- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- science@lemmy.world
You must log in or # to comment.
not this again…
sure nuclear WAS fine, french power plants are getting old, can’t handle oncoming increasing heatwaves and regularly have major accidents. source (german)
in the age of wind and solar and cheap batteries it is not necessary and much cheaper to build renewables.
also: french nuclear energy is only cheap because it gets heavily subsidized. a kwh of renewables is about 7ct, a kwh of nuclear is in reality about 49ct
Don’t forget they have been basically stealing the required Uranium from African Sahel countries like Niger for decades.
Kazakhstan: 30%
Niger: 25%
Canada: 20%
Australia: 15%
Russia: 10%
Is this the anti-nuclear talking point now?
After decades of, “we cannot do it,” it’s now, “we should have done it before, it’s not a good idea anymore”
Fuck right off
What is extra frustrating is I have been hearing "we should have done it before, it’s not a good idea anymore” for literal decades now.
Best time to build is 10 years ago. Second best time is today.
This user (Twongo) has been posting on Lemmy for decares?
And France is blocking importing solar energy from Spain. Also France has to do some shenanigans in Africa to secure their uranium supply.
Sure nuclear is far better than fossil fuels in terms of global warming, but it has similar geopolitical problems to the oil industry. It makes sense to go to solar and wind, but there’s a nuclear industry that’s doing the same kinds of things the oil industry does to block it.
deleted by creator
french power plants are getting old
Most of them still have 30+ years of life in them
can’t handle oncoming increasing heatwaves
Not this again… French nuclear plants has not being stopped because they can’t handle heatwaves, that’s plain bullshit, but because of ecological precaution, which on top of that, seems to be useless
and regularly have major accidents
Also plain bullshit
That explains a lot of you take your sources from anti-nuclear organizations
in the age of wind and solar and cheap batteries it is not necessary and much cheaper to build renewables.
It’s not the age of wind and solar. We’re still in the age of coal (35% of electricity) and gas (22,5%). If we talk about energy at whole, it’s even worse : 30% is petrol, coal 26% and gas 23%. If you think that solar and wind will stay cheap when everybody will compete for the large amounts of metal and other sources needed to build them, and when we will run out of petrol to mine and produce them all, you’re lying to yourself. Nuclear in comparison require very little resource to build and to operate them.
And that’s without taking into account a basic fact: we don’t have enough room to build enough STEPs and we don’t have enough resources to build enough batteries to run entire countries on solar and wind. Looking at costs in 2026 is just meaningless when we’re actually talking about science fiction.
also: french nuclear energy is only cheap because it gets heavily subsidized. a kwh of renewables is about 7ct, a kwh of nuclear is in reality about 49ct
Another bullshit: EDF has been making billions of benefits out of nuclear every year for decades (except in 2022). They even made 10+ billions of euros of net benefits the last 3 years.
And EDF is subsidizing France, not the contrary: the State forced EDF to take a huge part of the cost of the Bouclier Tarifaire, and EDF paid billions of euros of dividends to the State as well
i’m just trying to be brief: the amount of space for golfing far exceeds what is currently being used for wind and solar combined. Space is not an issue and not a real concern. Every free roof can handle solar panels, it is essentially unused space and it bothers no one.
Also what’s wrong with using an activist site as a source if their information is factual?
then the heatwave thingy: those “precautions” will happen several times. Rivers are getting so dry that european countries now lifted the sunday-driving ban for trucks because shipping isn’t reliable.
In summers we produce so much electricity that the price per kwh goes negative atp and we actually have to turn off power plants remotely (which is easy to set up, i do this for a living) - if we build enough infrastructure to have overproduction in winters and enough storage we’re set.
idk why people get so defensive and emotional over nuclear if there’s just cleaner and cheaper options on hand
It’s like I’ve always said, “The best time to build a nuclear power plant is fifty years ago.”
The second best time is forty nine years ago
true, then you’d need decommission it and rebuild it about now.
