In no way can the ASN be really independent, as it is staffed with the people that went through this system.
But that's not what happened. The anti-nuclear team won and we collectively made the responsible decision to fill our atmosphere with CO2 instead. Yay?
You can try to argue that the US would have less carbon emissions than today - something I'm inclined to believe given how much fossil fuels are used today - but in no way would it be zero.
I think your point is valid, but lacks generality. Almost nothing we do is carbon neutral. Our energy production certainly isn't. Playing devil's advocate, PV and wind turbines also need to be built, transported, installed, disassembled, and disposed of, all of which emits greenhouse gases.
Instead, now we’re trying to shame people into flying less, which amounts to 2.5% of emissions a year..
All the data is there, the IPCC even took the time to vulgarize this part because people don't seems to understand, took the highest evaluation wiht post-70s tech (12gCO2/MWh) and there is STILL people that talk about climate and don't even READ the IPCC document. I don't understand why you would talk about something this important and dont read the BASICS.
Like those climate denialist who "prove" that low atmosphere CO2 will make everything greener. WE KNOW! At least climate denialist have the excuse that this information is not easily accessible [0][1]. Everything else is written in the vulgarized papers, it a two hour-long read top, just take some time to inform yourself!
This is why nothing will never be done and we are hoping for a technological silver bullet, because people rather act like they care about climate than care about climate.
I'm angry.
[0] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/TAR-04.pdf
[edit] spacing, swear words.
Tech gCO2/kWh
Coal 920
Gas 490
Solar-Util 48
Solar-Roof 41
Solar-Conc 27
Geothermal 38
Hydro 24
Wind-Offshore 12
Nuclear 12 <---
Wind-Onshore 11
But you are right, I shouldn't have made it sound as if no one produced such numbers.
The valid criticism from many including the green party in Germany is, the shutdown of coal plant could go faster. But it already started.
[1]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/germany-co2-emis... [2]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/japan-co2-emissi... [3]: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/us-co2-emissions... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#/media...
At any rate - it's a truly miniscule amount of carbon anyway, when amortized over the plant's lifespan. If all of our power came from nuclear, we would not be worrying about greenhouse emissions from the concrete in their construction.
It also did not help that the 70s ended with the Three-Mile Island disaster and serious construction flaws being found at Trojan. Then in the 80s Chernobyl blasted nuclear fallout into the atmosphere which certainly didn't help nuclear's image.
I wouldn't say the "Anti-nuclear team" won, nuclear industry shot itself in the foot with a very cavalier and lax safety attitude, and leaving behind many scary ecological disasters in its wake.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-...
Coal particulates, acidic gasses, and CO2 are awful. Natural gas CO2 is awful. I hardly need to elaborate, yet this is the alternative we chose.
It's not just coal that has problems, though: hydroelectric power has an appalling history of accidents leading to enormous death and destruction, yet it maintains a sterling reputation in environmental groups, at least compared to nuclear. Why?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_failure (sort by fatalities, look for Banqiao Dam at 170000)
Wind and solar installations illustrate why it's important to count per unit of energy produced. They commit the "sin" of low density. With wind, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete, steel, and fiberglass, likely in a remote location or even out at sea, and at the end of the day you can power a couple neighborhoods, some of the time. In a nuclear power plant, you construct a gigantic edifice of concrete and steel and you can power a couple of cities, all of the time. You have a handful of experts in a concrete bunker, compared to, say, residential solar with an army of contractors running around every roof in a city every few years. Slips and falls won't get a HBO miniseries, but they ruin lives just the same.
At scale, it all must be accounted for. It has been, but the results don't line up with public perception and as a consequence we collectively made a terrible mistake.
Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear.
Yucca Mountain was bulldozed by the anti-nuclear faction. Hooray?
> Is Hanford a disaster or not?
Unquestionably.
> Pointing out that other stuff is "just as bad as nuclear" is not helping the argument for nuclear.
That's generally how decision-making works: you weigh the tradeoffs and make the best choice.
Well, that's how it's supposed to work, I suppose. If you refuse, well, nature just punishes you accordingly. In this case, we get an atmosphere full of CO2. Hooray?
You weigh the tradeoffs and make the least bad choice. We've decided as a society that we cannot live without electricity. No method of generating that electricity is without negative implications. (yet?)
> Unquestionably.
