[HN Gopher] France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors
___________________________________________________________________
France to Build Six New Nuclear Reactors
Author : cyrksoft
Score : 227 points
Date : 2022-02-10 19:22 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.politico.eu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.politico.eu)
| outside1234 wrote:
| They can sell it to Germany once the US bombs the pipeline they
| are building to Russia (its gonna happen eventually).
| megaman821 wrote:
| This will provide a nice data-point for those who argue nuclear
| makes more financial sense over wind/solar/battery, but some
| anti-nuclear cabal is stopping their construction.
|
| Maybe they are right and France will make lots of money selling
| energy to its neighbors, or they are wrong, and France will be
| stuck with some of the highest energy prices in the euro region.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| Of course, no one will know for over a decade while these are
| being built. Assuming they come in on schedule. And that France
| ever admits the costs. And by then people will be on to arguing
| the next next generation really will be much better this
| time...
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Or some group will stop their construction...
|
| I think nuclear doesn't make sense nowadays, but it's hard to
| disagree that there are many groups working hard to stop it.
| How you decided it's a conspiracy cabal somewhere eludes me,
| they are very visible and very loud.
| megaman821 wrote:
| Where there are large profits to be made, detractors seem to
| have very little effect. Why are these groups so much
| effective than deforestation, blood diamonds, or child labor
| groups?
| neamar wrote:
| France has historically been a net exporter of its mostly
| nuclear electricity. Electricity price is average compared to
| the rest of Europe, https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-
| europe/
| megaman821 wrote:
| That link has a nice chart. What on earth is going on
| Denmark? There pre-tax price of energy seem pretty high
| compared to their neighbors.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| With government subsidies everything can be made to look
| cheap. Not saying we should not subsidize some energy
| production, but nuclear seems like a woefully inefficient use
| of it.
|
| >In 2010, as part of the progressive liberalisation of the
| energy market under EU directives, France agreed the Acces
| regule a l'electricite nucleaire historique (ARENH)
| regulations that allowed third party suppliers access up to
| about a quarter of France's pre-2011 nuclear generation
| capacity, at a fixed price of EUR42/MWh from 1 July 2011
| until 31 December 2025.[47][48][49]
|
| > As of 2015, France's household electricity price, excluding
| taxation, is the 12th cheapest amongst the 28 member European
| Union and the second-cheapest to industrial consumers.[50]
| The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is
| not published by EDF or the French government but is
| estimated to be between EUR59/MWh and EUR83/MWh.[51]
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
| panick21_ wrote:
| All power in Europe is subsidies in so many different ways.
| An accurate comparison of prices is basically impossible.
|
| I would argue, by literally any meassure, French investment
| in nuclear in the 60-70 was absolutely paid off. CO2 saved
| in the 80s is far better then CO2 saved now.
|
| The only reason nuclear didn't become universal in the US
| is cheap coal plants. The US would be 100x better off if
| they had build a few 100 nuclear reactors instead.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| The main reason is cost: Then gas plants undercut
| everything which had a steam cycle and the nuclear
| industry has been living on government handouts ever
| since. Alternating between "small and modular" and "big
| and efficient" to have something to try and hype with.
|
| From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_
| United_St...
|
| > By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power
| would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost
| overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original
| industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the
| 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost
| overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems
| were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in
| 1979.[48]
|
| > Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the
| financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply
| System, a public agency which undertook to build five
| large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost
| overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity
| demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants
| and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS
| defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is
| one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S.
| history. The court case that followed took nearly a
| decade to resolve.[49][50][51]
|
| > Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were
| cancelled,[52] and the construction of new reactors
| ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical
| record and reliability of nuclear power in the United
| States:
|
| > Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in
| the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were
| canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14
| percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage,
| and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus
| outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or
| about half of those completed, are still operating and
| have proved relatively reliable.[53]
| robertlagrant wrote:
| I keep hearing from people who think nuclear's a bad idea that
| "France is ramping down its reliance on nuclear power, so what
| does that tell you?"
|
| I wonder whether any will change their minds based on this news.
| rdtsc wrote:
| > I keep hearing from people who think nuclear's a bad idea
| that "France is ramping down its reliance on nuclear power, so
| what does that tell you?"
