CERN drafts plans to idle accelerators due to Europe’s energy crunch(swissinfo.ch)
swissinfo.ch
CERN drafts plans to idle accelerators due to Europe’s energy crunch
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/sci-tech/cern-drafts-plans-to-idle-accelerators-due-to-europe-s-energy-crunch/47875950
216 comments
From what I recall the last time I was there is that they tune it down quite a bit in winter anyway because of electricity that is needed else where in France.
Also from my understanding most of the electricity that is generated for CERN is by nuclear power plants and since so many of those are currently under maintenance they may need the power they do have to supply export agreements etc.
Also from my understanding most of the electricity that is generated for CERN is by nuclear power plants and since so many of those are currently under maintenance they may need the power they do have to supply export agreements etc.
EDF was a net electricity exporter, until 2022, but this year France is already importing quite a lot of electricity currently, due to most nuclear reactors being still in maintenance. They are supposed to be restarted before winter but I would not bet on it
https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...
https://www.rte-france.com/en/eco2mix/cross-border-electrici...
Amazing the UK exporting energy to France when it is in the state it is.
Similarly; during the potato famine Britain exported much of Irelands food crops.
Now, the UK is doing this to it's own population, much of it's Oil and Gas from the North see is being exported.
Ordinary people are getting hit with what will be some of the biggest prices rises in Europe, but the people who have been in charge for 12 years don't care.
The new prime minister says she will fix this, but she was a minister for 8 years in this government, and her solution is to keep all the energy company profits, and give people a stopgap that will be added onto their bills for the next 10 years.
Similarly; during the potato famine Britain exported much of Irelands food crops.
Now, the UK is doing this to it's own population, much of it's Oil and Gas from the North see is being exported.
Ordinary people are getting hit with what will be some of the biggest prices rises in Europe, but the people who have been in charge for 12 years don't care.
The new prime minister says she will fix this, but she was a minister for 8 years in this government, and her solution is to keep all the energy company profits, and give people a stopgap that will be added onto their bills for the next 10 years.
Right now, the UK is exporting energy to France because we are receiving Liquified Natural Gas at our Gas terminals and have nowhere to store it and can't send it over pipelines to Europe fast enough, so our only option is to burn it for electricity and sell that.
Once other EU LNG terminals come online, and as the UK needs more energy itself over winter, it stop exporting. Hopefully some more UK gas storage will come on line in the next few weeks as well, but probably not enough to make a significant difference to this winter's outlook: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-31/centrica-...
Once other EU LNG terminals come online, and as the UK needs more energy itself over winter, it stop exporting. Hopefully some more UK gas storage will come on line in the next few weeks as well, but probably not enough to make a significant difference to this winter's outlook: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-31/centrica-...
Usually that is due to existing contract agreements and futures. Which was agreed on by all parties involved.
In the Netherlands we're also getting questions about why we're exporting so much gas we need ourselves. Well that's why. We've already sold it, it just hasn't been delivered yet.
In the Netherlands we're also getting questions about why we're exporting so much gas we need ourselves. Well that's why. We've already sold it, it just hasn't been delivered yet.
As you can see in [1] we import about 7 times more gas than we export. So closing exports (and thus also imports) would be pretty catastrophic for us.
I don't disagree that those in charge don't care, but that doesn't mean this problem is caused by exports...
1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpay....
I don't disagree that those in charge don't care, but that doesn't mean this problem is caused by exports...
1 https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpay....
> keep all the energy company profits
With the new energy profits levy introduced in July, the headline tax rate for oil & gas profits is now 65%, which is some way off letting the energy companies keep their profits.
What the UK is doing is letting its energy companies make bank while prices are high, and taking a (temporarily enhanced) cut of that to fund a cost of living subsidy for consumers.
With the new energy profits levy introduced in July, the headline tax rate for oil & gas profits is now 65%, which is some way off letting the energy companies keep their profits.
What the UK is doing is letting its energy companies make bank while prices are high, and taking a (temporarily enhanced) cut of that to fund a cost of living subsidy for consumers.
Example, report in the papers 2 days ago local restaurant struggling to justify staying open as their energy bill (gas+electric) went up 7x (£60k last year, predicted £420k this year).
So, that 65% tax on profits really isn't doing much, it's passed on to customers. Tax rises only make sense here with capped prices.
So, that 65% tax on profits really isn't doing much, it's passed on to customers. Tax rises only make sense here with capped prices.