Hanford is a disaster... But just Hanford. Upstream and downstream are both fine. It's a few dozen square miles of contamination that affects people more than it does nature. (Look at the Chernobyl exclusion zone)
Compare to something like ocean acidification, caused by burning coal and oil, which is killing all the coral reefs, worldwide.
WIPP also had a leak issue with cost estimates of up to $1.4 billion to fix.
There are also dozens of sites orphaned and essentially the problem for the DOE to figure out. The cost of nuclear waste has been heavily socialized. The problem won't be going away anytime soon.
In addition, what is the result of 3 mile island? The word disaster comes with a lot of baggage that I would debate doesn't apply, it was an accident without any fatalities. But... it was a set of lessons and they have been applied throughout the industry. That is forgotten. It did have a huge impact to the industry and was a disaster as far as perception goes. Chernobyl was a case of lets turn this reactor to 11 and disable the safeties. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Fukushima should be remembered. It was when we knew better and ignored expert advice. This seems to be the theme of the 21st century though. But even with Fukushima, it took one of the largest earth quakes ever, causing a very very large tsunami, and then it was still working.... but because the experts where ignored and the wall was shorter than it should have been and, most importantly, the generators were not on higher ground it lost power and was able to melt down. Even with that though, only one person has died, and two had radiation burns, plus there is several km by several km of land that cannot be used right now. The sad part is that this was the focus and not the thousands displaced by the tsunami.
Solar and Window are doing great, they should be used as much as they can be. Hydro is largely tapped out and small systems are not as effective compared to their impact; even with the fact that rivers form lakes and move on their own. So that leaves sources like nuclear, tidal, and a few others related to the earths energy(whether kinetic or heat) Nuclear has the benefit of having the smallest footprint too.
Just because someone doesn't kill someone driving recklessly does not excuse their behavior, nor does it mean they won't kill someone next time.
The rest of your post seems to be hand waving away serious safety concerns. Chernobyl and Fukishima involved the people who were in charge of the plant making poor decisions. They both played stupid games, and they were not the sole recipient of the stupid prize. Neither of these events were cakewalks for the people affected by them, or the people fighting to prevent an even greater disaster. Dumping ocean water on damaged reactor cores is not standard operating procedure. Lots of uncharted territory in both. It was not sad that a major nuclear meltdown was one of the main focuses of the disaster. Your downplaying of these events is not reassuring. This is why nuclear has a bad image. Very shitty things have happened due to human negligence and they're just hand waved away, as if they won't happen again, but they do happen again, and both of these examples could have been much much worse.
>To call it waste is even debatable.
Are you volunteering your basement to store it in? Even if it can be reprocessed at some point, ya gotta store it somewhere until then, and that day may never actually come.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_phase-out#German... [3] Jarvis, Stephen; Deschenes, Olivier; Jha, Akshaya (December 2019). "The Private and External Costs of Germany's Nuclear Phase-Out" (PDF). National Bureau of Economic Research. Cambridge, MA: w26598. doi:10.3386/w26598.
>So where is the real disaster?
It was Fukushima, which resulted in more loss of trust for nuclear energy. It seems you're more angry at the media for covering a nuclear meltdown, than you are at the operators rolling the dice and making huge errors in their management of the plant. The lame stream media didn't cause the plant to meltdown, that was TEPCOs own hubris and blind ignorance.
It was a chain of failures that started years ago and we ignored the people telling us otherwise. But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this.
As for my basement, no thanks. That's just stupid. People are so scared about things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners. Verify it is done correctly. Nuclear waste storage isn't a bunch of green barrels hastily piled up with green ooze making Ninja Turtles. It's engineered concrete vessels that can survive without leaking during transport accidents. And then the tolerances have been increased. Then they are put deep down into the earth below the water table, several km below the surface, in geologically stable areas. Even then, they plan for failures and how to mitigate them. Layers of protection. These are the consultations going on in Canada right now, and people freaking over it. In the mean time it has been above group in vessels for decades next to the great lakes.
Meltdowns don't have the potential to kill? How did you know Fukushima was "no big deal" while it was happening? You didn't. No one knew. It also displaced 154,000 people. I guess that's not newsworthy though.
There was actually plenty of coverage of the earthquake and tsunami, which were immediate uncontrollable natural disasters. No one is lobbying for more earthquakes and tsunamis. Fukushima took months to get under control, and was a preventable man-made disaster.
>But even then, it took a lot to put it in a situation like this.
No it didn't. It took a predicted major earthquake to occur. The earthquake could likely have been weaker and still resulted in a similar outcome.
>things that cannot hurt them that they just say no instead of saying do it correctly without cutting corners
Why does something that "cannot hurt them" need so much engineering to prevent it from hurting them? This looks like doublespeak.
Nuclear power and storage could be done correctly, but it just hasn't been done correctly often enough, making people skeptical of it. It is also extremely costly to engineer these solutions.
That is complicated to assess, how do you account for the indirect and long-term fatalities or illnesses? E.g. here in Germany's south east (bavaria), every hunted boar is still tested whether it contains safe levels of radioactivity. Chernobyl was 34 years ago, but it still is a problem for food safety several thousands of kilometers away from the place of the accident.
In the Harrisburg accident, the core had a melt-down, and molten uranium was forming layers at the bottom of the vessel. Water had been being cracked into oxygen and hydrogen by the intense heat. This process was stopped little time before the vessel would have blown up from overpressure. It would also have been possible that the layering of Uranium in the vessel would have become super-critical with the result of the reactor literally exploding. And this would definitively have had consequences comparable to Chernobyl.
This is stuff which isn't well-known outside of expert circles. During my studies, I read about it in an article in a journal of the nuclear power industry... this must have been between 1991 and 1995, I think.
Another huge problem which Fukoshima exposed is that not only the active reactor core must be subject to cooling at all times, in order to be safe, but also cooling basins for spent fuel with remaining radioactivity. And they should also be inside safe containments (that is, protected from airplane crashes, and so on). I think that no reactor built in the West before 2009 has adequate protections against that type of problem.
And to add, in France there is at least one reactor which is built directly at the shore of the Atlantic. It is probably not safe against major Tsunamis.
The general problem is that nuclear is a very high risk, low probability technology. Protecting against that risk costs lots of money, which makes it uncompetitive. The financial pressures in corporations lead again and again to the result that safety measures are skipped. And in addition, it is inhumanely hard to predict and plan to cope with all possible risks.
Does it matter if the one french reactor at the shore of the Atlantic wasn't safe against tsunamis?
Rates of builds were declining before Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and those were the events that turned the public against nuclear.
There was a great 1985 article about this in Forbes, which I highly recommend:
https://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article-...
Ideally we wouldn't have wasted those decades, but we must go forward with the greatest speed with the best tech we have now.
Also, universities are quite far from the political elite in France, none of which actually know about anything related to nuclear power plants. Engineer at the ASN are just that: engineers. They don't take decisions.
Besides, they don’t make decisions, as the Fessenheim example demonstrates. The people making decisions are politicians who have no clue and just follow gut feeling and electoral arithmetic. Not many of them come from engineering schools, much less universities.
I will just criticize the "pro-nuclear propaganda" bit and ignore the other anti-elite stuff about the engineering schools, after all "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
What is called in France ENR (new renewable energies, basically solar and wind power) are backed by gaz companies, and now even French oil companies (Total) have a hand in the game. Areva (Now Oreno i think), the biggest company ever in the nuclear industry recently had a 6 billion turnover (around 2016 i think since this was the time i took interest on this particular subject). For scale, Gazprom, heavily invested in wind turbin in Denmark and Germany, had a 130 Billion turnover around the same time. I did not check Total cause frankly, i'm tired of spending energy against this "argument". Who do you think is putting more money on the table?
Also (because this anti-engineer stuff is frankly broking me), if you don't believe the ASN and the people working there, then you should vote or manifest to replace the ASN and its sisters organisations that are taking care of the electrical network, bridge and tunnels in France. Surely they weren't considered amongst the best in the world for a long time, barely more than 50 years!
And if you think the UNSCEAR rapports (like the one on the effect of Fukushima) are lying, well then don't be picky and choose to reject all scientific products of this corrupt organisation that use the same compilation method, like the IPCC. And if you or your familly have cancer and have to go under radiation, refuse every doctor that wrote on the subject whose paper where used by the UNSCEAR scientist.
1. France has a very powerful elite system and one specific route to get there (I'm not saying the engineering schools are that way). That's not controversial, that's just how it is.
2. This leads to a specific orthodoxy, symptomatic could be the centralism that leads to a strong centralization of power in Paris.
3. At the same time there is a very strong pro-nuclear sentiment that gets instilled into engineering students (conflicting and in context with a recent strong popularity of ecology), whatever mechanism specifically is responsible for that.
4. And France has (and even more so: had) a pro-nuclear government, linked to the enterprises running the power plants.
I'm not saying the engineers are incapable or specifically corrupt and to distrust your doctor, thanks you very much for the cancer thing, but that in this situation it is reasonable to have some distrust for security assessments of nuclear power plants in France.
2. Most nuclear engineer are from Grenoble/Saint-etienne or Lyon. Some are from polytech (so Paris) but this is rare.
3. If you say so. It might conflict with greepeace's vision of ecology, but not with the IPCC's and for multiple reasons, i think i would rather follow scientists than ideologists. I also stopped donating to greenpeace around 2015 so i might be biased.
4. Way more complex than that, but true.
I think you should read ASN documentation before evaluating them as untrustworthy. I can find a lot of untrustworthy pro-nuclear sources. Those are not ran by engineers. Also nuclear power is a distraction until we fixed our real ecological issue, as are renewable power sources.
I don't care if we stop nuclear power in 2080 if we successfully limit the average warming to 2°C (hint: hope for a silver bullet).
I'm ready do donate everything i have (not that much) to any anti-nuclear association that explain to me how to effectively reduce our CO2 emission by 4% a year until 2050 (compounds are hard but this is the number i got) while focusing on replacing nuclear plant by solar panels and wind turbines. Really. Covid will be between 2 and 9% for 2020 [0] so i'm waiting for solutions for the following years.
Wait! i have multiples solutions. Give every french household using oil or gas a heatpump. Forbid new individual cars sold in France to weight more than a metric ton. Put a carbon tax (start with a small amount 10k€/ton) on transportation instead of a 20% VAT. Not on car gas, on the product directly. This will kill most plane fret, but honestly? i don't care. Forbid plane if the trip can be made in less than 4 hour by train (i think they recently did this, good).
But closing a nuclear plant to replace it by gas (and coal, even if temporary) is easier. Gazprom and Total really have more hitting power.
I think those are reasonable measures.
> But closing a nuclear plant to replace it by gas (and coal, even if temporary) is easier.
I assume you'd be less angry if you were aware that I oppose that as well. I think it's in general opposed by the people wanting nuclear energy to end.
Talking mostly about Germany here. The process basically was 1) Have a strong agreement that nuclear energy is bad, fueled by its insecurity, costs and the waste it produces. This is driven by grassroots movements and green parties. 2) Conservative politicians say "Okay, then we replace them with coal. Oh, and we cut the subventions for renewable energies." 3) The same people that organized the successful protest against the nuclear plants now organize protests against the coal plants.
No one is happy about that process. The only good thing that came out of it is the higher usage of renewable energies. And that because of that the coal plants now are unprofitable. But that is partly despite what the conservative politicians wanted. They even blocked the building of new wind turbines because they look bad. Exactly the contrary of what had to happen the last two years.
Yes, Germany has already more renewable energy sources than it can use, due to protests against building new power lines. From north to south and west to east. When I drive to my in-laws, I come along at least a hundred large wind turbines, often in rows of ten or more. Usually, half of them is turned off because, the grid cannot take more energy.
At the German energy exchange, the price of electrical energy already dropped below zero several times, because of that.
That's not correct. The Nord-Süd-Trasse for example was blocked by the CSU, which is a classic nuclear/coal-proponent. See https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suedlink.
Do you have any source for that? I'd be interested, although I find it difficult to believe since those "big universities", assuming you are talking about ENA and maybe Polytechnique, are public and very largely funded by taxes rather than private organizations.
> Das 1977 ans Netz gegangene Atomkraftwerk Fesseheim gilt seit Jahrzehnten als Sicherheitsrisiko. Es liegt in einem Erdbebengebiet und ist unzureichend gegen einen Flugzeugabsturz oder einen Anschlag geschützt. Zudem kam es immer wieder zu Pannen.
They link to https://www.zeit.de/wissen/2016-03/fessenheim-atomenergie-zw..., a report about how the ASN lied about how bad an accident in April 2014 was.
There definitely were safety issues, the only question is how bad they were.
We have electricity, not so much accidents and the know how so China, Russia and the US arent the only people who can make large scale nuclear infrastructure.
What an horror they put us through, are engineering elite.