|
| A cynical person might even imagine French infiltrators behind
| the scenes supporting anti-nuclear sentiments in neighboring
| countries in order to eventually sell them electricity. Energy
| independence and energy costs have started wars before, so it
| would just be pocket change spent for a future "investment".
| 323 wrote:
| Or Russian infiltrators. Isn't it funny how after deciding to
| get rid of nuclear reactors Germany suddenly realized that it
| needs to build a gas pipeline to Russia to cover it's energy
| needs.
|
| The former German chancellor, Gerhard Schroder is now
| chairman of Russian energy company Rosneft, and was a strong
| advocate of the Nord Stream pipeline project.
| polotics wrote:
| The word you're looking for is "paranoid", not cynical I
| think.
|
| Reasonably, to drop CO2 emissions by 5% each year, ie. to
| have a change of keeping climate drift below 2degC avg, these
| reactors won't even be enough for French energy needs...
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| Cynical is indeed the correct word.
| Krasnol wrote:
| You have to be joking...
|
| France just had to turn off 3 of their rotting reactors[0]
| and they lowered their estimates for this year to 295-315
| TWh[1]. They're desperate, it's election year and they failed
| to come up with a diversified energy plan for the future.
| Luckily the recent taxonomy decision may help to avoid sharp
| tax rises to finance this backward and hilariously
| expensive[2] strategy but those EU funds won't run forever.
| Expensive times coming up for the French taxpayers.
|
| Why would you need conspiracies when the failure is so clear
| in front of you?
|
| [0] https://then24.com/2022/02/08/three-nuclear-reactors-
| shut-do...
|
| [1] https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/epresspack/2447/5c
| 9aa...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-
| new-de...
| joe_the_user wrote:
| France is the only country I know that's managed to make
| nuclear power work. Unfortunately, they haven't been able to
| export that expertise.
|
| Nuclear power plants are vast construction project. The
| construction and large-engineering industries combined are
| vastly corrupt in the US (look at the 3 billion dollars
| _planning costs_ of the unbuilt high speed rail project in
| California, look at the Big Dig in Boston, etc). In an ideal
| world, nuclear might be great. In the existing US world, it
| seems like a disaster waiting to happen.
|
| Edit: found this text on the problems of standardization of
| nuclear power in the US.
| http://www.strategicstandards.com/files/NuclearEnergy.pdf
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Ukraine and Slovakia both generate the majority of their
| electricity from nuclear [1]. South Korea and China area also
| building nuclear plants at a decent rate (though the former
| is adding a lot of fossil fuel capacity too).
|
| When the United States built nuclear plants at scale, in
| serial production, plant costs were also much lower.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country
| Gwypaas wrote:
| South Korea had a run in with a ton of faked documentation
| and is essentially out of the game [1]. China likes to keep
| a finger in the nuclear jar for diversification but the
| current investments are minuscule, even though they look
| large from an outside raw numbers perspective. [2]
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_South_K
| orea#H...
|
| [2]: https://www.iea.org/data-and-
| statistics/charts/average-annua...
| magicalist wrote:
| > _When the United States built nuclear plants at scale, in
| serial production, plant costs were also much lower._
|
| As far as I know, there was never a time where US nuclear
| power plants were built on time and at budget (and that's
| while building more than France ever did).
| panick21_ wrote:
| > Nuclear power plants are vast construction project.
|
| Only water cooled reactors really have that problem. Nuclear
| plants could be much smaller. But innovation has just done
| very badly.
|
| Nuclear scale, regulation is its own worst enemy and the
| social movements against it didn't help.
|
| In the US for a while they did nuclear right as well. Nuclear
| always does well if you actually build many in a row.
| Learning effects are massive in large projects. Look at any
| countries that build many nuclear plants, it always works.
|
| We could literally have had 100% green energy 40 years ago no
| problem. It was cheap coal that prevented that. We would be
| way better of having built nuclear.
|
| And Switzerland, Sweden and others have successful networks
| with nuclear that are very green. Also parts of Canada.
| _ph_ wrote:
| Well, France has 58 mostly old reactors and have 1 under
| construction and now announced 6 more. To keep their current
| level of nuclear production, they would have to build like 40
| in the next 20-30 years.
| Bayart wrote:
| New plants are much more powerful than the older ones. But
| it's true that the relative share of nuclear is meant to go
| down.
