11 ms·

France has been mismanaging its fleet and signally for years that they want to move away from it, under-investing in it, etc. It's not the technology's fault.

France has been mismanaging its fleet and signally for years that they want to move away from it, under-investing in it, etc. It's not the technology's fault. Germany had some of the best managed plants in the world -- until they decided to shut them down, leading to more coal being burned and more dependence on other countries like Russia...

eric-burel 3y ago
I am cautious on technology vs management. It's like the people who thinks death penalty is great in theory but the justice system is imperfect in practice: maybe, but you can't have one without the other. Nuclear plants have to be managed and that's an issue too.
throwbadubadu 3y ago
Did you had a look at what Europe didn't stop importing from Russia due to lacking alternatives... cough cough. I also don't get how an article can claim a global solution if nuclear currently is at 10% and we cannot keep up with supply and plants and and and.. this wont scale to 100%, not even 50 or even 20% of future global needs, would deplete cheap enough enable resources too quick... and what also is always forgotten: our world will likely have more, not less conflicts, unfortunately. Have fun managing this plants with wars all around and rivers going empty. Yeah yeah all the issues happening and brought up again is just stupid people, mismanagement, etcetc.. But that unfortunately is humanity :/ Just no :/ especially as there are good enough and more sustainable other alternatives. > Germany had some of the best managed plant Better than France, likely agrees.. but still awful and that sentence is a joke. If that is your bar, good night. German infrastructure is currently rotting at record pace, happy we got those plants out there.
uecker 3y ago
Germany is exiting both nuclear and coal. In the time from 2010 to 2022 where 14/17 of nuclear plants were shut down generation from coal was reduced from 263 TWh per year to 181 TWh. Renewables increased from 105 TWh to 254 TWh. I also would have preferred to leave the nuclear plants running longer and exit coal faster, but in the overall scheme of things it does not matter too much. Nuclear is basically irrelevant. It is too expensive and slow to build. In reality, renewables will take over everything very quickly. Gas and coal imports from Russia stopped completely. But guess what still depends on Russia: The nuclear industry in Europe and the US.
- illiarian 3y ago
  Too bad numbers don't work when it's a quiet night, and you have to burn gas, caol, and biomass to make up for those nuclear reactors you've shut down: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
  - uecker 3y ago
    Sorry, I am not interested what a nuclear shill posts on twitter. Here is the source for my numbers (which are the official ones). Sorry, in German but I assume you can guess the labels: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/STRERZ22A11_Abg_0223.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/STR...
    - illiarian 3y ago
      Again: total numbers mean absolutely nothing on a night when there's zero production from renewables. That "shill" is showing data. Just the fact that you don't like this data doesn't make it invalid. Right now it's night in Germany, and even though the wind is blowing, it's only at 40% generation. And look, there's coal, supplying 22%, and gas supplying another 9%: https://imgur.com/a/3bYudyd https://imgur.com/a/3bYudyd
      - uecker 3y ago
        So what? You are complaining that Germany still uses coal. This is a fair complaint (and one should complain about this), but Germany is in the middle of the transition to renewables and that in the middle of the transition you still use coal does not tell you that the transition is not working. In fact, there are plenty of simulation studies which show that it will work. We also know that nuclear will have no meaningful impact in fighting climate change because it is too expensive and too slow to build.
        illiarian 3y ago
        > but Germany is in the middle of the transition to renewables and that in the middle of the transition you still use coal does not tell you that the transition is not working. No, it shows that people believe in bullshit and actively hurt their own clean power generation capabilities due to decades of FUD. And yes, however many renewables you build, you still have no answer for intermittent power generation. > We also know that nuclear will have no meaningful impact in fighting climate change because it is too expensive and too slow to build. Strange how some countries build them relatively fast (China can builds 1 reactor in 6 years, building several reactors in parallel, see Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant) while e.g. in Europe after three decades of FUD, scremongering and underinvestment, we not only believe they can't be built fast enough, but can't build them either.
locallost 3y ago
I don't get this bogus argument. Germany is using the least coal in its history for electricity. The data is very easy to find, but it's a knee jerk reaction that they got rid of nuclear and so they must've replaced it with coal. Not true at all, and it's getting tiring reading this nonsense.
- illiarian 3y ago
  They replaced it with coal, gas and biofuel (that is, burning more stuff): https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
  - locallost 3y ago
    It's nonsense. Look at the production for the year for the last 10 years, not a snapshot of a nuclear lobbyist.
    - illiarian 3y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660264
      - locallost 3y ago
        So it matters when wind is providing 20%, but it doesn't matter when it's providing 100%. Thus, even though coal use is at a historic low, it's actually increasing, and in other news water is dry and grass is red.
        illiarian 3y ago
        > So it matters when wind is providing 20%, but it doesn't matter when it's providing 100%. Of course. Because when there's no electricity, there's no electricity. > even though coal use is at a historic low, it's actually increasing You pretend this is a contradiction when it's not. Germany has just shut down its last reactors. So yes, the usage of coal will increase because when renewable generation is low you still need to provide electricity. Guess what provides that electricity.

