[HN Gopher] Macron says France will build new nuclear energy rea... ___________________________________________________________________ Macron says France will build new nuclear energy reactors Author : julosflb Score : 100 points Date : 2021-11-09 20:26 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | jedisct1 wrote: | This new French energy supplier also advertises 100% nuclear- | based energy: https://www.isotope.energy | jabl wrote: | EDIT: Huh, this was supposed to be a response to | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29168027 but apparently it | got attached to the wrong parent when the articles were merged. | | There was ASTRID, another sodium cooled fast reactor design, | that was cancelled a couple of years ago before it got off the | drawing board. | [deleted] | alboy wrote: | Not mentioned there that | | >France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, | due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. | Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. [1] | | according to the target set in the "Energy transition for green | growth" bill. | | [1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country- | pr... | p1mrx wrote: | Am I reading correctly that the EPR only has enough water for 24 | hours of passive cooling? | | https://www.google.com/search?q=epr+emergency+feedwater+syst... | | I guess they have to build with the tech they have, but it would | be nice if they'd spent the last few decades researching better | designs. | 1cvmask wrote: | The Chinese have committed to building over 150 new nuclear | reactors. The British government will subsidize Rolls Royce. | Japan will reactivate over 30 nuclear reactors. | | It seems this is the biggest energy story of the year. The | comeback of nuclear energy. | | https://smallcaps.com.au/china-supercharge-uranium-race-150-... | | The HN discussion on the China story: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29151741 | | Japan reactivating nuclear reactors: | | https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210501/p2a/00m/0op/00... | | UK. Rolls-Royce gets funding to develop mini nuclear reactors: | | https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59212983 | Gwypaas wrote: | That announcement of 150 reactors in China is no real change to | the long term plans either. Still simply keeping the option | barely open which is very sensible to do when you're such a | huge economy, even if it comes from subsidies. | | _In 2019, China had a new target of 200 GWe of nuclear | generating capacity by 2035, which is 7.7% out of predicted | total electricity generating capacity of 2600 GWe._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China | | So with about 50 GWe from 50 reactors today adding another 150 | gives you the same goal of about 200 GWe. Unless we're talking | SMRs because then the goal just got reduced to a fraction of | the original. | toomuchtodo wrote: | It's not a comeback until you push the first kwh to the grid | for the price you said you'd build the new generator for. Japan | turning back on mothballed reactors is a Big Deal (and a quick | win for avoiding CO2 emissions), but getting new reactors built | in less than a decade or for less than billons of dollars is | where the proof lies. Talk and promises are cheap, action has a | cost and can't be faked. | | https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-... | (Lazard's latest annual Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis (LCOE | 15.0) shows the continued cost-competitiveness of certain | renewable energy technologies on a subsidized basis and the | marginal cost of coal, nuclear and combined cycle gas | generation.) | bduerst wrote: | I don't think anyone expects a 100% build rate on these | commitments, but like all funnels, a certain percentage of | these projects that are having awareness raised now will | eventually be built. Any progress here is better than | nothing. | Manuel_D wrote: | Comparing the cost of a non-intermittent energy source with | an intermittent energy source excluding the cost of storage | is comparing apples to oranges. Solar and wind are cheap, | until you saturate the energy market during peak production | hours. Then it gets exorbitantly expensive. The only viable | storage solution at the moment is hydroelectric, which is | geographically limited. Global lithium ion battery output for | a whole year doesn't even add up to 1 hour's worth of the | USA's electricity consumption. | | When probed on how to address intermittency, many wind and | solar advocates will propose things like hydrogen storage, | giant flywheels, compressed air, or other solutions that are | currently in the prototyping stage and have yet to actually | be deployed to a grid. | | This is the chief advantage of nuclear power: it works and we | have over half a century of production experience with it. | Betting on one of those storage solutions panning out is | betting on a big unknown. | toomuchtodo wrote: | Renewables and storage are already cheaper than nuclear. | Base load is a dead concept. | truthwhisperer wrote: | Greenpeace is shooting itself in the feed. No more coal. Okay.. | Then build more nuclear. Nohoooo | woodpanel wrote: | Well, somebody has to help Germany accomplish its "Energiewende" | sva_ wrote: | I interpret your sarcasm with amusement, but also depression. | it's really sad to see how Germany turned away from nuclear | evergy. It seems like the 3 main soures are now: | | 1. Coal, | | 2. Renewables (Solar, wind, perhaps ocean currents), | | 3. imported oil. | | Coal should be deprecated already. Renewables are dependent on | environmental effects, in particular solar doesn't work in | emergency situations such as volcano eruptions rendering the | sky dark. For oil, we depend on third parties, of which we know | that they do not have our best interests at heart. | | It is depressing to see the political situations on these | metrics, especially the idea which gets pushed now, which | claims that everything will be alright if we just optimize our | energy consumption. It ain't gonna happen. People won't | meaningfully reduce their energy-consumption, at least not in a | way that would justify the use of fossil fuels. | | So what are we left with? Nuclear is the only good bet you | could make right now, while waiting out on fusion. | | edit: I often think of this meme which goes around, talking | about the fact that people are much more willing to donate to a | single child in need, rather than a group of children who | equally need help. People are prone to take action when they | feel like their individual action makes an impact. | | I feel like this is similar to the fossil fuels - vs - nuclear | debate. We know, that about 20mil ppl die every single year due | to air pollution. We also know, that a very small, countable | number of people died of nuclear accidents, in the complete | history of humanity, ever, in total. | | Yet we seem to think that the few nuclear accident's fatalities | are worse than the ones caused by air pollution. Why? Because | we are in some way biased to give more meaning to individual | events, rather than rates of change that are around us. And | it'll break our backs if we don't carefully examine the problem | at hand. | woodpanel wrote: | Well it may depress you even more that I didn't even expect | constructive feedback like yours when I pulled in Germany | into this discussion (it is the Elephant in the European | Grid-Operators-Room anyways). | | > _1. Coal_ Yes, from Poland | | > _2. Renewables_ Yes, definetly | | > _Solar_ Already plans underway to force every new home to | have solar panels on its roof, regardless of the direction of | the gabel and regardless how non-significant solar energy is | in Germany anyways. Existing home-owners love the idea of | increasing construction costs for future home-owners... | | > _Wind_ Already plans underway to massively increase density | of windmills per km, regardless that the existing mills | already are turned off for most of the year (because it would | melt the grid to keep them running), regardless that we 're | chopping down huge amounts of trees to make room for them, | regardless of the environmental impact of planting | unremovable kilo-tons of concrete footing into the ground | | > _Ocean Currents_ No, for two reasons. One: Maintenance | costs make this technology inefficient (rust). Two: Since we | 're world champions in moral soundness our _whole_ tidal- | range-gifted coastline is deemed a national park and as such | is forever excluded from any such infrastructure work | | > _3. imported oil_ Already doing that. | | I fear, unless there is some crucial pain of whatever sorts | on behalf of the average German, our nomenclatura will | continue to proceed with the current polciy of "nearshoring | responsibility". Because: | | > _It ain 't gonna happen. People won't meaningfully reduce | their energy-consumption_ | | German consumers still don't do that, despite paying the | highest electricity bills of the developed world (almost | twice as in France). Apparently we can still afford to cick | down the can (or rather over the border). | pilsetnieks wrote: | > in particular solar doesn't work in emergency situations | such as volcano eruptions rendering the sky dark. | | I'm not familiar with this. Is this a common problem in | Germany? Are southern states like Baden-Wurttemberg more | afflicted or less compared to more northern ones like | Schleswig-Holstein? | sva_ wrote: | No, it is a hypothesis of mine, that a large volcano | eruption may disrupt the function of solar within a large | area that was affected and which depends on solar energy. A | particular example may be | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambor | a | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer | | A single "year without summer" may be the fatal blow to a | society basing their energy on solar energy, so I | hypothesize. | Manuel_D wrote: | No, but winter is. Inclination of the earth means solar | produces considerably less energy in winter and this is | even more prevalent in far northern/southern latitudes. | Also cloud coverage can drastically reduce solar output. | jhallenworld wrote: | We really need to locate the panels near the equator, and | combine it with one day of storage. There is a project | like this: | | https://electrek.co/2021/09/27/the-worlds-longest-subsea- | cab... | | The problem for doing this large scale if the right of | way for the HVDC lines. I'm watching this on a smaller | scale in Massachusetts, where Maine voters are blocking a | HVDC link to Hydro Quebec. But I think this is a game | between established interests.. in this case NextEra | funded the ballot question and advertising, I think | because they lost out on their SeaLink project (HVDC to | Seabrook nuclear power plant). | | https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/09/f79/EXHIB | IT%... | | https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/politics/ref | ere... | dathinab wrote: | You forgot imported gas, but has the same problems as Oi, | maybe worse because the conflicting party is geographically | "around the corner" instead of on the other side of the | globe. | | Germanys relationship with Nuclear power had been one with | Tons of absurdity from the get to go. To name a few examples | (in no specific order): | | - When West Germany decided where they should (temporary) | store nuclear waste they had a list of potential abandon | mines. While this list wasn't quite up to modern standards it | was well thought out. But in the end they choose a mine which | not only wasn't on the list, but was known to not be well | suited. Reason: Pettiness, east Germany had just done so too, | so they choose a mine at the border to east Germany. | | - The Anti-Nuclear Power movement in West Germany was | partially sponsored and instigated by East Germany (through | so where most non-small movements). | | - after Fukushima plans to stop using Nuclear Power where | moved up costing the State millions due to existing contracts | and being questionable. I mean the danger of Atom power had | been well understood at that point in question, Fukushima | didn't change this, nor did it unearth any (not already well | known) huge flaws. So this asks the question if it is so | important why wasn't it started years earlier, if it isn't | why move so abrupt? | | - Germany loves importing nuclear power, not only from France | but also from other countries with lower safety standards of | which the reactors aren't that far of Germany (geologically | seen). | VintageCool wrote: | Germany's electricity, as of H1 2021, actually comes from: | 1. Renewables: 41% 2. Coal: 26% 3. Natural gas: | 17% 4. Nuclear: 12% | | https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys- | energy-c... | | New solar and wind have fallen drastically in price over the | past decade and look like a very good bet right now. | | https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48736 | sva_ wrote: | You are proving my point. I left out nuclear, because it'll | soon be phased out. The rest, exactly as I stated. An | unhealthy dependency on coal, which will be phased out soon | too, as well as oil, for which we depend on foreign | dependencies (Russia). | | Additionally, I would like to ask you | | 1) are you being paid for these type of posts linking to | that exact source, (because I've seen it on here many times | before) | | 2) who exactly is paying you to post this? | DavidKarlas wrote: | I have been watching | https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE?wind=true&solar=false | for past 2 days... Winds weak, yet even when electricity was | expensive yesterday around 6PM, Germany was pushing to France, | mostly coal generated electricity... Someone cares to explain? | hunterb123 wrote: | Nah it's cool they got Nord Stream 2, so they good. | | Russia will provide them all the energy they need, and the US | will provide them defense against Russia. Perfect! | | - edit - | | Is it still morally sound if you outsource the immorality | elsewhere? | ethbr0 wrote: | Is there a German version of "cutting off your nose to spite | your face" [0]? | | I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for | historical reasons, but sheesh. | | [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_one%27s_nose_ | to_... | formerly_proven wrote: | > I get German Greens have a very specific agenda for | historical reasons, but sheesh. | | Germany has been ruled by the CDU for the last 16 years so | I'm not sure what exactly the Greens have to do with the | current energy policies of Germany? | ethbr0 wrote: | My knowledge is as a foreigner, but I was under the | impression that the Greens and FDP have both been | prospective kingmakers in the last several federal | elections, given the math and split between the CDU/CSU | and SPD? | | And I'd assume that as the center, courting interests | important to their voters is of outsized importance to | the larger parties, in an attempt to peel off votes? | | But maybe I'm poorly informed? | president wrote: | I imagine adversaries of the West are having the biggest | laugh at us voluntarily giving up key commodity production | abilities in the name of combatting climate change. | thriftwy wrote: | The historical problem of Russia is inability of exporting | any produce other than raw materials, on account of having | Europe as neighbour which can produce anything easier and | often cheaper. | | But now, with the carbon tax and gas prices in EU, I wonder | if Russian mfg capacity will suddently become competitive. | | The funniest thing would be Europe pricing itself out of | Russian oil due to carbon tax, and then buying now-cheap | goods from Russia made based on affordable oil. | makerofspoons wrote: | Carbon tariffs would be a good way to even the playing | field in that scenario. | jabl wrote: | There's been serious talks about carbon border | adjustments, that is, levying an extra import tax on | products from countries that don't have a sufficiently | ambitious domestic climate change policy, so probably | not. | g_sch wrote: | This strikes me as pretty optimistic given that exactly | this kind of carbon dodge has been going on for years | (e.g. Europe and the US importing goods from East Asia | and other countries running on dirtier fuels) | woodpanel wrote: | Hehe, Russia's just for heating. France for everything else. | Poland, Hungary and Greece do our border checks. America does | our defense. China is our only customer left and all our | "dirty jobs" are done by Eastern Europeans. | | If that's what it takes to be morally sound - then bring it | on destiny, I say, bring it on! | | Edit: This a German's attempt at sarcasm, please indugle me! | selectodude wrote: | I laughed :) | hellbannedguy wrote: | I'm sure we could beat Russia, and China. | _ph_ wrote: | In recent years, the collaboration between France and Germany | in energy production was very beneficial. There are times, when | Germany does import electricity from France, this is increasing | the profitability of the nuclear reactors, as they can be run | at a higher percentage of their capacity, which generally is | larger than the French requirements. To be able to follow the | varying requirements of the grid, they usually run at 75% load | on average. Selling surplus capacity is very attractive then. | On the other side, there are times when surplus renewable | energy is very welcome in France, when the reactory are | struggling to keep up with demand, e.g. when they are low on | cooling capacity due to low waters. Germany is still a net | electricity exporter. | woodpanel wrote: | Germany "exports" as much as in "dumping excess energy onto | it's neighbouring countries grids to keep its own grid from | melting" - which is why we run the worst electricity export | business in the world, having to pay our neighbours money as | they aren't taking it for free. | masklinn wrote: | It's cool for the neighbours though, especially france | which is a historical exporter (owing to its stable and | relatively efficient nukes). When germany pays you 5c to | take a kWh off their grid and italy 30 to get one there's | good money to be made if your grid can cope. | kemenaran wrote: | The construction of the only new nuclear reactor in France | started fourteen years ago (2007), and is not due before two more | years. | | It was expected to cost 3.3BEUR, but in the end will probably | cost around 19BEUR. | cipher_system wrote: | The major drawback of nuclear seems to be their large power | output and long durability. Once you built the few plants you | need (France and Sweden for example) you don't have to build | any more for 50 or so years and then the manufacturing | capability dies. | | Hoping for companies like NuScale, maybe they can get a | continuous operation going and churn out cheaper and cheaper | plants. | notJim wrote: | The manufacturing/construction capability for nuclear needs | to be global, rather than national. There is plenty of need | for new nuclear to sustain and grow the expertise around the | world. This goes for the governments as well, but | unfortunately governments seem to be abysmal about learning | from other countries. | Kuinox wrote: | Context needed. This is the cost to get the tools and | craftsmenship to build it, thats we lost. | radicalbyte wrote: | If this is combined with a move away from fossiel fuel for | heating and logistics - and a significant investment in renewable | - then it is an excellent move for France. | | I would sign up today for nuclear power in 2025 if it replaced | all natural gas and diesel/petrol vehicles on the roads. | drBonkers wrote: | If you create hydrocarbon fuels with sequestered CO_2, driven | by nuclear electricity, you have a clean, energy-dense battery. | Plus, you don't have to retrofit the entire automobile fleet. | radicalbyte wrote: | Sort of - but it doesn't solve the issue with air quality. | Electrification of transport isn't just about CO2. We'll see | more instant benefits from having air we can breathe. | throwawayboise wrote: | But big auto bought into EVs and climate change once they | realized it was a way to make everyone have to buy new cars. | So your idea is a non-starter. | tonyedgecombe wrote: | Except most manufacturers are losing money on every EV they | sell. | wyager wrote: | I don't think it's about making everyone buy new cars as | much as about realizing that there's a new category of | ultra-palatable government subsidies for them to cash in | on. | kibwen wrote: | People already cycle through cars quite frequently. Big | Auto doesn't need to convince anybody to buy a new car. | This would be a purposeless conspiracy. | hagbard_c wrote: | Just make sure to do something about NOx emissions, the cause | of the downfall of Diesel in many countries. As long as you | burn just about any fuel - hydrocarbon or otherwise - using | air you'll end up with NOx as a combustion by-product. | Filtering out nitrogen from air is possible - zeolites are | used for this purpose in oxygen concentrators - but hard to | do at a high enough capacity to satisfy the needs of even | modest-sized ICEs so a post-combustion NOx capture/conversion | step will be needed regardless of the provenance of the fuel | [1]. | | [1] http://www.meca.org/technology/technology- | details?id=5&name=... | edot wrote: | How long does it take for CO2 sequestered in the ground to | form hydrocarbon chains? | stjohnswarts wrote: | Thousands? Probably millions of years. Far longer than | human civilization/species will last or need to worry | about. | beambot wrote: | 2025 is a pipedream -- they'd be lucky to break ground by 2025. | | > Median construction time required for nuclear reactors | worldwide oscillated from around 84 months to 117 months, from | 1981 to 2019 respectively. | | https://www.statista.com/statistics/712841/median-constructi... | ethbr0 wrote: | We need a law that for