This article is reporting EBITDA numbers: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/energy-prices-rising-...
What I would like to know is how that handles amortization? Especially for renewables where the capex is huge and the opex small. Is that a before or after amortization number?
The prices quoted are absolutely crippling, though. I wonder if people would actually prefer a 1970s style rolling blackouts to having two thirds of small businesses go bankrupt.
What I would like to know is how that handles amortization? Especially for renewables where the capex is huge and the opex small. Is that a before or after amortization number?
The prices quoted are absolutely crippling, though. I wonder if people would actually prefer a 1970s style rolling blackouts to having two thirds of small businesses go bankrupt.
Sounds like what's happening in the US with our natural gas.
Except natgas prices in the UK are 10 times the US price.
> UK exporting energy to France
> solution is to keep all the energy company profits
Interesting way of taxing people outside of one's jurisdiction to subsidize local people.
> solution is to keep all the energy company profits
Interesting way of taxing people outside of one's jurisdiction to subsidize local people.
Where are EDF's (Electricite de France) profits for their UK generating units accounted for? Not a rhetorical question, I genuinely have no idea and I know it's quite easy to shift profits across borders.
shapefrog(1)
Yes, they close Dec-Mar usually
https://home.cern/news/news/engineering/end-yets-awakening-h...
For power consumption but also for maintenance etc.
https://home.cern/news/news/engineering/end-yets-awakening-h...
For power consumption but also for maintenance etc.
This is what you get when you rely on fossil fuels as an energy source in 2022. The truth is, the geographical distribution of where the fossil fuels have been discovered is completely non-uniform. Such non-uniform distribution leads to conflict among humans, over and over again.
>This is what you get when you rely on fossil fuels as an energy source in 2022.
The root cause was to source your energy needs from an old enemy. And it seems that what made this happen was the green transition at home.
The root cause was to source your energy needs from an old enemy. And it seems that what made this happen was the green transition at home.
France does not rely on fossil fuel for electricity
It does. At least, according to this source:
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/france
Renewables and Nuclear make up about 50% of the total. It may very well grow, but there will be a time lag because French institutions are not known for their expedience.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy/country/france
Renewables and Nuclear make up about 50% of the total. It may very well grow, but there will be a time lag because French institutions are not known for their expedience.
Lol that's not true
Also LHC is not on France
A little bit of a feeling of the lamps going out all over Europe in this one very big, very unusual lamp's dimming.
Europe is under an absurd, unprecedented energy crunch at the moment:
The worst problem is that the French nuclear reactors have massive issues - over half their capacity is currently offline because of massive defects or barely producing due to a lack of cooling water [1]. That same drought also impacted Swiss nuclear plants [2] and Italian hydro power [3].
On top of that, the German gas peaker plants that used to be relatively cheap are now, thanks to the Russian invasion, extremely expensive - but since the French don't have an alternative, they pay absurd amounts of essentially government-funded money [4] on the spot markets, enough to make even the expensive gas peakers worth it, which in turn drives up the price for anyone else on the shared European electricity grid.
And to make the situation even worse than it already is, this is not just a spot market crisis. There is no indication at all that the situation in France will clear up any time soon - to the contrary, it will get exponentially worse in winter, as the majority of France uses electric heating - and the drought induced hydro crunch will need many months of constant rainfall to refill all the natural reservoirs before the plants can act at capacity again. This makes long-term electricity futures absurdly expensive as well, and the price hike of these futures hasn't even begun to reach electricity consumers yet.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337
[2] https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/suedbaden/a...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-scorching-summer-heat...
[4] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2022/07/28/energy...
The worst problem is that the French nuclear reactors have massive issues - over half their capacity is currently offline because of massive defects or barely producing due to a lack of cooling water [1]. That same drought also impacted Swiss nuclear plants [2] and Italian hydro power [3].
On top of that, the German gas peaker plants that used to be relatively cheap are now, thanks to the Russian invasion, extremely expensive - but since the French don't have an alternative, they pay absurd amounts of essentially government-funded money [4] on the spot markets, enough to make even the expensive gas peakers worth it, which in turn drives up the price for anyone else on the shared European electricity grid.
And to make the situation even worse than it already is, this is not just a spot market crisis. There is no indication at all that the situation in France will clear up any time soon - to the contrary, it will get exponentially worse in winter, as the majority of France uses electric heating - and the drought induced hydro crunch will need many months of constant rainfall to refill all the natural reservoirs before the plants can act at capacity again. This makes long-term electricity futures absurdly expensive as well, and the price hike of these futures hasn't even begun to reach electricity consumers yet.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32605337
[2] https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/suedbaden/a...
