Science/Environment Nuclear power: The ultimate climate solution

Remove this Banner Ad

Practically, you wouldnt get nuclear up and running in australia under 20 years

and didnt howards report say youd need a carbon price (which was howards policy at the time) to make it work

are you getting at the fact we should have carbon pricing?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Everything is fraught with danger...we are told to be quick about doing something and then the 'slow life'
is also wanting traction..the irony about smoking and side walk cafes is there too

Unclear just needs a tidy up ...no nu..clear..that's clear..
 
I met with anti-nuclear activists and they simply didn't understand basic facts as presented in this link. When challenged "if you believe in climate change, how can you stand there and support solar and wind 10-15 times worse than hydro or nuclear" and "the introduction of renewables in France almost doubled their CO2 emissions" There response "we are not aware of this".

At no stage has CO2 emissions in France doubled.

H1BVEE1.png
 
At no stage has CO2 emissions in France doubled.

H1BVEE1.png

It helps to talk apples with apples

France's CO2 per kwh was ~40g/kwh where now it is closer to ~70gCO2/kwh

1) it looks like you are looking at consumption rather than production (thus not considering impacts of import energy and export)
2) it looks like you are looking at total CO2 consumption vs just power stations



the below link doesn't go far enough back to see the average of 40 but you can see it is closer to 70 in recent times


you can then compare this with other nuclear jurisdiction like Ontario



at the time of this post France is 67 and Ontario 41
 
At no stage has CO2 emissions in France doubled.

H1BVEE1.png

again this article doesn't go far enough back but.....



For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.

France has increasingly done what Germany wants. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018.

In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.
 
Practically, you wouldnt get nuclear up and running in australia under 20 years

and didnt howards report say youd need a carbon price (which was howards policy at the time) to make it work

are you getting at the fact we should have carbon pricing?
we could get nuclear power up and running in a very short time.. but it apparently isn't workable.. why not at least test it out...

nothing in this world seems to be this hard but if you don't at least try it then it is scratchy... love yo dude...
 
again this article doesn't go far enough back but.....



For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.

France has increasingly done what Germany wants. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018.

In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.
we need to be more effusive with our lessons as to how we get things done..
 
At no stage has CO2 emissions in France doubled.

H1BVEE1.png


The two arrive at a shocking conclusion: “France could have completely decarbonized its electricity sector had it spent $32 billion on new nuclear plants rather than on renewables like solar and wind.”

And were France to keep operating Fessenheim, a nuclear plant scheduled to be closed in 2020, start-up a new nuclear plant called Flamanville, build three more reactors the same size, and operate each nuclear plant an average of 85 percent of the year instead of its current average of 70 percent, it could generate sufficient zero-carbon electricity to completely decarbonize its road transportation sector.

But France appears unwilling to do that. Instead, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, announced recently that he will stick with plans to reduce the nation’s usage of its nuclear plants, increase its output of renewables, and thus — necessarily — increase energy prices.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

again this article doesn't go far enough back but.....



For years, Germany has been pressuring France, which has a smaller economy, to follow its lead and shut down its nuclear plants and scale up solar and wind.

France has increasingly done what Germany wants. According to the Commision de Regulation de L’Energie, €29 billion (US$33) billion was used to purchase wind and solar electricity in mainland France between 2009 and 2018.

In fact, the carbon-intensity of French electricity has increased. After years of subsidies for solar and wind, France’s 2017 emissions of 68g/CO2 per kWh was higher than any year between 2012 and 2016.
you seem to love being a tent.. you love your 'fairy' friends... love your sentiment... rush off .. I have a thing to do...
 

The two arrive at a shocking conclusion: “France could have completely decarbonized its electricity sector had it spent $32 billion on new nuclear plants rather than on renewables like solar and wind.”

And were France to keep operating Fessenheim, a nuclear plant scheduled to be closed in 2020, start-up a new nuclear plant called Flamanville, build three more reactors the same size, and operate each nuclear plant an average of 85 percent of the year instead of its current average of 70 percent, it could generate sufficient zero-carbon electricity to completely decarbonize its road transportation sector.

