new | show | ask | jobs Github

insane_dreamer 7 months ago

You're not counting the energy outflows from France to neighboring countries.

Also, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, not 40%.

▲

moooo99 7 months ago | parent [-]

> Also, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, not 40%.

No, it gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear.

▲

preisschild 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, France could invest a lot more into nuclear-heat usage directly (e.g. for district heating or providing process heat to factories) without needing to convert it into Electricity first.

▲

natmaka 7 months ago | parent [-]

France did invest into a new nuclear powerplant, and the result isn't enticing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

▲

moooo99 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

That wasn‘t what was mentioned, it was specifically mentioned they should use more nuclear to heat, I.e. use exceeds heat for district heating for example.

This is fairly common for coal and gas power plants, but as far as I know, not really used with nuclear power plants.

As far as I know, the French nuclear power plants aren’t exactly in close proximity to any major city, making district heating most likely not economically viable

	▲	natmaka 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		It implies an adequate design, adapting (retrofit) an existing nuclear plant to such co-generation is very difficult.

▲

preisschild 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

That happens when you only build a SINGLE reactor unit after decades of building nothing. Keep improving the design (EPR2) and keep building and the costs and build times will come down.

	▲	natmaka 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> only build a SINGLE reactor unit after decades of building nothing Nope. The most recent nuclear reactor (Civaux-2) was delivered in France in 1999. The project aiming at building an EPR in France (Flamanville) started in 2004, and it was a work-in-progress on the field in 2007. Where are those "decades"? Moreover an EPR was sold to Finland before, and work started in 2005. Then a pair was sold to China. Then another pair to the U.-K. All 6 are very late and have huge overcosts. If those 6 are in your opinion a "SINGLE reactor" let's swap my single dollar for your six bucks. Not to count attempts to stem other projects (even in France, at Penly) by offering it to India, Slovenia, USA through UniStar Nuclear, Czech Republic, United Arab Emirates... The prospect weren't thrilled by patent problems at then ongoing projects. There was a tangible will. As usual this isn't sufficient to succeed.

▲

RandomThoughts3 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

svara 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

This is completely wrong and it's exactly the other way around. Decarbonizing is about direct or indirect electrification of all of people's energy needs, thus, primary energy is the relevant number to look at.

There's nothing pro- or anti-nuclear in this argument, since primary energy consumption can be electrified with or without nuclear.

▲

moooo99 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Its not at all dishonest, I would argue it is a lot more honest than not mixing it.

The current discussion around energy sources is basically always centered on electricity, which is only part of the picture. Given that in most industrialized countries industry as well as heating accounts for a substantial share of primary energy use, its dishonest to not take those sectors into account.

Having 100% nuclear clean energy doesn't help you at all when electricity only accounts for 20% of your primary energy usage. That is not intellectually bankrupt, that is just common sense.

If electrification of heating as well as mobility continues to increase, looking at renewable energy as a share of primary energy consumption will paint a way clearer picture than any other stat.

▲

immibis 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Counting only electricity production when you are talking about CO2 emissions is dishonest. Cars also emit CO2.

▲

RandomThoughts3 7 months ago | parent [-]

That doesn’t make sense. The goal is decarbonation, not arbitrary account. The sole reason to mix together things that don’t go together is making bad faith arguments like in this case.

▲

globular-toast 7 months ago | parent [-]

If the goal is "decarbonation" then the only thing that matters is the bottom line. If nuclear truly leads to a lower net carbon output (which I'm sure it does, unless using nuclear power somehow causes people to heat their homes more or drive ICE vehicles more) then what are you worried about?

▲

RandomThoughts3 7 months ago | parent [-]

People are intentionally muddling the case to make France success looks less successful. I like how you pretend to be candid while actually making the situation worse. Always funny to observe.

	▲	moooo99 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		> People are intentionally muddling the case to make France success looks less successful. It’s just not true at all, lol. Even by this way more useful metric France is doing quite well, substantially better than Germany for example. People are using this metric because it’s just useful while electricity footprint is only useful when you’re talking about very specific scenarios (like, how long until a BEV emits less carbon than an ICE). About 50% of the primary energy consumption in France is low emissions.