| bjoli wrote:
| I was under the impression that it is in the range of 1-2x
| per reactor. There are some old Swedish ones that are at
| 800mw, while the ones I believe the article refers to are
| in the ballpark of 1500mw.
| Bayart wrote:
| Older water pressure reactors in France are 900mw/1300mw,
| the EPR is 1650mw. I concede it's not as dramatic an
| increase as I made it sound. But it should also go hand
| in hand with longer uptimes and better safety.
| 99_00 wrote:
| Seems their mental model doesn't have predictive power.
| d--b wrote:
| Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months.
|
| Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows
| to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. It's
| particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as
| Europe depends a lot on Russian energy.
|
| But whether this happens or not remains to be seen.
| grammers wrote:
| Exactly. Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now
| this is just a political move for the upcoming election.
| nixass wrote:
| >Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is
| just a political move for the upcoming election.
|
| Of course, that's why it says first reactor will go live in
| 2035, not in a day
| Nbox9 wrote:
| > It's particularly smart in this moment
|
| It may be particularly smart for this moment in internal French
| politics, but energy independence is a smart move for any
| sovereign.
| rodgerd wrote:
| A point which may not be well-understood by people unfamiliar
| with French economic history is that for much of post-WW II
| period, France's power prices have been dramatically lower that
| other Western European countries (for industry, anyway).
|
| One of the challenges that moves to get away from nuclear
| generation have caused is the prospect of hurting the French
| industrial base more than it's already been undermined by
| offshoring.
|
| (The other concern is keeping an independent nuclear arsenal,
| which is completely coupled to having reactors.)
| sharken wrote:
| Politicians do tend to look for popular moves close to election
| day.
|
| So it seems like poor judgement to make these statements about
| those not vaccinated.
|
| https://www.euronews.com/2022/01/08/french-president-macron-...
|
| And by the way, some European countries have already done away
| with all restrictions.
|
| Anyway - politics, can't say I'm a fan of these discussions on
| HN.
| socialdemocrat wrote:
| 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.
| ekabod wrote:
| "France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power"
|
| What does that means?
| Manuel_D wrote:
| France built out its nuclear power generation from 10% to 80%
| in the span of less than 20 years [1]. While it's true that
| its latest plants are having difficulties, nuclear power has
| always been more expensive for one-of-a-kind designs rather
| than serial production.
|
| 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Mess
| me...
| pvaldes wrote:
| >> "France has a relatively good track record on nuclear
| power"
|
| > What does that means?
|
| That the rainbow warrior bombing was correct in their minds.
|
| Checking list: Arson, conspiracy to commit arson, willful
| damage, and murder. Concealing the real extension of 30 years
| of nuclear tests in the pacific. Estimates of 110,000 people
| in French Polynesia affected by nuclear tests.
|
| Very nice immaculate people. Yup.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56340159
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| This has nothing to do with nuclear power plants.
| felixmeziere wrote:
| 100% agree Molten Salt reactors are one of the main keys to a
| liveable future for us this century...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Honestly, even Molten Salt cooled reactors would be enough.
| The most advanced once are Terrestrial Energy and Moltex
| Energy in Canada. Canada is actually putting effort behind
| real next generation.
|
| I am more exited about this then almost anything else. If
| these can work its a literal game changer.
| p1mrx wrote:
| Moltex's approach to molten salt reactors looks interesting:
| https://youtu.be/7qJpVClxzVM?t=536
|
| Instead of pumping radioactive molten salt between a reactor
| and heat exchanger, they plan to leave it sitting in stainless
| steel tubes, and use simple convection to extract the heat.
|
| Oak Ridge rejected this idea in the 1950s because they were
| trying to power an aircraft, but convection makes more sense
| when the reactor isn't moving.
| Johnny555 wrote:
| Are there any large MSR's in commercial use? I see a lot of
| test/development reactors on the wiki page:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor#Commercial...
|
| Building _one_ MSR sounds like a good way to prove the design,
| but I wouldn 't want to see them build 6 at the same time. The
| EPR design that they are building is well tested.
| Krasnol wrote:
| France just had to turn off 3 of their rotting reactors[0] and
| they lowered their estimates for this year to 295-315 TWh[1].
| They're desperate, it's election year and they failed to come
| up with a diversified energy plan for the future. Luckily the
| recent taxonomy decision may help to avoid sharp tax rises to
| finance this backward and hilariously expensive[2] strategy but
| those EU funds won't run forever. Expensive times coming up for
| the French taxpayers.
|
| [0] https://then24.com/2022/02/08/three-nuclear-reactors-shut-
| do...
|
| [1]
| https://www.edf.fr/sites/default/files/epresspack/2447/5c9aa...
|
| [2] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-
| de...
| buserror wrote:
| Ahah, it's always expensive time for the french taxpayer --
| always have been! They even have recursive layer of taxes,
| where you pay taxes on amounts that have... already been
| removed from your revenue as... taxes.
| lb0 wrote:
| totaling 8 now .. but in the end will need another one really
| going down bad to stop all the sudden pro-nuclear movement
| here in Europe, which I can imagine only must have some
| astroturfing behind.
|
| But til then, blow more money into insurable and as much
| green as coal and gas power plants :(
|
| (And that calculations done by real experts didn't even
| include all the other uneconomic issues from getting that
| stuff from somewhere til storing the waste - but yeah I know,
| all these waste will be taken by those new shiny molten
| reactors that have no problem at all on paper and will eat
| all the waste - both things just so far from reality in
| practice, which almost does not exist even).
|
| The common stance and knowledge here at HN about all this is
| consternating :(
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| > But til then, blow more money into insurable and as much
| green as coal and gas power plants :(
|
| Nuclear plants don't emit CO2, unlike coal and gas plants.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| Last time around it was negative learning by doing for
| France[1]. I wonder what magical efficiency gains they will
| manage to muster compared to Flamanville [2], Hinkley Point
| C[3] and Olkiluoto 3[4] which the state owned french nuclear
| industry is building. Well, more than magical "simplification",
| "cost cutting" and "modular design" shown on a powerpoint
| before reality hits again.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
|
| [2]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor)#Flamanvi...
|
| [3]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...
|
| [4]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant#...
| panick21_ wrote:
| Nuclear reactors have massive learning effects, the more you
| build with the same people and organization the cheaper it
| is. Nuclear own massive scale is its own worst enemy.
|
| If we could just build 500MW smaller Molten Salt cooled
| reactors we could literally build them like gas plants.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| 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 often assumed, including also cases of
| "negative learning" in which specific costs increase rather
| than decrease with accumulated experience.
|
| Sure, a nuclear cycle without the use of a steam turbine
| may have a future. Similarly to how gas plants undercut
| coal, and nuclear, simply due to the cost of the steam
| plant. I haven't seen any proposals though which is more
| concrete than a pie-in-sky powerpoint design though.
|
| The other issue is that for wind you only need an axle and
| a generator, for sun it is solid state. It is hard to
| compete with the economics of solid state power generation.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > The plant, which has a projected lifetime of 60 years, had
| an estimated construction cost of between PS19.6 billion and
| PS20.3 billion
|
| > According to January 2021 estimates, the expected
| operational start date is June 2026 with a build cost of
| PS22-23 billion
|
| That seems like a... fairly modest overrun for a megaproject?
|
| Flamanville and Olkiluoto were the first two of a new design.
| Historically, that rarely goes well. Taishan went a lot
| better, and Hinkley Point is basically on track.
| kergonath wrote:
| They will keep adding renewable sources in the meantime, it's
| not like they'll be sitting on their hands.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power
|
| Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I
| was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was
| a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From
| environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in
| Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the
| high voltage lines that would bring the power into San Diego.
| Something about them going through an area full of endangered
| tortoises or something like that if I recall correctly.
