by julosflb on 11/9/21, 8:26 PM with 637 comments
by 1cvmask on 11/9/21, 8:36 PM
It seems this is the biggest energy story of the year. The comeback of nuclear energy.
https://smallcaps.com.au/china-supercharge-uranium-race-150-...
The HN discussion on the China story:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29151741
Japan reactivating nuclear reactors:
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210501/p2a/00m/0op/00...
UK. Rolls-Royce gets funding to develop mini nuclear reactors:
by sandGorgon on 11/10/21, 8:17 AM
The demand for power in India and China is outstripping everyone else. And it is still stuck using coal power. India and China do NOT have land (for renewables) commensurate with the population or energy demand. Also one of the biggest sources of renewable hydro power is a geopolitical flashpoint for India vs China (https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/china-proposed...). Almost a hundred soldiers died in an India vs China battle recently around this area.
Both India and China have unilaterally rejected COP26 restrictive measures from developed nations... simply because it is not possible to reduce the power demand coming from populations (the size of Europe) being lifted up from poverty.
The only answer for the next 50 years is nuclear tech. And France is literally the only game in town right now. So let us pray, this happens sooner than later. You do NOT want coal from 2 BILLION people in the atmosphere.
by natmaka on 11/10/21, 12:29 AM
The last delivered reactor was Civaux-2 (generation II), in 1999. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Then in 2002 the project Flamanville-3 was launched (a generation III reactor, the "EPR", first one of its kind), and the building phase started in 2007. It is a major failure, not delivered, at least 11 years behind schedule, and will cost at least 19.1 billion euros (initial budget: 3.4 billions €). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
by littlestymaar on 11/10/21, 5:56 AM
- shut down the Fessenheim plant, one of the most reliable one. Yes it was the oldest, but not by far, and reports from the nuclear authority are pretty clear that this plant was in a much better shape than others built just a few years afterwards (Bugey, one year later which is now older than Fessenheim was when shut down, and Blayais started 4 years later).
- promised to reduce the share of nuclear in the electricty mix to 50% by 2025.
- shut down Astrid, the French research project for 4th generation nuclear (which is the only long term viable path for nuclear, since there will never be a shortage of fertile material (U238 or Thorium) whereas fissile one is pretty limited. Breeding reactors also solve the very-long lived nuclear waste issue).
He did all of this when he was trying to seduce electors from the green party. Now he don't seem to care about them, but who knows for how long…
by jhylau on 11/9/21, 11:20 PM
New timeline means 16 to 17 years between planning and operation, thus 16-17 years of CO2 and pollution before a single kWh
https://www.wabe.org/new-delay-for-georgia-nuclear-reactors-...
we are running out of time! the transition to WWS is faster and cheaper.
see: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-...
by radicalbyte on 11/9/21, 9:46 PM
I would sign up today for nuclear power in 2025 if it replaced all natural gas and diesel/petrol vehicles on the roads.
by kemenaran on 11/9/21, 8:39 PM
It was expected to cost 3.3B€, but in the end will probably cost around 19B€.
by nunja on 11/10/21, 4:14 AM
He is a realist, but in this field we need to go beyond and to open big money for the research into small and decentralized nuclear power.
Every citizen have to know the pros and the cons, and be educated to the risks. Energy provide good living standards, but we have to know the drawbacks and we have to account for externalities in every business model.
This will be the only way to keep our standards of living and keep an habitable home.
by cm-t on 11/10/21, 8:12 AM
In France there are reactors, now they are OLD.
OLD is a cost, and also a risk.
France already has gaz (cost is hight), or hydrolic (water daws are all in use at its max in France), but it seems France doesnt want to go the german way and switch on the coal power plants.
The press article mention green peace, while most of people think gren peace are communicant people who doesnt get aware about science news and will applause germany for leaving nuclear (but going COAL) and blame france for keeping nuclear (but having low CO2 energy ratio) like if wastes are worst than CO2 while CO2 is nowday issue.
Government tryed to open the energy market in France, but since it has done that, the consumer prices are only getting highter and highter while the historic company EDF is making profit, and not the new comers who are often at the edge to termination plan. Also, Having a company not being EDF (governement has 80% part of it) to own a reactor is a risk, because profit always come first for a company.
Having new reactor will give more low-CO2 emission energy and give more time to have more decent work (r&d) on renewable energy and stockage (not daws since we already use them all here) probably.
