5
Why Germany Hates Nuclear Power (mastodon.gamedev.place)
submitted 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago) by to c/europe@feddit.de
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

https://piped.kavin.rocks/watch?v=gF9kkB0UWYQ

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 33 points 3 years ago (8 children)

High river temperatures to limit French nuclear power production

Looks like nuclear won't save us from global warming because it can't save itself from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 3 years ago (5 children)

    I thought that if it came to an emergency they could keep the reactors running, only the exhaust water would be too hot and river wildlife would die around the vents.

    On a longer-term basis they could switch to cooling towers that use evaporative cooling. Then they don't have the rivers too hot problem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    I thought that if it came to an emergency they could keep the reactors running, only the exhaust water would be too hot and river wildlife would die around the vents.

    France has already upped the maximum temperature legally allowed two or so years ago. And while short term that is a solution, the fact is that us humans need working ecosystems to survive. It's not just fishers being impacted, ecosystems are connected and we're cutting into them at record pace anyway.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    So instead of running hot, the river runs dry?

    Any thermal electricity plant uses an insane amount of water. For every kWh of electricity generated, about 1.5-2 kWh need to be cooled away.

    A pure air cooling system is theoretically possible, but it drastically reduces the plants efficency, as the energy you can recoup at the turbine is directly dependant on the temperature difference between the hot and the cold side.

    So in any way thermal plants are never going to be an option that is favourable to build now, over building renewables, except for a small degree of net stability that can be provided by already existing plants.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Just so people get the dimensions: somewhere over half(!) of French potable water is used to cool nuclear plants. The dimensions are similar when it comes to coal plants in Germany (but at least Germany plans to exit coal).

    France gets a significant portion of its river water from glaciers in the Alps, e.g. that's 20% of the RhΓ΄ne water. Those glaciers will not survive the next 15 years.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 years ago

    Some of the power plants are also falling apart because of "stress corrosion" first considered small but relevant but as it turns out bigger than they wanted to admit at first and they have to rethink the way to repair them: https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/frances-nuclear-watchdog-says-corrosion-crack-flagged-by-edf-penly-1-reactor-2023-03-07/

    They try to speed up building more power plants at a time when we know that many other power plants have needed up to 12 years more time to be built than estimated with exploding cost and all they could come up with in their newest law was to allow parking lots to be built early:

    https://www.lemonde.fr/en/economy/article/2023/05/17/french-government-passes-bill-to-accelerate-the-construction-of-new-nuclear-reactors_6026936_19.html

    the first pair of new reactors is supposed to come into service by 2035

    For a comparison: "Nuclear reactor Olkiluoto 3 has gone online in Finland some 12 years behind schedule and on a massively inflated budget. The 1.6 gigawatt (GW) reactor, built by the French-led Areva-Siemens consortium, had originally been due to open in 2009."

    That's 2 new reactors 12 years from now (or even 24 years from now), while their current power plants are falling apart and this is the earliest possible estimate, which will most likely not be met. So when they are built, they will not be actually adding to the power produced but just replace the oldest nuklear power plants still running.

    This could be funny if it weren't such a waste of time and money while our time and money to steer us away from doom is running out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent