Well yea, countries keep buying nuclear from France because it's clean, cheap, and they don't want to suffer the political backlash from the science lacking environmentalists which come forward when they talk about building nuclear on their own land

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.de -4 points 1 year ago (34 children)

France has been importing more electricity than exporting in 2022 because their nuclear reactors can’t perform in the heat resulting from climate change. And this is more likely to happen again as each year becomes hotter.

I’m not sure where this fetishism for France‘s nuclear energy is coming from.

[–] Obline@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You're quoting 2022 because that year >30% of the reactrors were taken offline for maintenance. The French government is also shutting down nuclear reactors due to lack of funding & outdated technology.

This is not an inherant problem with nuclear, but because the French government hasn't invested since the 70s.

If funding wasn't cut (due to environmental activists), the output would be more than needed.

Nuclear is still our best bet for combatting climate change and reducing carbon emissions.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Actually, in a nuclear power plan, except the tank itself (not sure I'm translating "cuve" properly, every part can be upgraded.

"Lifetime exceeded" in a nuclear reactor is a misleading statement. The truth is we don't know how long they can last. We know some minimum lifetimes only, by being cautious.

Example: you build the first plants, and you "slap" them with a 40 years lifetime. Why 40 years? Because we have enough records and historical data to back the structure and materials with enough confidence they will last 40 years at least. Beyond 40 years, we start venturing in uncertainty. That doesn't mean we even trust the 40 years. Every 10 years, a power plant is getting fully audited to get an authorization to run for the next 10 years (and there are less deep regular audits as well).

Later, with more data, and more reference, you can establish that the structure and material have proven to have an even longer lifetime, and you can extend it (50, 60 years). It may come with extra-conditions, though. But there is a certain confidence that with the proper funding, France could keep its plants up and running for a lot longer than the initial 40 years.

Ironically, France shutdown the oldest reactors that just had received the very latest upgrade, making it also the most modern reactors in service.

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.de -3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im quoting 2022 because this was last year. As in, the most recent year.

I don’t disagree that we should have phased out coal instead of nuclear first. But what has happened has happened. I do disagree that we need a „nuclear renessaince“ now, because neither the economics nor the timelines work out at this point in time. Solar and wind is cheaper, faster to build, and more flexible as you can iterate on their designs MUCH more quickly than nuclear plants. That’s the main reason why solar panel efficiency is going through the roof.

Why cannibalize the investments in what obviously works?

[–] pedro@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You only solve one part of the problem: what do you use when there's no sun and no wind? Coal? Gas?

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.de 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As far as I can tell, there is no time with no sun AND no wind: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Energy_statistics_-_latest_trends_from_monthly_data

In fact, there are multiple studies claiming that you can very well supply base load with renewables, for instance this one:

https://www.ceem.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf

One other problem with nuclear is that it has to run at a fixed output level, and can’t be scaled down if there is eg. lots of solar power being generated. In this case, you have to scale down renewables to make sure you can use the nuclear power, which makes it clash with the eventual goal to power everything with renewables.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know who, in his sane mind, can claim there will never be periods of time with no sun and no wind at the same time. https://notrickszone.com/2022/12/07/plunging-towards-darkness-germany-sees-week-long-wind-sun-lull-as-energy-supply-dwindles/

You need a pilotable generator matching renewables. You can't do without it. The only question is how much of it you need to plan. Existing approaches are storage: batteries, hydro where it's possible (you pump the water up a dam to store back energy) and backup generators: coal, gas, and in some future plans, hydrogen.

None of these is a perfect solution (well, nothing is a perfect solution).

Hydro: that's the ideal, but obviously, you need a very large body of water, and heavy construction. But it ends up being a very clean energy with long lifetime.
Batteries: lifetime considerably reduced, requires very large amount of precious minerals (today, car industry assume they'll get ~100% of lithium extracted, aeronautic assumes they'll get as much as they need without counting, and then you have the energy sector counting on very large quantities as well ; there won't be enough we can extract for everyone, and lithium mines are all but clean).
Backup generators: no need to comment on fossil fuel, but hydrogen has a big issue: it is very inefficient, ~30%. So if you need it 10% of the time, you need to plan 30% more capacity of renewable, and that's assuming you can pilot it all the way from total shutdown to 100% capacity, probably very optimistic. You will need to have it running at some minimum levels, that's even more renewables you need to keep it running.

It is not completely true that nuclear needs to run at fixed level. Depending on their design, some plants are pilotable and some are not. But I don't think (I'll be happily corrected if needed) any had the flexibility you need to be used with renewable (quick large variations).

So the ideal mix is, IMHO, a baseline provided by nuclear, and a mix of renewable and complements to produce the difference.

Bonus: there is a "method" promoted by some (ignorant) politics they call "proliferation" ("foisonnement", not sure I'm translating that the best). This is utter BS...

The idea is there will always be sun or wind somewhere in a super-grid spreading through Europe. If you think about it for 1 minute, that means that small part of Europe where there is wind will power, for a more or less short time, a large portion of the whole Europe?? Not only is that totally insane from the capacity point of view, but it also completely neglects the grid's stability and electricity transportation issue. It is very difficult to transport electricity over very large distances without disturbing the grid. Ask Germany, they spend massively on infrastructures right now without counting on proliferation. That would raise the requirements further...

[–] HaiZhung@feddit.de 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good Post overall, no need to attack my sanity though :-)

I agree with most of this in principle. Having 100% base load with renewables is an aspirational goal - for now - but nevertheless achievable, I believe. You will find that the sun does, in fact, always shine (somewhere on the planet), and that wind almost always blows (somewhere on the planet). Admittedly, wind is more prevalent throughout the day than sun, but still.

There have been recent discoveries of superconductors that might help transport the electricity where it is needed. But again, this is all in the medium to long term future.

But of course, short to medium term, and long term too, energy storage will play a huge role. I expect massive development in this area, as this is being iterated on anyway, eg. for EVs.

[–] matlag@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago

Good Post overall, no need to attack my sanity though :-)

I was not targeting you, rather the idea itself. But it came out terrible and there are definitely better way to express an opinion. So my apologies for that one!

load more comments (31 replies)

load more comments (80 replies)