There are risk to have reactor, and also wastes, but the CO2 costs look the best until there is something else.
PS: I'm not a macron side voter; I think many french people think like this; I'm not backing anything with source, because it's just what it is on people minds i guess and i agree a bit to that; so I'm just sharing this here for the discussion
by rcpt on 11/9/21, 11:28 PM
by echelon on 11/9/21, 10:02 PM
Some in the community seem to think that the market will 10-20x due to the world waking up to the immediate, pressing need for nuclear. (Insufficient wind/solar capacity, storage, transmission, etc.)
There are also some interesting behaviors going on in the uranium market, where certain players are buying up all of the supply. It's short-squeezeish in nature.
China announcement, French announcement. US uranium exploration. Lots going on.
by Animats on 11/10/21, 2:41 AM
by alboy on 11/9/21, 8:35 PM
>France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. [1]
according to the target set in the "Energy transition for green growth" bill.
[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
by shtopointo on 11/9/21, 11:38 PM
There's been a lot of talk about nuclear (both fusion and fission) recently, and it's great news!
by eecc on 11/9/21, 9:58 PM
by datameta on 11/9/21, 9:49 PM
If not, I hope France seriously considers using breeder reactors to reduce leftover radioactive material.
Otherwise, I think this is fantastic news. In fact even if they build light water reactors I think it is the ideal base load solution to bridge the gap from oil and coal.
by andygrd on 11/10/21, 6:51 AM
by Sophistifunk on 11/9/21, 11:43 PM
by jedisct1 on 11/9/21, 10:04 PM
by itistricky on 11/10/21, 9:42 AM
by boyadjian on 11/9/21, 9:50 PM
by DrJaws on 11/10/21, 6:58 AM
thorium won't last much more, and it's not even viable at this point, this seems like a desperate attempt to maintain the power consumption per capita for some more years before the inevitable collapse.
by slownews45 on 11/9/21, 10:35 PM
Flamanville has been super disappointing however in France.
by woodpanel on 11/9/21, 9:44 PM
by SubuSS on 11/10/21, 12:53 AM
I have a question around waste management though: Do we know if there are big improvements here? IOW - https://apnews.com/article/washington-business-nuclear-waste... bothers me.
by martius on 11/10/21, 12:41 PM
Assuming they really set this project in motion, there's plenty of time for the next government to cancel it.
by p1mrx on 11/9/21, 10:04 PM
https://www.google.com/search?q=epr+emergency+feedwater+syst...
I guess they have to build with the tech they have, but it would be nice if they'd spent the last few decades researching better designs.
by beders on 11/10/21, 3:28 AM
by panick21_ on 11/10/21, 12:59 AM
Based on first principles, nuclear is the cheapest. Its historical path dependency that it isn't.
Fission breeder reactors have the potential to use the least amount of land, be the safest form of energy, have the lowest cost of fuel (essentially free)and use the least amount of total resources (steel, concrete and so on).
These could be used for all kinds of applications, including creating of medical isotopes, nuclear batteries, industrial heat and power.
Non if this is new, these insights are from the 70s and in 50-100 years people will look back and ask 'why were these people don't doing it? They had all the technology, it makes no sense'.
by baybal2 on 11/10/21, 12:06 AM
France were about to build new nuclear energy reactors anyways. They had a 5-8 new plants in planning for this decade.
by N19PEDL2 on 11/10/21, 12:00 PM
by amai on 11/10/21, 12:18 PM
by chris_wot on 11/10/21, 12:02 AM
by BoumTAC on 11/9/21, 9:02 PM
by neycoda on 11/10/21, 3:32 PM
by phtrivier on 11/10/21, 7:16 AM
At least we'll have a debate topic during next year election cycle that is not immigration or Islam - that will be a change.
The job of the nuclear security agency will be tricky next year : they'll have to double their effort ("The President does not want an accident making the news") but also stay quieter than usual ("The President does not want any kind of small incident making the news".)
They're independant in theory, of course, and they want to do their job well, but they have biases and bosses who have bosses, etc... I doubt they'll let anything big slip just for électoral purpose, but the scrutiny on their job (especially from the left wing press) will be interesting to see...
by m0zg on 11/9/21, 9:57 PM
by jessriedel on 11/9/21, 8:32 PM
by PaulHoule on 11/9/21, 9:34 PM