But France appears unwilling to do that. Instead, France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, announced recently that he will stick with plans to reduce the nation’s usage of its nuclear plants, increase its output of renewables, and thus — necessarily — increase energy prices.
we don't quite want it yet.. we don't want to suffocate and we know we won't yet... had enough of a rubbish.. and a nut scape that we are going to stuff it
in the pillow... :rolleyes:
 
It helps to talk apples with apples

France's CO2 per kwh was ~40g/kwh where now it is closer to ~70gCO2/kwh

1) it looks like you are looking at consumption rather than production (thus not considering impacts of import energy and export)
2) it looks like you are looking at total CO2 consumption vs just power stations



the below link doesn't go far enough back to see the average of 40 but you can see it is closer to 70 in recent times


you can then compare this with other nuclear jurisdiction like Ontario



at the time of this post France is 67 and Ontario 41
I was looking at total emissions, which seem to be trending in the right direction.
 
Practically, you wouldnt get nuclear up and running in australia under 20 years

and didnt howards report say youd need a carbon price (which was howards policy at the time) to make it work

are you getting at the fact we should have carbon pricing?

we have carbon markets available already. the last price I heard quoted was $21 being last month.


I don't disagree with the time frame of 20 years though. We will be a market follower rather than leader on this technology. Perhaps starting with nuclear subs, then nuclear SMRs for the military and then civilian use.


oh and at $0.025 for a Gen 3.5 and $0.04 for a SMR, we won't need carbon price for nuclear.
 
Last edited:
I was looking at total emissions, which seem to be trending in the right direction.

From an electricity point of view, it started at the bench mark level but almost doubled with renewables. The offsets to that were efficiencies.

The EV will see s dramatic decrease in CO2 in France as petrol is a relatively high CO2 emitter. That said, we won't see the same step change in dirty Germany, as their power supply is dirtier than petrol.
 
Any nuclear disasters in France?

Nuclear power is a major source of energy in France, with a 40% share of energy consumption in 2015. Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in the country, with a generation of 379.1 TWh, or 71.6% of the country's total production of 519.4 TWh, the highest percentage in the world.
Nuclear power in France - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Nuclear_power_in_France


The basis of your argument is Wikipedia lol..

Interesting France slowly backing away from nukes..

They'd go further but nowhere to store the waste..
 
Not right up on the tech, so I'll take your word for that.

Still, we have been a prime candidate for many years (mostly because we are politically stable and a looooog way from the majority of the world population.

Politicaly stable?

Gails are full
Hospitals over fkoeing
Poverty at record levels
Highest per capita rate of pysch drugs
Parliament full of corporate criminals
No longer regarded as an open democracy.
Aweful record of genocide, ongoing, against the indigenous, documented by the un..

* stable he reckons lol..
 
The basis of your argument is Wikipedia lol..

Interesting France slowly backing away from nukes..

They'd go further but nowhere to store the waste..
Australia should take it, before you get hysterical Bob Hawke suggested this way back in the 80's.

Emmanuel Macron will be arse holed and a new government will see doing away with nuclear and coal-fired power will not only be costly but push their emissions up. The new right is sweeping the world.
 
Last edited:
The basis of your argument is Wikipedia lol..

Interesting France slowly backing away from nukes..

They'd go further but nowhere to store the waste..

There is no need to store waste

1) it takes 30 years for fuel rods to cool before reprocessing

the waste from the 50s to 80s is immaterial

2) reprocessing of rods for fast breeders will diminish this waste to next to nothing

The question then is, it it reprocessed further or stored. Either way, that’s a debate for 50 plus years away
 
The question then is, it it reprocessed further or stored. Either way, that’s a debate for 50 plus years away

My point is that once we create a stockpile facility, the rest of the world will want to ship its existing crap here.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top