megaprojects, local governments and/or | federal agencies must respond to requests within X days, or | be fined an escalating per-day rate. And if their responses | are incomplete, same. | | The timeline ballooning as all external parties take their | time weighing in and covering their asses, and costs | associated with idling construction waiting for same, are | getting ridiculous. | | Either it's a priority (in which case everyone should treat | it as such), or it's not (in which case we should accept we | just can't build non-priority projects over a certain scale). | bduerst wrote: | You'd never get megaprojects built then, because no-one | would reasonably commit to them given the risk that they | undergo scope creep and the steepness of that punishment. | robbedpeter wrote: | Yeah, that would simply put more obstacles in place. We | need less ass covering and bureaucracy and more action. | You don't solve that by creating more risk and the need | for more ass covering. | themitigating wrote: | Sometimes a five year delay could be a community that sues | over a new reactor, then appeals, appeals, etc. Then if | that lawsuit was posted here the title might be "US | government tries to rush reactor, threatens small town | life". | stjohnswarts wrote: | Maybe they and China will create a little power envy in the | USA, and we can get back on track for some real change and | improvements in CO2 pollution containment. | BoumTAC wrote: | With the sell of Alstom to the US, is France still able to build | nuclear reactor ? | espadrine wrote: | Alstom hasn't been purchased by a US company AFAIK. | | Are you talking about the sale of its power sector to GE in | 2014? It is mostly about turbines, not the nuclear aspect, | which is more typically under the expertise of Areva NC / Orano | Cycle <https://www.orano.group/en>. | byroot wrote: | > It is mostly about turbines | | Turbines used in nuclear power plants as well as nuclear | ships. That sale was/is a major scandal in France. | sebow wrote: | Good, though i really have to wonder how much is this Macron's | own idea and how much is France's elite (which is very | influential towards the state compared to other european | nations). | slownews45 wrote: | Will this be EPR 2 style design? | | Flamanville has been super disappointing however in France. | datameta wrote: | Are there any existing reactor types, blueprints or built, that | are engineered toward utilizing spent fuel first and foremost? | | If not, I hope France seriously considers using breeder reactors | to reduce leftover radioactive material. | | Otherwise, I think this is fantastic news. In fact even if they | build light water reactors I think it is the ideal base load | solution to bridge the gap from oil and coal. | PaulHoule wrote: | This may be the one: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ApH-0YHkA | | After Superphenix I don't think they are in any hurry to | develop the LMFBR. | jabl wrote: | There was ASTRID, another sodium cooled fast reactor design, | that was cancelled a couple of years ago before it got off | the drawing board. | | (Answering again as the previous answer was attached to the | wrong parent when the articles were merged) | CircleSpokes wrote: | Aren't reactors like that typically a proliferation risk? That | might not be an issue as long as France doesn't decide to start | selling its nuclear power plants to questionable countries | again. | BurningFrog wrote: | France has had atom bombs since 1960, so that train has | sailed. | CameronNemo wrote: | Both recycling fuel and breeder reactors have side effects | that could be used for proliferation. | | France is one of the few countries that do recycle spent | fuel. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/frances- | efficiency-in-t... | | France is a nuclear capable country, so the proliferation | risk is fairly low from what I understand. They could even | sell the plants abroad and bring the waste back to France to | be recycled. | | Germany is not a nuclear capable country, and I am not sure | how they feel about France being their primary source of | energy (or enriched uranium, if they have their own plants). | Hopefully they prefer French nuclear energy to Russian oil | and gas. | kazen44 wrote: | > Germany is not a nuclear capable country, and I am not | sure how they feel about France being their primary source | of energy (or enriched uranium, if they have their own | plants). Hopefully they prefer French nuclear energy to | Russian oil and gas. | | Considering europe has a harmonized energy market[0][1], | does that really matter? | | France, germany and the benelux are so tightly economically | integrated anyways, that doing harm to one would result in | massive chaos in the others. | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Network_of_Trans | missi... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Market_i | n_Electricity... | webreac wrote: | France recycle spent fuel for whole Europe. In order to | reuse a part of plutonium, most of the plant consume a mix | of uranium and plutonium: mox. AFAIK, France has huge piles | of useless plutonium. | ChuckMcM wrote: | Yes, look at traveling wave reactors. | boyadjian wrote: | For me, what emerges from this story is the lack of anticipation | on the part of the French government. For years, nuclear power | was discredited because it was not environmentally friendly, so | we shut down power plants, and now we have to refabricate them? | All this makes no sense. Moreover, the production of a nuclear | power plant is very long, how are we going to do it in the | meantime? | fidesomnes wrote: | it was all a long con to get the price of uranium to bottom. | Macron is long and doing well with it tyvm. | audunw wrote: | Wasn't many of the reactors shut down in Europe in need of | being decommissioned anyway? You shouldn't run a nuclear | reactor forever and ever, and most of the reactors in Europe | are quite old. | | I know there are cases of decommissioning too early, or even a | reactor that was fully built but not even started operation (I | think Tom Scott had a video on that?), but I don't think that's | the common case. | kazen44 wrote: | many nuclear reactors in a lot of countries also have very | low yields compared to modern reactors. (for instance, most | nuclear reactors in the netherlands have been disbanded | because they provided little power) | R0b0t1 wrote: | They were in "need" of decommissioning because necessary | repairs had been intentionally stalled to the point of making | them politically untenable. | PaulHoule wrote: | They oughta give up on the EPR and build AP1000s. | AceJohnny2 wrote: | Why would France, which has specifically built its civilian | nuclear fleet for independence from the US, want to rely on the | American company Westinghouse? | Shadonototra wrote: | Because mr PaulHoule from hackernews owns shares from the | company that makes them | | Same from people all over europe who for decades pushed down | France for its Nuclear efforts | | Now that the US is working toward catching up, they all voice | they pro-"US"-nuclear | | It's very sad, europe is full of cowards | | But yet again China ahead of everyone else because they are | free from these little "marketshare" fights | m0zg wrote: | Smart man. I can't believe I'm saying this about _Macron_. We | _have to_ figure out a way to build reactors cheaply and safely, | and you can't do that without the political will, unfortunately. | If you could, electricity would be "too cheap to meter" by now | already. | Vapormac wrote: | Is the _underscores_ around words supposed to signify | something? Or am I just using the wrong browser to view HN and | it's not rendering or something. Sorry if this is an obtuse | question I'm new here. | nitrogen wrote: | Probably habit on the part of the OP from other markup | languages, to show emphasis. HN uses asterisks * _for italics | /emphasis_: https://news.ycombinator.com/formatdoc | tupac_speedrap wrote: | It's a Reddit thing, it makes the text bold on there but | people seem to use it on here by accident. | epukaza wrote: | It's older than that, gmail (also maybe MSN messenger?) | used to have underscores italicize text, and asterisks | would bold text. | handrous wrote: | Slack and WhatsApp do it, too. I bet also in most of the | other major messengers around right now (Signal, Matrix, | Telegram). It's a thing in MarkDown, as well. Now that I | think about it, some of the only places I type prose | where that's _not_ what surrounding underscores do, are | HN and various Apple programs (mail, notes, et c.) | | [EDIT] For that matter, we all did the same stuff in | ascii for years. Asterisks for emphasis (bold, now, in | many places), underscores for underlining (which, in the | case of, say, book titles, is better represented as | italics if you can print italics instead, so I'd guess | that's where the "underscore = italic" thing comes from) | eecc wrote: | I get the fascination with base load and the incredible amount of | energy compared to chemical based alternatives. But: 1. What will | the net online time be? (Lots of these plants go in maintenance | for long stretches of time) 2. Spent fuel? 3. Proliferation risk? | 4. Accident mitigation? | Manuel_D wrote: | 1. What will the net online time be? (Lots of these plants go | in maintenance for long stretches of time) | | The term you're referring to is capacity factor. Nuclear power | typically has the highest capacity factor of any energy source. | [1] [2] For reference, nuclear is 92%, while wind is 35% and | photovoltaic solar at 25%. | | > 2. Spent fuel? | | It can be reprocessed, reclaiming over 90% of fuel. Even | without reprocessing, nuclear fuel's energy density is such | that a tiny amount of waste is produced per unit of energy. For | comparison, the sum total of all of the USA's nuclear | electricity production occupies a volume the footprint of a | football field, and 10 yards high. [3] | | > 3. Proliferation risk? | | Nuclear fuel is refined to about ~20% fissile material. Nuclear | weapons typically need over 80% or 90%. Countries would need to | build their own enrichment facilities to bring nuclear fuel to | weapons grade uranium, and then further refine that to | plutonium. If they had such facilities they'd be able to refine | natural uranium to weapons grade anyway. | | > 4. Accident mitigation? | | First of all, even if you include Chernobyl nuclear power | (which didn't even have secondary storage) has the lowest | fatalities per unit of energy produced [4]. People often | neglect the fact that fossil fuels kill millions each year due | to air pollution. Renewables like hydroelectricity have had | accidents far more devastating that nuclear power [5]. Nuclear | plants are expensive because a lot of effort is made to make | them safe, and to contain a potential failure. People often | forget that the USA had a reactor meltdown analogous to | Chernobyl during the Three Mile Island incident. Except nobody | died and there was no widespread contamination because the | reactor had a big concrete condom over it, unlike Chernobyl. | | 1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average- | capaci... | | 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor#Worldwide | | 3. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about- | spent-... | | 4. https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate- | worldw... | | 5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure | stjohnswarts wrote: | 1. if a real effort is put in, 10 years or so | | 2. Solved problem. Spent fuel is not really an issue, we have | solutions and areas to put it in both Europe and the USA. Only | green Luddites hold it back. Storage really does not take up a | lot of space. | | 3. Next to none if the right type of fuel stock and reactor is | chosen. Obviously security comes in, but that is also a solved | issue | | 4. Lots of modern designs literally cannot go critical, I | suggest we use those, instead of old designs just because | they're "a known known". | | 5. don't build reactors that can go critical near known tsunami | shorlines. | | 6. At worst we'll surely have fusion by the end of the century | and can then retire the nuclear plants. Solar and wind without | a 100x improvement in battery storage tech do not make sense | right now as the sole producer of energy like a lot of | unrealistic "environmental" groups claim. | user_7832 wrote: | I can try to answer your questions. (Disclaimer, I'm a masters | student studying systems with a focus on energy systems. | Obviously not an expert, and am somewhat biased pro-nuclear.) | | 1. Net online time for nuclear isn't particularly bad, | especially when you consider that other alternatives too go | down. [1] Of course you'll need some extra capacity/more | plants, but that was anyway the case. | | 2. I feel this is probably the strongest point that can be held | against nuclear. Short-term fuel management is not an | issue/already figured out, and climate change is a much quicker | risk in the next 50 years, so I'd argue it's still better to go | 0-carbon instead of finding a perfect solution right now. | | 3. I'm not sure if you're referring to proliferation of the | fuel or technologies, but both are reasonably well-developed | fields that France should not have major problems. | | 4. Similar to point one - nuclear accidents vs risks/deaths | from coal is like comparing flight safety with cars. Sure, | airplanes _feel_ unsafe but are statistically MUCH safer than | cars. Chernobyl and Fukushima were both avoidable (though that | can admitably be said for a lot of accidents). Deaths from | pollution itself are in the millions instead. [2] | | 1. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/nuclear-power-most- | reliab... 2. https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of- | energy | majou wrote: | Proliferation in the context of nuclear is the risk of | terrorists or states intercepting fuel that can be refined to | weapon-grade. | | Some reactors don't have this risk, but I'm not read on it. | axlee wrote: | France has been running on 75%+ nuclear power mix for the past | 50 years and is doing better energy/emissions-wise than almost | every other country in the world. Your questions have already | been answered, it seems. They seem to have bet on the right | horse, and went full steam ahead with it (no pun intended). And | now they are supplying all their neighbours with surplus clean | energy. | monocasa wrote: | France has significantly less spent fuel to deal with since | they allow civilian energy production to reprocess spent fuel | back into usable fuel. | BiteCode_dev wrote: | 1 - During my study, I visited a nuclear plant. They explained | to us the plant is designed around 4 quadrants, each one | capable of turning on and off independently of each other. So | when one needs maintenance, you just put this one offline, and | the others keep running. This way the reactor is never totally | shut off, as I understand that starting it from scratch is an | expensive operation. | | 2 - For the spent fuel, France has plenty of strategically | maintained relationships in what used to be West African | colonies with uranium mines. Why do you think we sent the army | during the Mali war ? We cultivate those alliances because they | bring a lot on the table, from resources to routes and bases. | Nuclear is doubly interesting for us, because we can source it | even if Russia or China decide to tell us to go to hell. In | case of a conflict, this is priceless. | | 3 - I don't know anything about proliferation, so can't answer | this one. | | 4 - Accident mitigation is the big problem, IMO. I've seen how | they operate inside, and let's just say I'm glad the people | that designed the thing were very, very, _very_ good at their | job. Because the ones maintaining it have a very relaxed | attitude. And the plants are pushed to produce way past their | initial expected life span. But I insist, I'm amazed at how | good engineers of the 70' were. Those plants are old tech, but | they are incredible. However, even if the probability of an | accident is low (there are triple safety mechanisms | everywhere), the severity of a potential accident is such that | I consider nuclear disasters a huge risk that we don't take | seriously enough. What's more, it nourishes the growing anti- | nuclear sentiment, so we should really get our act together. | godelski wrote: | > 1. What will the net online time be? | | Hard to say tbh. But these reactors probably aren't offline as | much as you think. They shut down for 1 month every 18-24 | months for refueling. | | > 2. Spent fuel? | | France is the world leader in this regard. Remember that 17% of | France's entire power comes from _recycled_ nuclear. But if you | want to see what their entire nuclear waste. This is _decades_ | worth, and I'm betting much smaller than you expected.