversary-of-the-human-chain-against-tihange-2/
FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt: a lookback on the fifth anniversary of the human chain against Tihange
Five years ago today: a 90 km human chain consisting of around 50.000 people from German Aachen, via Dutch Maastricht to Belgian Liege. The goal: to get the NPP in Tihange closed. At the time we heard lots of noises about 'hairline cracks' in one of the reactors of
@fcalva @DamonHD oh I completely forgot your point about subsidies ! Nuclear was literally subsidized the last 50 years, and around the world, because of its funny byproduct used in weapons :D
Yeah nah, I don't think it's getting much cheaper.
Also source, though most lcoes for 2050 don't even include nuclear :D https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/IMG/pdf/45._figure_45_nuke_world_costs_iea.pdf
@leftlink @DamonHD Large scale civil construction was never a thing outside of France, the USSR, and kind of the US. Only the bare minimum to keep the military part alive and the intial R&D are state funded in most countries.
Military nuclear research is a very different thing from the civil part. It's only linked by that "funny byproduct" as you call it, and the basic nuclear reactions.
Military nuclear research is a very different thing from the civil part. It's only linked by that "funny byproduct" as you call it, and the basic nuclear reactions.