We should have been deploying nuclear much earlier and then augment with renewables. Once energy storage technology matured more you could phase out nuclear plants.
That would’ve required long term planning though and what if in the end it came out that coal isn’t so bad at all, huh, what then??? /s
And it turned out that beautiful clean coal is just that!
To people talking about subsides, that was always the point, to have energy production as a public service. I would structuraly never trust a private company with nuclear (actually I feel like trusting any one no matter the sector is risky)
The biggest nuclear reactor disaster in history was at a government run nuclear power plant. So you probably shouldn’t trust the government with nuclear either.
Still massive exporter of electricity. I wonder how much coal and gas would burn in Europe if French npp weren’t there.
* Sustained through government subsidies to create/maintain their nukes and submarines.
You mean the same nuclear power plants they need to shut down every other week because the river water they use as cooling intake is too warm to actually cool them down? They’re pretty useless nowadays.
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/france-nuclear-reactors-shut-record-heatwave
You should read what you link, it’s the opposite. They are actually paused to not heat the river up.
Lots of people shilling for Big Oil in this comment section
You just have to expect it. I wear bug spray.
…That they have to shut down all the time because of droughts. And they basically need to rebuild half of it, because the maintenance cost is so high, it is constantly pushed into the future.
Few emissions? Yeah. Good? Nope.
Unfortunately, thanks to the anti-nuclear lobby, we are in a situation where the current reactors will have to be shutdown before the new ones are available to take their place.
If we could deal with the waste that we’ve already got, that would instill some confidence, but the govt has basically shrugged. https://youtube.com/watch?v=nLUAN2Rev1E
Nuclear waste is an already solved problem, we just have to use the solutions. The vast majority (>99%) can be recycled.
OK, if it’s solved… Where the hell are those who take the nuclear waste of my country? Where are they??? I’m sure, we’d pay a lot of money… Where are they???
Idk where you live but the problem is likely one (or both) of lobbied politicians kicking the can down the road (cheaper in the short term) and ignorant nimby-ists who’ve bought the “nuclear energy is evil” narrative pushed by the fossil fuel industry and useful idiots in green movements hook line and sinker.
With more power than it generated?
No, recycling spent fuel into new fuel or even the rather wasteful process of depositing it for long-term storage uses only a fraction of the energy generated by nuclear fission in reactors.
Because it only replaces a environmental disaster with a future one. Still no (practical) way to handle the waste.
Buddy, French reactors have been breeders for decades. They re-use the spent fuel.
Still no (practical) way to handle the waste.
That is false. See my other comment here.
The actual problem is a lack of education amongst the populace combined with a huge surplus of lobbying and a dash of politics.
Send it to the rain forest
Turns out humans are worse than radiation
id suggest Fiji, New Zealand, New Guinea, Cambodia and many dozen other countries will have much lower emissions. in their Navy.
While they did well environmental to produce this and even from a cost to consumer, there are many hidden costs to the power produced which will test France in the coming years as their fleet of reactors and the coming debt-to-gdp crisis means the tens of billions required to overhaul it might be tough to subsidize.
lowest-carbon
Ok, now do nuclear waste.
Relatively tiny amounts that can be stored safely
Its still better than the output of coal which ironically enough output more radioactivity than nuclear powerplants
If only there were an option without the carbon and without the uranium.
Canada developed reactors to run on waste fuel from other reactors.
CANDU 9 IIRC
You are talking about input materials for reactor fuel. We are told almost daily about how bad climate change is; why would new fuel inputs be anything notable as nuclear power de-carbonizes the grid?
The entirety of France’s nuclear waste since the first plant was put online fits in one Olympic swimming pool. That’s 50 years worth of nuclear energy production.
We can handle it.
Nuclear waste is a solved problem.
Dig a deep hole, put the waste in the hole, and backfill the hole.
Done.
I didn’t check, does it say that waste management is not included?
Oilprice.com sure sounds like an unbiased source.
Lol 🤣, here is another biased source:
