No mention of France, who have lower emissions.
They just never went up as much, because they converted to nuclear much earlier.
They just never went up as much, because they converted to nuclear much earlier.
Also I find it interesting that Germany gets the brunt of the critic for not using nuclear even though they managed to steadily reduce carbon intensity (at least pre covid) of their grid, meanwhile Japan, whose carbon intensity shot up after 2011 because of a certain event and still hasn't returned to pre-2011 level, gets a pass since it apparently killed no people with radiation during the process.
Well, it stayed flat because it was already very low to begin with. Only Sweden was below that, and they are the only countries which didn't "improve". See [0] for the CO2 emissions to produce 1 kWh of electricity in the EU. It stops at 2020, so it doesn't say anything about your point on 2022. But it shows that Germany, even though they reduced CO2 emissions by a hefty amount, are still quite terrible compared to France, emitting more than three times the CO2 per kWh.
[0] https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/editi...
The article is talking about all sectors.
The UK and France have both reduced their per capita intensity over the last few decades but after an early lead by France, the UK has caught up and may well overtake.
Didn't work out, so it is no longer the plan.
They are still investing somewhat in renewables, mostly off-shore wind, but the focus has shifted back to nuclear expansion.
6 initially, 8 more after that. And they will extend the life of their existing fleet.
"Macron calls for nuclear 'renaissance' to end the France's reliance on fossil fuels"
https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/02/11/macron-calls-for-n...
"At COP28, Countries Launch Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy Capacity by 2050, Recognizing the Key Role of Nuclear Energy in Reaching Net Zero"
https://www.energy.gov/articles/cop28-countries-launch-decla...
> Schneider: Most of them are countries that are already operating nuclear power plants and have their own interest in trying to drag money support, most of which by the way would go into their current fleets. Take EDF [France’s state-owned utility company], for example. Through the French government, EDF is lobbying like mad to get support from the European Union—European taxpayers’ money—for its current fleet. It’s not even for new construction, because the French know that they won’t do much until 2040 anyway. There is also another aspect that is related and that illustrates how this pledge is completely, utterly unrealistic.
> The pledge to triple nuclear energy capacity is not to be discussed first in terms of pros or cons, but from the point of view of feasibility. And from this point of view, just looking at the numbers, it’s impossible. We are talking about a target date of 2050, which is 27 years from now. In terms of nuclear development, that’s tomorrow morning. If we look at what happened in the industry over the past 20 years since 2003, there have been 103 new nuclear reactors starting operation. But there have been also 110 that closed operation up until mid 2023. Overall, it’s a slightly negative balance. It’s not even positive. Now if you consider the fact that 50 of those new reactors that were connected to the grid were in China alone and that China closed none, the world outside China experienced a negative balance of 57 reactors over the past 20 years.
https://thebulletin.org/2023/12/nuclear-expert-mycle-schneid...
Meanwhile China is barely building nuclear anymore. China added more wind and solar the past nine months than all of its nuclear reactors under construction will provide. Yes, that includes capacity factor.
The fact that most of the world under-invested in nuclear the last two decades or so is well-known. Extrapolating past trends linearly into the future is ... unwise.
Particularly when there has been a significant policy shift, not in small part due to the disaster of the German "Energiewende".
The Tragedy of Germany’s Energy Experiment
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/opinion/nuclear-power-ger...
Germany’s Energiewende: A Disaster In The Making
https://www.thegwpf.org/publications/germanys-energiewende-a...
Germany’s Energy Disaster 20 Years Later
https://www.americanexperiment.org/germanys-energy-disaster-...
Germany’s Energy Crisis Dispels Several Myths
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2022/08/31/germany...
"Much of its problem is self-inflicted and demonstrates the perils of populist but irrational energy policy."
As for China:
"As of February 2023, China has 55 plants with 57GW in operation, 22 under construction with 24 GW and more than 70 planned with 88GW. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
That is almost a tripling in both numbers and capacity. Because you need some reliable power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_renaissance
"Since about 2001 the term nuclear renaissance has been used to refer to a possible nuclear power industry revival, driven by rising fossil fuel prices and new concerns about meeting greenhouse gas emission limits."
Just like today.
Since 2001 and now, mostly nothing happened which could be seen as an "nuclear renaissance" in France. Other than the EPR having extreme cost increases and extreme construction times.
Why should the "nuclear renaissance" happen, this time? Given that the situation is only worse: engineers are aging, plants are aging, current nuclear technology/companies are not delivering, money is tight, ...
Dunno...maybe because, as the article you cite mentions, the term was used in 2001 to refer to a hypothetical.
" ... a nuclear renaissance is possible ... "
So there was no "that time". Whereas "this time" it is not some hypothetical that could happen, but officially declared government policy.