[0] (coal | is doing this on a a daily or weekly basis). Just for fun, | let's look at Russia's too.[1] We're literally just talking a | warehouse. People vastly overestimate the waste and what to do | with it. It is fine where it is for hundreds of years. The only | "problem" that we have with "long term storage" is how to store | it somewhere where if somehow all knowledge was lost that | future humans with no radiation detecting equipment could | accidentally release waste (quite a high bar, and not one we're | concerned with other long lasting waste like lead or heavy | metals). We have a few hundred years to figure that out. | | > 3. Proliferation risk? | | None? It is France. They already have nuclear weapons. But | while we're talking about it, Megatons to Megawatts[2] has been | the best deproliferation project in history, reducing the | number of nuclear warheads by over 20,000. | | > 4. Accident mitigation? | | Very low. This is also over estimated. We have a very early | reactor which no other country besides Russia built because it | had the ability to explode. And we have another event where we | didn't know earthquakes could happen of that size until | basically right before said earthquake happened. These are | major disasters, but the two should not be conflated. Even | including these, they are far less environmentally damaging | than the fossil fuels we've been using. The major problem with | nuclear is that disasters are both temporally and spatially | localized. There's advantages and disadvantages to this in | terms of dealing with the consequences. On one hand, it is a | lot to clean up. On the other hand the country that created the | disaster is the one that suffers the most (as opposed to what | we're seeing with oil spills and the entire climate crisis, | which is not temporally localized and thus the danger is not | weighted properly). | | [0] https://twitter.com/Orano_usa/status/1182662569619795968 | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5uN0bZBOic&t=105s | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program | funklute wrote: | None of those questions are new, nor show stoppers for existing | plants. Why do you think the existing procedures may not be | satisfactory? (I'm assuming you think so based on the way you | ask the question) | | EDIT: to be clear, I'm not asking this as a backhanded | question. I'm genuinely curious why this is not seen as a | "solved problem", at least in a country with relatively strong | government institutions | eecc wrote: | Well, the way previous generations fizzled suggests these | problems aren't that solved after all. | | Just 1 long term waste storage has ever been built in the | world, plant productivity has always been relatively low | (initial manufacturing delays, refueling, minor accidents, | refurbishments), many anti-proliferation techniques just | over-produce rad-waste. | | Oh, and if we were to buildout nuclear globally how long | would the ore reserves last? | R0b0t1 wrote: | It fizzled due to FUD. Existing plants work and are | defensible. The waste can be stored safely. | | In emerging economies new designs can be used, but they'll | probably have to be trialed in a developed economy. You | could also pursue economic policy that has developing | economies fund the research instead of letting them expect | handouts. | blendergeek wrote: | > Oh, and if we were to buildout nuclear globally how long | would the ore reserves last? | | If we fully burn all available nuclear fuel, it will last | about 5 billion years. [0] | | [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20130114062518/http://susta | inabl... | jessriedel wrote: | Was the full article title, "President Macron: France to build | new nuclear energy reactors", too long? It's much more accurate. | dang wrote: | Perhaps the submitter thought it was clickbait. I can see the | argument either way, but have restored the fuller title now. | echelon wrote: | Reddit has a few subreddits dedicated to uranium investing. I | caught wind of this a few months ago, and my investments are | doing well. | | Some in the community seem to think that the market will 10-20x | due to the world waking up to the immediate, pressing need for | nuclear. (Insufficient wind/solar capacity, storage, | transmission, etc.) | | There are also some interesting behaviors going on in the uranium | market, where certain players are buying up all of the supply. | It's short-squeezeish in nature. | | China announcement, French announcement. US uranium exploration. | Lots going on. | | https://www.reddit.com/r/UraniumSqueeze | Thorncorona wrote: | For those interested here's the thesis written out by someone | at the start of this year. | | https://josephcollinsul.medium.com/the-uranium-bull-thesis-c... | woah wrote: | Any investment that you caught wind of a few months ago would | be doing well | dane-pgp wrote: | A better (unintentional) pun would be: | | Any investment that you were gassed about a few months ago | would be doing well. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-11-09 23:00 UTC)