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| I sometimes wonder if oil and gas companies even need
| lobbying: Environmentalists are the number one threat to any
| green initiative.
|
| If they could all agree on one thing just for once.
| eecc wrote:
| Likely Shell is funding these "environmentalist groups" in
| what is basically the corporate version of shitposting. :)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Isn't environmentalists' argument that we should reduce our
| power consumption, rather than destroying the environment to
| keep providing so much power? That's not as crazy a position
| as you make it out to be is it?
| goodpoint wrote:
| The overton window of HN is skewed so far into techno-
| optimism that you get downvoted into oblivion for
| mentioning reducing energy usage.
|
| Edit: surprise, I'm also getting silent downvotes, as if I
| needed further proof.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| People will advocate permanently destroying a habitat
| before they consider taking a bus instead of driving.
| isomel wrote:
| Yeah, humans have lived fine before fossil fuels so we can
| do it again, right? Just kill half of them. And let 90% of
| the remaining population work in the fields like slaves.
| Easy /s
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Wildest strawman I've ever seen on this site. I've never
| even remotely seen anyone argue for what you're mocking.
|
| And it's not even anything to do with fossil fuels - it's
| about renewables.
| tyjaksn wrote:
| While I agree that modern society requires significant
| energy inputs, there is a middle ground. For instance, if
| cities or the suburbs were more pedestrian friendly,
| walking, cycling, etc. would be a viable option meaning
| less use of fossil fuels by driving.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| It's an absolutely crazy proposition because there are very
| few people who would choose to reduce their quality of
| life. It's far easier to switch to net-zero energy sources
| than it is to completely redefine society.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Some people think it's worth redefining society to
| protect the environment. I wouldn't agree with that
| absolutely either, but it's a logical and defensible
| position. It's not incoherent.
| pyronik19 wrote:
| The problem is there position is completely irrational
| when you take the amount of damage down to standards of
| living to the negligible environmental damage done from
| PV panels. It's almost like the goal is to maximize human
| misery not minimize environmental damage.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Wholly impractical solutions are not defensible.
| roenxi wrote:
| "The position is coherent" is a devastatingly low bar for
| the table stakes or redefining society that radically.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I also don't think it's particularly coherent. Reversing
| economic development in many places might actually push
| populations back into less sustainable modes of
| managing/interacting with their local environments.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| It doesn't seem particularly coherent to me for a few
| reasons. To draw a hard line between human
| activity/habitat and nature seems artificial. A human
| settlement is not so different from a beaver dam of ant
| colony in many ways. The idea especially in the US that
| there is some pre-colonial unspoiled nature that we could
| preserve or return to seems historically ignorant. Native
| Americans were managing the land with fire in much of
| North America for at least 15k years and the whole place
| was a giant game park with archipelagos of agriculture
| and settlements. Early settlers remarked that upon
| arrival they could ride a horse through New England
| forests at a full gallop, which wouldn't be possible in a
| primeval/unmanaged forest. So redefining society away
| form managing nature would be a radical departure and it
| unclear what the end goal would even be. There is nothing
| to roll the clock back to really anywhere in the world,
| and even if you "re-wild" a lot of the continent it's not
| clear what you would get, it certainly wouldn't resemble
| the Americas of 1491 ecologically.
|
| Mostly these folks seem like neo-malthusians who just
| hate people and civilization.
|
| I'm all for increasing bio-diversity, pulling carbon out
| of the air, and cleaning up waste but I don't think any
| of that requires us to use drastically less energy. If
| anything we should aim to make energy so clean and cheap
| that those other things become cheap and easy.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > The idea especially in the US that there is some pre-
| colonial unspoiled nature that we could preserve or
| return to seems historically ignorant.
|
| Who are you replying to here? Who's argued this?
| ch4s3 wrote:
| The point I'm making is that there's a certain type of
| activist who believes these kinds o things, and they're
| arguing for things like reduction of per-capita energy
| use to reduce society's impact on the land based on the
| idea that there was ever really land here that wasn't
| actively managed by people. (At least since the glaciers
| receded) I'm making the case that these neo-malthusians
| want to protect an imagined environment of the past that
| didn't exist. There are certainly things we're doing that
| are environmentally negative form the perspective of
| biodiversity, CO2, local water tables, etc but I don't
| think fixing those things necessarily means using less
| energy, or having a lower standard of living.
| [deleted]
| Manuel_D wrote:
| Standards of living are highly connected to energy
| consumption. Reducing power consumption without also
| reducing living standards is difficult to do. Furthermore,
| power consumption is going to increase as transportation
| and industrial processes become electrified.
| nradov wrote:
| The Endangered Species Act has become a blunt instrument that
| environmentalists and NIMBYs can use to shut down almost any
| major infrastructure project. No one wants to see any species
| go extinct but the time has come to make some hard choices.