Macron presents France’s long-term ‘nuclear-heavy’ energy plan
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/macron-presents...
Macron announces ‘nuclear renaissance’ — and papers over past mishaps
https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-papers-nucle...
Macron pushes 'French nuclear renaissance'
https://www.dw.com/en/macron-calls-for-french-nuclear-renais...
Did I write "declared" government policy? My bad: declared and enacted government policy:
French Parliament passes law to accelerate construction of new nuclear reactors
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2023/05/17/french-...
French parliament votes nuclear plan with large majority
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-parliament-votes...
Note the "large majority". To be precise it was "approved with 402 votes in favour and 130 against." That's a whopping 75% of the vote. Doesn't seem particularly controversial.
France's Assemblée Nationale adopts 'nuclear acceleration' bill on first reading
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/03/21/france-s...
So that's what's different. Hypothetical possibility vs. declared and enacted government policy.
You're welcome.
It's a mostly state owned monopoly on electricity. It's not a market-oriented energy landscape at all. Energy socialism.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/opinion/...
> declared and enacted government policy
Delivery is the problem. See the main tasks of a) keeping the aging and outdated reactors online, b) building new plants, c) developing new types of plants, d) innovating and e) financing the whole show with government money.
They are so desperate, such that EDF is still cooperating with Rosatom/Russia...
A wonderful Gish Gallop..
In common usage, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably, particularly in Germany where plants often consist of a single reactor. But yeah, that bit of terminological sloppiness is a total game changer...about what exactly?
Pretty much all your claims are, in fact, comically incorrect:
1. nuclear is too expensive.
It is not. It is clearly and obviously cheaper than renewables. See France v. Germany electricity prices.
Taking the most expensive outlier in cost and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Well, if you assume an honest mistake, which admittedly is difficult with that level of wrong. So OK: not comically incorrect, just plain old dishonest.
2. nuclear is unsafe
It is not. It is either among the safest or the safest form of energy production we have.
3. nuclear takes too long
It does not. Average time to build is 7.5 years, consistently. France converted their electricity production to nuclear in 20 years, Germany hasn't managed half of that in 20 years with renewables.
Again, focusing on a few outliers that take a very long time and claiming that to be the norm is comically incorrect. Or just dishonest see above.
4. nuclear is on the way out
There is a massive expansion going on. It was on the way out a few years back, but the catastrophe that is the German Energiewende made non-ideologically captured countries realize they need reliable grid-level supply. Russian gas backup isn't it.
But you obviously know better than those countries as to what they are actually doing.
Again, either comically incorrect or dishonest.
5. nuclear waste storage is unsolved
Do tell the countries that have built long-term storage that they haven't. And tell the facilities that are doing the intermediate storage just fine that it isn't working.
This one I wouldn't classify as just plain old incorrect, not comically so, as it is somewhat tricky to navigate through all the misinformation and find out what's going on.
We were arguing about nuclear power in Japan. In 2011 Fukushima had one of the largest plants in the world, with six reactors. Many powerplants in Japan had more than one reactor. But you did not know that?
You also never seemed to have heard of the events at the other reactors, like the four ones in Daini.
Your list reads like that one of a fanboy, it has very little to do with reality.
Incorrect. The article was about UK, this subthread was all about France.
> Your list reads like that one of a fanboy,
It reads like a "fanboy" to you.
"I know you're a pessimist if you think I am an optimist"
Might be time to re-examine your biases and bring them into alignment with reality, because...
> it has very little to do with reality.
Incorrect. Everything in my list is true, and verifiably so. Unlike the vast majority of the stuff you've spouted so far.
If you think that actual reality reads like "a fanboy", then congratulations!
-> You have just discovered why it is logical and rational to be positive about nuclear power <-
You are very welcome!
Whereas with solar and wind, we ship the money to China.
"Expensive" French nuclear electricity is around half the price of "cheap" German electricity.
The numbers that get passed around the anti-nuke fan-communities are usually completely bogus, for example one uses the price of the Vogtle plant in the US, pretty much the plant with the most time + cost overruns, as the "cost of nuclear".
With that level of wrong, it is hard to attribute it to just incompetence and not malice.
p.s.: As the biggest part of the cost of a nuclear plant currently is finance, i.e. interest payments, time delays = cost overruns.
Nuclear energy in France is heavily used to subsidize other parts of the economy.
EDF was bought out by the state because the state had been siphoning off all its profits.
> The price of nuclear power in France is regulated, which is why EDF failed to make profits.
Exactly. Cheap nuclear electricity was used for decades to subsidize all sorts of industries and endeavors, never allowing EdF to actually profit from the cheap generating capacity.
Do some research.
China leads in renewable energy as Europe falls behind
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Energy/Chinese-manufacturer...
