lowest-carbon
Ok, now do nuclear waste.
Relatively tiny amounts that can be stored safely
Its still better than the output of coal which ironically enough output more radioactivity than nuclear powerplants
If only there were an option without the carbon and without the uranium.
You are talking about input materials for reactor fuel. We are told almost daily about how bad climate change is; why would new fuel inputs be anything notable as nuclear power de-carbonizes the grid?
Canada developed reactors to run on waste fuel from other reactors.
CANDU 9 IIRC
I didn’t check, does it say that waste management is not included?
…That they have to shut down all the time because of droughts. And they basically need to rebuild half of it, because the maintenance cost is so high, it is constantly pushed into the future.
Few emissions? Yeah. Good? Nope.
You mean the same nuclear power plants they need to shut down every other week because the river water they use as cooling intake is too warm to actually cool them down? They’re pretty useless nowadays.
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-record-heatwave
To people talking about subsides, that was always the point, to have energy production as a public service. I would structuraly never trust a private company with nuclear (actually I feel like trusting any one no matter the sector is risky)
The biggest nuclear reactor disaster in history was at a government run nuclear power plant. So you probably shouldn’t trust the government with nuclear either.
not this again…
sure nuclear WAS fine, french power plants are getting old, can’t handle oncoming increasing heatwaves and regularly have major accidents. source (german)
in the age of wind and solar and cheap batteries it is not necessary and much cheaper to build renewables.
also: french nuclear energy is only cheap because it gets heavily subsidized. a kwh of renewables is about 7ct, a kwh of nuclear is in reality about 49ct
And France is blocking importing solar energy from Spain. Also France has to do some shenanigans in Africa to secure their uranium supply.
Sure nuclear is far better than fossil fuels in terms of global warming, but it has similar geopolitical problems to the oil industry. It makes sense to go to solar and wind, but there’s a nuclear industry that’s doing the same kinds of things the oil industry does to block it.
sure nuclear WAS fine, french power plants are getting old, can’t handle oncoming increasing heatwaves and regularly have major accidents.
Plus: Building nuclear power plants requires huge amounts of concrete. And making huge amounts of concrete requires extremely huge carbon emissions.
Don’t forget they have been basically stealing the required Uranium from African Sahel countries like Niger for decades.
Kazakhstan: 30%
Niger: 25%
Canada: 20%
Australia: 15%
Russia: 10%
Is this the anti-nuclear talking point now?
After decades of, “we cannot do it,” it’s now, “we should have done it before, it’s not a good idea anymore”
Fuck right off
What is extra frustrating is I have been hearing "we should have done it before, it’s not a good idea anymore” for literal decades now.
Best time to build is 10 years ago. Second best time is today.
This user (Twongo) has been posting on Lemmy for decares?
Why do you think the people who said that “we cant do it” are the same people who now say “now its too late”? The pro and contra points to nuclear energy are pretty obvious. Also obvoius is, that these pros and cons are predestinated for disagreement. Also its obvious that opinions can change, on the one hand people maybe start priorize low carbon enegry production, on the other hand rivers for cooling are drying, a few accidents happened, and the price for nuclear energy is now pretty high while the price for renewables and batteries is dropping. We had a lot of change in circumstances in the last years and decades to discuss so saying “fuck off” is pretty pathetic in this case if you ask me
The pro and contra points to nuclear energy are pretty obvious.
No they’re not, nearly everyone I have ever spoken to (online or in real life) who has been against it had no logically cogent or sound arguments.
It may seem obvious after decades of propaganda (and three specific events where only one of them was an actual event, and everything worked out fine), but it’s not.
Hm i think when you have a for whatever reason much discussed topic you will always meet people with opinions that have not much research backgorund or on the other hand people with very strong opinions on both sides who are not open to the other sides arguments. For example: I talked about a few “accidents” and you wouldnt try to understand, why someone like me would think there were some accidents and talk about that there was just one major implying that Fukushima was peanuts and not an issue at all. Of course the truth is (regardless the risk of what maybe could have happened, i think many people who think about Fukushima are more afraid of what could have happend than what happened), that the impact of Fukushima lies somewere between “nothing” and “Tschernobyl”. I didnt even try to discuss pro or con nuclear, i just tried to explain why i think what happened or changed in the last years could easily change someones opinion on that topic. Most people i know that changed their opinion on nuclear say things like “given that climate change is now a bigger issue than i thought 20 years ago, we maybe should have used more nuclear instead of burning coal despite the nuclear waste, 20 years ago i thought different. Also given, that new nuclear plants are very expensive and existing plants are old and risky, i think we should focus on renewables and batteries, because they are clean, decentral, and very cheap now.” something like that, just as an illustration.
That aside, honest question without ruse: who do you think the profiting propandagist is, which you refer to? Oil industry? Wouldnt renewables then be part of the same story?
Dude you are being handed the obvious pro and contra points in this thread if you do not take them serious I doubt it makes sense continuing to argue on the internet about this topic.
Not them, but having read this entire thread, what contra points?
Other than that, I haven’t seen much in this thread.
I see a few points of how Frances configuration for cooling may not be good, but that’s not an unsolvable problem?
At least more solvable than the energy storage problem.
Physicist, not an engineer.
You need baseline and demand power.
Renewables like wind and solar are great for demand. As they provide power typically when usuage is peaking. But those power outputs drop when its needed most, so you still need baseline power.
Nuclear power is great at baseline, but because it takes a lot to ramp power up and down, isnt great to handle peak loads.
Notice the team up here?
Why is it always renewables or nuclear. Both have their places.