| We may have to sacrifice the six-toed purple salamanders or
| whatever in order to preserve the rest of the biosphere.
| parkingrift wrote:
| We're not really saving these species, anyway. Climate
| change will eventually come for them. We can either make a
| few hard choices now or watch as a few... hundred...
| thousand choices are made for us.
| dmead wrote:
| tortoises and their back yards I'm sure.
| joe_the_user wrote:
| In this article, I don't see evidence for "environmentalists"
| being the ones block wind-power, sounds more like argument
| between levels of the French state [1]. But just as much, the
| mantle of environmentalist can be taken by anyone, notably
| just nimbys. There's not a copyright on the term. But it
| winds-up even worse when others point to these idiot uses of
| the term environmentalist and then try to push actually
| environmentally destructive projects.
|
| https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/french-wind-
| ene...
| jibe wrote:
| The Green parties of Europe, which are the political face
| of the environmental movement, all oppose nuclear power.
| Perhaps most strongly in Germany, but The Greens in France
| oppose it as well.
| Teknoman117 wrote:
| Yeah, that one just boggles my mind. A few huge PV solar
| projects out in the desert in southern California and Nevada
| got stalled by environmentalists complaining about increased
| shading cooling down the desert.
|
| At this point, even if solar panels in the desert kill off a
| few species of lizards, seriously, what's the alternative?
| More damage will occur if we don't. It needs to be about
| minimizing total damage, even if it means damaging isolated
| areas intentionally.
| valarauko wrote:
| > It needs to be about minimizing total damage, even if it
| means damaging isolated areas intentionally.
|
| I think that's an arithmetic everyone largely accepts, but
| they just don't want to be the specific ones paying the
| price while others seemingly get only the benefits.
| NIMBYism, if you will.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| It's 100% NIMBYism.
|
| Just like the complaints about how higher-density housing
| may hurt 'the environment' for whatever city people live
| in. Like, if everyone blocks high density housing, those
| people don't just disappear, they're gonna end up living
| in low density housing, and that's obviously much worse
| for the environment: takes up more space, which means
| cutting into nature more, and generally takes more energy
| for the lifestyle too.
|
| But that doesn't matter to NIMBY's -- the important thing
| is that _they_ don 't have to see the environment
| changing where they live in particular.
| jibe wrote:
| It isn't really NIMBYism to oppose remote desert solar
| plants, it is just people who care, perhaps without fully
| weighing cost/benefit, about any negative effect on
| nature.
|
| There is a rational case that the huge footprint of solar
| and wind ends up doing more damage than more compact
| nuclear or natural gas plants. I suspect most of those
| opposing solar also oppose nuclear and gas.
|
| I'd call it Nothing Is Good Enough Syndrome instead of
| NIMBY.
| parkingrift wrote:
| Seems that green Democrats would rather throw themselves into
| a volcano than accept anything less than their 100% absolute
| perfect solution.
|
| New York keeps shutting down nuclear reactors... and then
| offsetting the power losses with natural gas. No one could
| have possibly predicted this?
|
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47776
|
| Congrats!
| andrewinardeer wrote:
| Here in Australia, it can be argued that The Green Party's
| blanket ban and refusal to even consider let alone use
| nuclear has contributed significantly to more carbon in the
| air as we have instead relied on coal for the last 50 years.
| Jedd wrote:
| Is this the Green party that does not, and never has, held
| power here in AU?
|
| It feels like a bit of a stretch, given the major sources
| of funds to the two largest political parties, and the
| various leaders of same who are consistently on record
| espousing the joy of coal and other fossil fuels while
| (weirdly) claiming wind turbines are ugly and
| (disingenuously) blaming grid outages on renewables.
| rgmerk wrote:
| This is just plain wrong.
|
| Absent environmentalism or non-economic considerations
| (hello Jervis Bay) no nuclear power would ever be built in
| Australia. We have way too much cheap, conveniently located
| coal.
| adventured wrote:
| Both of those things can be correct.
|
| Without environmentalist pressure, coal would be used
| indefinitely. And nuclear isn't being built or considered
| because the environmentalists won't support it.
|
| Accordingly they can get positive credit for the first
| and negative for the second.