eric-burel 3y ago

I am cautious on technology vs management. It's like the people who thinks death penalty is great in theory but the justice system is imperfect in practice: maybe, but you can't have one without the other. Nuclear plants have to be managed and that's an issue too.

throwbadubadu 3y ago

Did you had a look at what Europe didn't stop importing from Russia due to lacking alternatives... cough cough. I also don't get how an article can claim a global solution if nuclear currently is at 10% and we cannot keep up with supply and plants and and and.. this wont scale to 100%, not even 50 or even 20% of future global needs, would deplete cheap enough enable resources too quick... and what also is always forgotten: our world will likely have more, not less conflicts, unfortunately. Have fun managing this plants with wars all around and rivers going empty. Yeah yeah all the issues happening and brought up again is just stupid people, mismanagement, etcetc.. But that unfortunately is humanity :/ Just no :/ especially as there are good enough and more sustainable other alternatives. > Germany had some of the best managed plant Better than France, likely agrees.. but still awful and that sentence is a joke. If that is your bar, good night. German infrastructure is currently rotting at record pace, happy we got those plants out there.

uecker 3y ago

Germany is exiting both nuclear and coal. In the time from 2010 to 2022 where 14/17 of nuclear plants were shut down generation from coal was reduced from 263 TWh per year to 181 TWh. Renewables increased from 105 TWh to 254 TWh. I also would have preferred to leave the nuclear plants running longer and exit coal faster, but in the overall scheme of things it does not matter too much. Nuclear is basically irrelevant. It is too expensive and slow to build. In reality, renewables will take over everything very quickly. Gas and coal imports from Russia stopped completely. But guess what still depends on Russia: The nuclear industry in Europe and the US.

illiarian 3y ago
Too bad numbers don't work when it's a quiet night, and you have to burn gas, caol, and biomass to make up for those nuclear reactors you've shut down: https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
- uecker 3y ago
  Sorry, I am not interested what a nuclear shill posts on twitter. Here is the source for my numbers (which are the official ones). Sorry, in German but I assume you can guess the labels: https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/STRERZ22A11_Abg_0223.pdf https://ag-energiebilanzen.de/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/STR...
  - illiarian 3y ago
    Again: total numbers mean absolutely nothing on a night when there's zero production from renewables. That "shill" is showing data. Just the fact that you don't like this data doesn't make it invalid. Right now it's night in Germany, and even though the wind is blowing, it's only at 40% generation. And look, there's coal, supplying 22%, and gas supplying another 9%: https://imgur.com/a/3bYudyd https://imgur.com/a/3bYudyd
    - uecker 3y ago
      So what? You are complaining that Germany still uses coal. This is a fair complaint (and one should complain about this), but Germany is in the middle of the transition to renewables and that in the middle of the transition you still use coal does not tell you that the transition is not working. In fact, there are plenty of simulation studies which show that it will work. We also know that nuclear will have no meaningful impact in fighting climate change because it is too expensive and too slow to build.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        > but Germany is in the middle of the transition to renewables and that in the middle of the transition you still use coal does not tell you that the transition is not working. No, it shows that people believe in bullshit and actively hurt their own clean power generation capabilities due to decades of FUD. And yes, however many renewables you build, you still have no answer for intermittent power generation. > We also know that nuclear will have no meaningful impact in fighting climate change because it is too expensive and too slow to build. Strange how some countries build them relatively fast (China can builds 1 reactor in 6 years, building several reactors in parallel, see Fuqing Nuclear Power Plant) while e.g. in Europe after three decades of FUD, scremongering and underinvestment, we not only believe they can't be built fast enough, but can't build them either.

locallost 3y ago

I don't get this bogus argument. Germany is using the least coal in its history for electricity. The data is very easy to find, but it's a knee jerk reaction that they got rid of nuclear and so they must've replaced it with coal. Not true at all, and it's getting tiring reading this nonsense.

illiarian 3y ago
They replaced it with coal, gas and biofuel (that is, burning more stuff): https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396 https://twitter.com/energybants/status/1647799729734971396
- locallost 3y ago
  It's nonsense. Look at the production for the year for the last 10 years, not a snapshot of a nuclear lobbyist.
  - illiarian 3y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660264 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35660264
    - locallost 3y ago
      So it matters when wind is providing 20%, but it doesn't matter when it's providing 100%. Thus, even though coal use is at a historic low, it's actually increasing, and in other news water is dry and grass is red.
      - illiarian 3y ago
        > So it matters when wind is providing 20%, but it doesn't matter when it's providing 100%. Of course. Because when there's no electricity, there's no electricity. > even though coal use is at a historic low, it's actually increasing You pretend this is a contradiction when it's not. Germany has just shut down its last reactors. So yes, the usage of coal will increase because when renewable generation is low you still need to provide electricity. Guess what provides that electricity.