China becomes solar energy superpower, dominates 80% of supply chain
https://interestingengineering.com/innovation/china-becomes-...
China supplies its own massively growing domestic market as well as others.
It's starting to make inroads into Europe, Japan and other places where politicians have sabotaged the renewable transition to the detriment of local manufacturing, but that's a relative recent phenomenon for wind, slightly behind the pace blazed by the same countries on solar.
Anyway, another example of France keeping it real yet again.
This chart (which I keep posting, apologies HN) helps to illustrate the dynamic: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9ijkxxhuscrr3x22tewk2/File-De...
2. There are several companies that are planning to build reactors in factories. Rolls-Royce is one. I was wondering where they're going to put all those reactors, and the only reasonable answer I could find was upgrading old coal plants.
In fact, that appears to be exactly the plan:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/rolls-royce-in-talks-t...
Pretty cool, when you think of it: all that big and heavy custom infrastructure is already in place. The reactor is built in a factory and shipped there.
And there are a LOT of coal powered plants in the world about to be or already decommissioned.
Modular reactors are at least theoretically feasible. The only question right now is whether they’ll make it from theory to multi-TW deployment before battery storage eats their economic lunch. Over a 20-30 year timeframe that’s not an easy call, though I would personally bet on batteries.
I wish we already had them, because then a lot of these discussions would be moot.
However, even with the current somewhat crazy approach to building, nuclear energy is still quite competitive, and without peer for providing reliable, stable grid-level power.
Which we absolutely need.
Battery storage, nuclear and reverse hydro might be built in the future. They are all potential technology that cost too much compared to wind, gas and solar.
A rather large contextual note is that wind, gas and solar get practically all the government subsidies, so there is a uphill fight if investors wanted to invest into some of the "future stuff". Wind get most subsidies, solar next, natural gas (and oil) third. Many gas and oil plants in Europe is actually government funded through out, as they operate as reserve energy. They get subsidies just to exist, and then get subsidies when they balance the grid, and last they can get subsidies again since prices during high demand and low supply can become more than the market is willing to bear.
This is for the US but equivalent laws exist in all countries. For example in Sweden it is capped to about $1.5B which is laughable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nucle...
Talking about insurance in isolation is practically meaningless. Hydropower do not cover risk insurance of flooding, nor does fossil fuel pay insurance against pollution and global warming. The government or private citizens takes that risk, covering 100% of the costs. Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment.
In a perfect world all energy production would cover all social and environmental risks of their commercial operation. Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.
Gas pays carbon taxes through the ETS system, although not equivalent to the cost of climate change. Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything.
> Wind and solar do not cover risk of forest fires or damages to endangered species. Wind farms on the ocean do not cover risks to changes in currents, and only need to cover a limited survey in term assessing risk to the environment.
That sounds like coping. Trying to build a false equivalency to paint the huge nuclear subsidy gets as insignificant. On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up compared to for example the $1.5B insurance limit in Sweden. A 99% subsidy on insurance cost. On the other we have vague references and scaremongering.
> Intermittent energy sources would then have to pay insurance on the cost of blackouts, as well as the full bill of the reserve energy plan that the government currently pays for. Paying all those through taxes only hide the true cost of energy production away from the consumer.
How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/15/business/nuclear-power-fr...
That sounds snarky and name calling.
> Existing renewables get some subsidies, new built barely anything.
Europe has a yearly report on subsidies available online for anyone to read. (https://energy.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-10/annex_to_th...). It clearly marked. Out of the 179 billions euro, more than 40% was assigned to renewables.
The reserve energy plan is not part of the report since its considered operational cost in term of keeping the grid stable. The report on reserve energy however do consider renewables and the increased variability as a cause for new investment and more funding, paid by increased taxes.
> On one side we have clear examples like Fukushima costing at least ~$150B to clean up
Fukushima happened 2011. Oroville Dam failour happened 2016, and caused a larger number of evacuation and loss of life.
So far the US government (thus citizen tax money) has been forced to pay more money money to fix the Oroville Dam than Japanese government has paid fixing Fukushima. The land destroyed by the flood will likely never fully recover nor the owners repaid for the damage.
Going back to Europe, Sweden had some of the worst flooding this year, especially downstream of hydropower plants. In 2021, European floods saw many floods downstream of hydrpower plants, with massive amount of damage and loss of life. The Ukraine was also hit with one of the deadliest attack on their hydropower infrastructure, a attack defined as a major war crime.
> How much should the French nuclear industry pay for having half their fleet off-line right as we went through a huge energy crisis in Europe?
If all power producers was obligated to maintain the grid then the French nuclear industry should pay the same as everyone else when they can't fulfill that obligation. Grid stability is not the governments job, nor the citizens responsibility to pay for.
It would be nonsensical to remove the subsidies contracted a decade ago for what was higher risk investments at that time? Flipping it around, lets cancel the CFD giving Hinkley Point C $165/MWh for 35 years after completion and let them free on the market. EDF will cancel the construction overnight and eat the loss.
I would also suggest you read your own report. Since it clearly states that renewable subsidies are down year on year. They are being phased out and new ones do not match what existed 2015-2019.
But I know that it doesn't match your conviction of "hurt durr renewable subsidies!!".
> The reserve energy plan is not part of the report since its considered operational cost in term of keeping the grid stable. The report on reserve energy however do consider renewables and the increased variability as a cause for new investment and more funding, paid by increased taxes.
The "reserve energy" is a market opportunity to arbitrage it which means any solution to it will both reduce any potential nuclear plants profitability, and solve it for the general consumer. But I understand, coming from a static nuclear view of the world transformation is chaotic and hard to comprehend.
It is happening though, through pure economics. Renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, which in turn are cheaper than nuclear. The world is racing towards a new equilibrium built on renewables, it will be extremely interesting to see where we end up in 20-30 years.
What is certain though, is that nuclear will have a miniscule impact on that future. It is luxury power for niche applications. Perfect for submarines and barely even aircraft carriers.
> Oroville Dam failour happened 2016, and caused a larger number of evacuation and loss of life. So far the US government (thus citizen tax money) has been forced to pay more money money to fix the Oroville Dam than Japanese government has paid fixing Fukushima. The land destroyed by the flood will likely never fully recover nor the owners repaid for the damage.
Please cite some numbers? Or are facts optional when trying to frame nuclear positively?
All I can find is:
- 0 deaths.
- $1.1B in damages, which is 0.7% of the current estimate for Fukushima.
Or do you mean the floodings, which were even worse, which the Oroville dam was built to contain? You know, hydropower also prevents flooding which means it prevents deaths by existing.
> The flood in late 1955 and early 1956 was historic. It caused widespread damage in Northern and Central California, resulted in 64 deaths and more than $200 million in property damage. To prevent further flooding, the state passed a $25 million appropriations act, including money for a dam. The dam was to be located on California’s Feather River, just above the town of Oroville, about 70 miles north of Sacramento.
> Going back to Europe, Sweden had some of the worst flooding this year, especially downstream of hydropower plants. In 2021, European floods saw many floods downstream of hydrpower plants, with massive amount of damage and loss of life. The Ukraine was also hit with one of the deadliest attack on their hydropower infrastructure, a attack defined as a major war crime.
Please cite numbers. This is all vague handwaving. The nuclear numbers in Fukushima are certain, $150B versus insurance for $1.5B. Society, through taxes, picks up $148.5B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure
150K people died (some estimates go to 250K) 4.6 million people displaced 11 million homes destroyed
How many countries got out of Hydro as a result?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure#List_of_major_dam_...
Bhopal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
Death toll: at least 5K, other figures say up to 16K Over half a million injured
How many countries shuttered their chemical industries as a result?
Your relatives are almost certainly in the right, just by vaguely following whatever the mainstream media is saying, even if they can't penetrate your carefully crafted wall of internalised propaganda you've thrown up.
It is the relatives that are following what the mainstream media is saying, which just happens to be wrong, but has been fortified with a wall of propaganda that feels just right.
What the hell are you going on about? If someone offers their unwarranted take they developed using talking points from "The Week", then I will readily admit my ignorance on the topic and insist I outsource this thought process to the French government. If nuke plants are, have been, and will continue to be heavily utilized for moving their electrons, then I'm going to need every "green energy" evangelist to be able to tell me why the French are actually massive idiots and in reality, we should all have hamster wheels at home hooked to the grid or something.
> Your relatives are almost certainly in the right, just by vaguely following whatever the mainstream media is saying, even if they can't penetrate your carefully crafted wall of internalised propaganda you've thrown up.
Do you assume all people are this conniving? I'd much rather talk about hobbies and achievements with family at Christmas dinner, not energy policy.
Dis you?
> My life at the holiday table has gotten easier when someone inevitably brings up climate change in whatever capacity. I simply state that, until the mainstream consensus is "build the hell out of nuke plants", I don't want to hear about it. As cool as it was to strap DC motors to your car, they still rely on a carbon-fueled grid and I'm still amazed at the horror on some faces when reminded of the fact.
That was the plan indeed until about 2020 when they realised that renewables could not sustain the French demand. The Russian war was the final nail in the coffin of the all renewable plan.
The law reducing the share of nuclear then got scrapped and the custom electricity market applied there negociated in the EU designed to prop-up competitors is in grand danger of being scrapped as well.