| coenhyde wrote:
| Maybe so. But imo we should have built a strong nuclear
| industry including refining, power generation and waste
| disposal. Instead of digging rocks out of the ground and
| selling them abroad. We should refine them in Australia,
| lease the uranium to consumer nations, then charge them
| to store the waste in Australia. We are the safest nation
| on Earth for nuclear waste disposal. By storing the waste
| we would help foster adoption in places where waste
| disposal isn't appropriate. Not to mention the waste is
| still valuable, it can be refined again.
|
| Think SaaS reoccurring revenue for waste disposal but we
| can take that waste, refine it and lease it again. Then
| earn more reoccurring revenue for its storage. Rinse and
| repeat. We could corner the market for Uranium.
| r00fus wrote:
| Would it surprise you to know that some anti-nuclear activism
| was supported [1] by the fossil fuel industry?
|
| [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2016/07/13/ar
| e-f...
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies.
|
| Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist
| these days? The problem is - the average "environmentalist"
| is not trying to maximize for anything.
|
| It's a broad bucket that almost everyone is falling into and
| there's almost zero common ground, no organization, etc.
|
| Of course there are going to be people that oppose almost
| everything that label themselves as "environmentalists".
| There's always people that oppose everything! And most people
| consider themselves "environmentalists".
| goodpoint wrote:
| Additionally any twitter bot or "crisis actor" paid by an
| oil company can claim to belong to the category.
|
| It's far too easy to blame "environmentalists" for
| everything.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| In my example, it was other kids at my school and their
| parents protesting it for environmental reasons. And mind
| you, the powerlines weren't even passing through our town
| so it wasn't NIMBYism.
| jeromegv wrote:
| Lots of NIMBY anti-development people would consider
| themselves environmentalist. They are in fact
| conservatives people that would rather keep the status
| quo and are against free market for housing and want
| their assets to inflate to insane prices.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Unsurprisingly.
|
| Moreover, politicians passed unpopular laws e.g. ecotaxes
| or bans and direct blame onto "environmentalists".
|
| It can be a powerful tactic to drive a wedge between
| general population and "environmentalists". Ultimately to
| protect certain companies.
| dahfizz wrote:
| > Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an
| environmentalist these days?
|
| That is not a self evident claim. At least, most people do
| not belong to environmental advocacy groups. The largest
| one is the Sierra club, with 1% of the US population as
| members.
| 7952 wrote:
| I think most environmental argument is just normal
| politics. We have just expanded what people care about. A
| new set of things have become contraversial or virtuous.
| And these issues can mix in weird ways that cause friction
| and cost to people. But government and politicians don't
| really want these issues to be political. Balancing so many
| things is just too complex and fraught.
|
| Also, a lot of environmental groups are focused on specific
| things. Expecting them to protect the whole world and all
| of the future is unreasonable. It's like expecting a cancer
| charity to reduce homelessness. Someone who loves birds
| just wants to protect birds.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Environmental people are a diverse bunch with plenty of
| charlatans and people willing to enrich themselves for "the
| greater good". It's pretty trivial for various interests to
| undermine and drive their agendas.
| boringg wrote:
| Is this that surprising given that the largest Nuclear power
| company (Areva) is based in France and was owned by the state?
| kergonath wrote:
| It's not Areva anymore. It's been split into (mostly) Orano,
| Technicatome, and Framatome.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areva
| jessriedel wrote:
| Yes. It's not surprising that the largest nuclear power company
| is based in France because France has the largest share of
| power from nuclear of any country (>70%). However, like most
| Western countries, France's nuclear reactor building has
| largely stalled and they have been coasting on past
| accomplishments. If they succeed at building more reactors, it
| will be unusual (and imo good).
| kergonath wrote:
| Areva also had a terrible track record in terms of project
| management. We'll see if their successors are better.
| Manuel_D wrote:
| The fact that nuclear plants last so long is a sort of
| unfortunate benefit. Nuclear plant production is cheaper when
| multiple plants of the same design are built together in
| serial production. But the longevity of nuclear plants mean
| that the need to build new ones is spaced out over decades.
|
| That said, it's still the only non-intermittent clean energy
| source that isn't geographically dependent like hydro and
| geothermal. Plans to decarbonize civilization invariably
| involve either nuclear power, or a magnificent yet-to-be-
| invented breakthrough in energy storage.
