Comment by smackeyacky | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smackeyacky | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

More ridiculous, nakedly silly pushing of nuclear power by entrenched interests who are looking not for nuclear power but to extend the life of their deadly coal power assets.

You and I are stuffed in this scenario. There are no good ways of kicking off nuclear power in countries that don’t need it for weapon production. The theoretical small power plants are nothing but boondoggle fantasies designed to drain the public purse with the aim of slowing the renewable juggernaut.

We were all warned 25 years ago what the climate change denialist playbook looked like. First claim climate change isn’t real. Next claim it might be real but it isn’t bad. Next claim ok it might be a problem but we can sequester carbon. Next say ok that’s a fantasy but let’s use gas as a transition. Then admit gas won’t last so the only possible answer is nuclear.

Problem is, most countries have already proved we don’t need nuclear power. At. All. Yet still the well funded lobbying of fossil fuel industries promote this fantasy.

There seems to be little that can be done to fight the onslaught of bullshit that these evil (yep, evil) bastards use to corrupt discourse worldwide. Other than doing something that will send you to jail. It might be time to do just that.

> There seems to be little that can be done to fight the onslaught of bullshit that these evil (yep, evil) bastards use to corrupt discourse worldwide. Other than doing something that will send you to jail. It might be time to do just that.

I have never read a more fascist comment than this one on this site, congratulations on reaching such a low point.

I imagine you consider yourself a democrat, right?

Explain to me how France having some the cheapest and most stable power (also very low carbon) is "evil".

> Other than doing something that will send you to jail. It might be time to do just that.

Is this satire? Are you seriously advocating for breaking the law to push your anti-nuclear agenda? That's straight up crazy.

Not the parent poster. But the people who built the French nuclear fleet are not the same as the people pushing nuclear power in the media. Just because an energy source is technically positive does not mean that the people supporting it are actually having a useful or positive effect.

France has no credible plan to replace and/or refurbish the reactors built decades ago by a socialist government cross-subsidizing its nuclear weapons program.

Even their "target" for 2035 is 20% less nuclear than today.

They just had to renationalize their nuclear builder due to it failing to build several reactors on time and on budget.

They signed contracts that put the costs on them if they failed so the French taxpayer is picking up the bill for UK nuclear cost overruns, and even then the UK electricity buyer is probably overpaying compared with offshore wind.

”Paris seeks UK loan guarantee after Hinkley Point nuclear plant costs soar”

https://www.ft.com/content/c1e3bd19-763b-4ea1-b188-d2872cc36...

A French view on the matter:

"There will be no new nuclear power plants in the West"

"There are better options, today (written in 2022)"

https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/there-will-be-no-new-nuc...

> To a large extent, French skepticism about renewables over the past 20 years was not unreasonable given that the country did not have carbon-spewing (and otherwise polluting) coal-fired plants to replace - it had and has a low-carbon and cost competitive power sector.

> But the long term trends have been up for the cost of nuclear, and down for the cost of renewables, to such an extent that the situation has now almost fully reversed.

> In the past 7 years, offshore wind has gone from >150 EUR/MWh to <50 EUR/MWh - under competitive tenders that see projects being completed within a couple of years of tariff allocation. Solar tenders are regularly won at lower prices, often below 25 EUR/MWh.

> Even their "target" for 2035 is 20% less nuclear than today.

I highly doubt it, French reactors have an average of 40 years of operation, and it is very credible to think it will be extended to 60 years, and I would aim for 80+.

That said, flamanville will go into operation this year and 6 reactors will be built, where each of these reactors realistically will have the power of 1.5 current reactor.

French nuclear power will generate the vast majority of French energy in the future as well, sorry to see you annoyed by that.

Probably a French mistake was to have invested everything in nuclear, not being able to vary easily with peaks. I expect the nuclear share to drop at 50-60 percent in the future to cover the rest with renewables.

But this possible scenario says little about your defeatism and pessimism toward nuclear power, but rather it's a pragmatic approach to the subject.

Regarding Hinkley Point, always the same thing, how boring. I'd like to point out, that the second reactor at Hinkley Point is begin build at a rate 20-30% faster than the first. I expect further efficiencies with the EPR2s.

I'm quoting the French governments target of 50% nuclear, down from about 70% today.

You yourself say:

> I expect the nuclear share to drop at 50-60 percent in the future to cover the rest with renewables.

So what bit are you actually disputing or disagreeing with?

The 6 reactors you mention are I assume the ones with a vague uncosted plan due for first delivery of electricity in 2035-40 (if they meet their timetable!)

> I'd like to point out, that the second reactor at Hinkley Point is begin build at a rate 20-30% faster than the first.

20-30% faster than a project that is (currently!) 50% over time estimated and the most recent delay was announced only months ago.

So they're slower than their promised delivery times even after building several and they celebrate that as a success in their press releases to distract from all the bad news.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com