This solves the energy storage problems as well. Less of a need for batteries with rare earth metals that are… Finite.
* Sustained through government subsidies to create/maintain their nukes and submarines.
Still massive exporter of electricity. I wonder how much coal and gas would burn in Europe if French npp weren’t there.
id suggest Fiji, New Zealand, New Guinea, Cambodia and many dozen other countries will have much lower emissions. in their Navy.
Which unfortunately now shuts down because the reactors cannot cope with the heatwaves. Turns out that no river = no cooling = no energy production.
Turns out, even when you have to throttle them down slightly due to drought, having a large amount of available nuclear power, like France and Sweden do, means you emit an awful lot less carbon.
Have you read about the Paks NPP? Not throttled, shut down. They even tried sinking barges in the Danube to raise levels enough to keep it going.
And yet, despite that, France still has some of the cleanest electricity in the world with prices in line with the rest of Europe and exported about 10TWhrs of electricity during July.
I agree that downtime is bad, but I don’t think abandoning nuclear to go all in on solar which has a minimum downtime of 50% or wind which has extended periods of <10% is a solution to that. Given that we need electrification to replace fossil fuels in transport and heating over the next few decades to prevent catastrophic climate change, the only reasonable course IMO is to build out as much as possible of nuclear and renewables.
The problem is that building nuclear is slower and more expensive than just building renewables. It made some sense when labor was cheaper. But it doesn’t anymore.
Yeah we need to electrify transportation, heating, fertiliser and steel production. What you need to consider is that these all have excellent synergies with renewable energy. Making fertiliser from nuclear power never made sense and never will make sense. But with solar power it’s just now barely cheap enough to make sense. There are already plants up and running. And you then get a huge amount of capacity to balancer solar/wind for free as well. The same goes for transportation, steel production and especially heat. We already have heat batteries in production. Both super high temperature ones to replace fossil fuels in industry, and medium temperature ones that can store energy for months to shift energy from summer to winter for district heating systems.
None of this makes economic sense with nuclear (well, EVs make sense still).
I have nothing against nuclear. I love the tech. But it’s simply dead. And no, SMRs is not gonna save it.
Nuclear is not clean energy. Building new reactors makes zero sense given the cost compared to renewables.
Cool map though what’s that website?
And buying fuel roads from Russia, which makes it hard to sanction that part…
Which program is this?
False,
Reactor production is throttled down to preserve the river environment, not because they cannot cool themselves. Only 18% reduction on the worst event.
Dismissing the biggest low carbon energy producer because 1970 engineers did not account for the unknown temperature extremes 20 years after the predicted lifespan of the reactor is silly.
Unknown temperature extremes? We knew about climate change for much longer. And France’s nuclear reactors have an average age of less than 40 years.
Yes, unknown. You do not care about when the reactor went online, but when the reactor design was finalized. This happened with CP0 design in 1970, 4 years before the messmer plan.
We knew about climate change in 1970, but we lacked reliable models and computational power to create good predictions at that time. Climate change was an hot scientific debate, not an applied principle in civil engineering design.
The only reactor not part of the messmer plan (1974) that was throttled down is the Chooz B on the Meuse river. In this case it is more of a political issue: under 1998 treaty between Belgium and France, the plant must curtail power if the river flow drop. Not as safety measure, but to preserve downstream flow to Belgium. This was not taken into account in the reactor design. The operation of the plant was restricted retroactively. The Chooz B plant uses evaporative towers to minimize heat discharge.
Unfortunately, thanks to the anti-nuclear lobby, we are in a situation where the current reactors will have to be shutdown before the new ones are available to take their place.
Yeah, the famous french anti-nuclear lobby. Those guys who control the french government with its nuclear weapons, who has also recently built a nuclear reactor. That government totally is controlled by the anti-nuclear lobby.
Or … maybe France tried upgrading its aging nuclear reactors with the new reactor in Flamanville, which went spectacular over budget? And debt ridden EdF simply has not the funds to build over 50 new reactors at 13 billion each?
If we could deal with the waste that we’ve already got, that would instill some confidence, but the govt has basically shrugged. https://youtube.com/watch?v=nLUAN2Rev1E
Nuclear waste is an already solved problem, we just have to use the solutions. The vast majority (>99%) can be recycled.
OK, if it’s solved… Where the hell are those who take the nuclear waste of my country? Where are they??? I’m sure, we’d pay a lot of money… Where are they???
Idk where you live but the problem is likely one (or both) of lobbied politicians kicking the can down the road (cheaper in the short term) and ignorant nimby-ists who’ve bought the “nuclear energy is evil” narrative pushed by the fossil fuel lobby and useful idiots in green movements hook line and sinker.
With more power than it generated?
Because it only replaces a environmental disaster with a future one. Still no (practical) way to handle the waste.
Send it to the rain forest
Turns out humans are worse than radiation
Buddy, French reactors have been breeders for decades. They re-use the spent fuel.
We should have been deploying nuclear much earlier and then augment with renewables. Once energy storage technology matured more you could phase out nuclear plants.
That would’ve required long term planning though and what if in the end it came out that coal isn’t so bad at all, huh, what then??? /s
And it turned out that beautiful clean coal is just that!
It’s like I’ve always said, “The best time to build a nuclear power plant is fifty years ago.”
true, then you’d need decommission it and rebuild it about now.
The second best time is forty nine years ago
69 years ago would have been a blast
While they did well environmental to produce this and even from a cost to consumer, there are many hidden costs to the power produced which will test France in the coming years as their fleet of reactors and the coming debt-to-gdp crisis means the tens of billions required to overhaul it might be tough to subsidize.