| orra wrote:
| Furthermore, it's not clear they are doing a fantastic job
| building Hinkley Point in the UK. First, in the decade or
| decade and a half they're taking to build it, you could build
| so much renewable capacity.
|
| Second, Hinkley Point only went ahead when it was guaranteed
| an outrageously high strike price, for the electricity it
| will output.
| sideshowb wrote:
| I'm wondering if that strike price looks quite so
| outrageously high now UK electricity costs have risen by
| 50% in the last year or so
| throwawaymanbot wrote:
| oblib wrote:
| Meanwhile in Japan...
| loeg wrote:
| France is not building reactors forty years ago, with
| generators below sea level, on a major fault line.
| dangyousmart wrote:
| All french reactors are public or semi private? How does it work
| to raise funds for these ?
| jguimont wrote:
| It is EDF [1] which is a mostly state owned company. The state
| will finance the reactors and collect it back when they come
| online.
|
| 1.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...
| tomdell wrote:
| I advise anyone not in the know to look into France's historical
| control of uranium mining in Niger. France's nuclear industry has
| long been fueled by a highly unequal neocolonial relationship
| with their former colony.
| axiosgunnar wrote:
| Well, either you have a job-providing trade-inducing
| environmental-friendly choice or you have a choice that allows
| you to virtue signal.
|
| I know which one I'd choose.
| tomdell wrote:
| Writing off ethical concerns as "virtue signaling" is
| pathetic - just admit you're an ignorant prick.
| nexuist wrote:
| I am an ignorant prick, and if the powers that be had
| chosen to exploit poor people mining uranium instead of
| poor people mining coal 40 years ago, we would have avoided
| billions of metric tons of CO2 and saved millions of poor
| peoples' lives.
| vkou wrote:
| I suppose they could burn Russian natgas instead, or burn
| bunker fuel to ship wood pellets from Canada...
| clarus wrote:
| I do not think uranium is that expensive, compared to the price
| of a nuclear reactor itself or other energy sources. I advise
| to look at wars actually occurring for the control of oil and
| gas (see country like the US).
| Bayart wrote:
| Those days are long gone. France's nuclear industry is fueled
| by a legally-mandated diversified supply, chiefly from
| Kazakhstan, Australia and Canada.
| tomdell wrote:
| Extract value and leave the locals alone to deal with the
| consequences - how progressive.
| nexuist wrote:
| Great job moving those goal posts when your original
| premise was called out.
|
| What exactly do you want France to do in Niger to atone for
| their sins? Build infrastructure, fund businesses, make
| deals with their government? In other words, you want to
| solve colonialism with more colonialism?
| lb0 wrote:
| How cynical, if that was what how colonialism there and
| everywhere else was like, wow..
| tomdell wrote:
| Locals should have been better compensated, more taxes
| should have been paid to the local government, costs
| related to environmental cleanup should be paid for by
| Areva. The business that went on there was fundamentally
| extractive and unfair to Niger - a result of a drastic
| power imbalance.
|
| I fail to see how my "original premise was called out" or
| how I "moved my goalposts", but great job defending
| neocolonialism online - you really owned me!
| ryan93 wrote:
| Absurd that discussion of nuclear power brings out people who
| think it's too pricy. 30 trillion in US debt. Ten percent of that
| could have nuclearized this country
| Gwypaas wrote:
| And say 3% makes the entire country renewable? What is the
| better use of money then? Energy is energy, and even better if
| it is vastly simpler to generate with less headaches to take
| care of afterwards.
| thatfrenchguy wrote:
| There's no even medium-size grid in the world today that runs
| on renewables that aren't hydro.
| Gwypaas wrote:
| South Australia is getting close. [1] Give it a year or
| two.
|
| > Sometimes the sun does shine and the wind does blow.
| That's most of the time in South Australia, apparently. The
| average share of wind and solar during October was 72%. For
| 29 out of 31 days, 100% of the power used in South
| Australia (SA) was renewable. The sky didn't fall, the grid
| didn't collapse, and the apocalypse is not nigh.
|
| [1]: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/04/solar-wind-72-of-
| south-...
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| Looks like Australia has relatively stable amount of
| sunshine during whole year. In Poland, in December
| there's less than one hour in a day.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-10 23:00 UTC)