[3] https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-scorching-summer-heat...
[4] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/energies/article/2022/07/28/energy...
> because of massive defects or barely producing due to a lack of cooling water
This is false, and not the reason for the (currently) low load factor of nuclear.
Most reactors are off for maintenance, like they are each year in autumn, in order to be ready for the peak demand that winter is. This year might be slightly worse, but it's not unusual at all.
There is also no lack of cooling water. There is only a law that was set many years ago that can be changed without any impact on the safety of the reactors, and this law is limiting only for a few reactors a few days each year. Very anecdotal.
This is false, and not the reason for the (currently) low load factor of nuclear.
Most reactors are off for maintenance, like they are each year in autumn, in order to be ready for the peak demand that winter is. This year might be slightly worse, but it's not unusual at all.
There is also no lack of cooling water. There is only a law that was set many years ago that can be changed without any impact on the safety of the reactors, and this law is limiting only for a few reactors a few days each year. Very anecdotal.
mschuster91(1)
That's all true, but there is a little bit of hope:
One major cause for the current extreme gas prices is the fact that many EU countries are filling up their gas buffers now for the winter. So on top of the gas scarcity, there is also extreme demand at the moment.
Some countries have reported that they are (almost) done. This will decrease demand and prices will go down. At least until the winter begins ..
The current gas prices haven't even reflected yet that the Russians have shut down North Stream 1 for good.
Anyone still thinking that this will ever reverse until the country is called Eastern Ukraine instead of Russia is in for a very rude awakening. There will be no more gas from Russia and the import capacity for other sources is already booked out.
To make it worse: when the winter is over, the crunch to refill the storage will begin again, and this time with no Russian capacity at all and to make it worse likely without (or with significantly reduced output from) the Dutch gas field in Groningen [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/01/natural-gas-...
Anyone still thinking that this will ever reverse until the country is called Eastern Ukraine instead of Russia is in for a very rude awakening. There will be no more gas from Russia and the import capacity for other sources is already booked out.
To make it worse: when the winter is over, the crunch to refill the storage will begin again, and this time with no Russian capacity at all and to make it worse likely without (or with significantly reduced output from) the Dutch gas field in Groningen [1].
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/01/natural-gas-...
It will reverse as soon as the EU removes the sanctions and opens Nord Stream 2. Right now, the sanctions are pushing up prices, making the Russian government fabulously wealthy. Price caps are even going to make things worse. Ethics don't trump economics 101 nor do they keep grandma from freezing to death, unfortunately.
I think conflict escalation is more likely than Europe conceding to get the fossil gas taps turned back on. The world can’t be held hostage by a madman forever.
Unfortunately, with most of Italian politicians being in the pockets of Putin and massive protests expected across Western Europe, it is very well possible that the sanctions get lifted.
We have experience in delivering ourselves as hostages to Putin in exchange for cheap gas - the events following the 2014 invasion of the Krim should be more than enough proof of just how many spineless and corrupt "leaders" Europe has. I have no doubt that there are enough who will cave to the pressure of the streets should the situation escalate.
We have experience in delivering ourselves as hostages to Putin in exchange for cheap gas - the events following the 2014 invasion of the Krim should be more than enough proof of just how many spineless and corrupt "leaders" Europe has. I have no doubt that there are enough who will cave to the pressure of the streets should the situation escalate.
There are mechanisms to prevent that on a large (EU) scale, and US probably will use them if needed. Threats or sweet deals to politicians will keep them in line.
> making the Russian government fabulously wealthy
Seems to be true, yes: https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-oil-gas-reven...
Governments seem to be responding to this. This week, Russia is saying it will block all sales to any nation implementing the G7 proposed price cap on Russian gas. (Russia is free to not sell anything if they don't want to, of course).
However, thanks to this invasion, Russia now only has a few years remaining of such significant gas exports left, no matter what: the more time passes the more substitutes for Russian gas are installed, because it is unacceptable to NATO and EU nations for Russia to have the capacity to threaten them with reduced fuel supply.
There's also the question of what fraction of Russian export capacity to Europe would vanish in the hypothetical where the pipelines going though Ukrainian territory were destroyed for whatever reason (I can think of at least three scenarios leading to that).
Seems to be true, yes: https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/russias-oil-gas-reven...
Governments seem to be responding to this. This week, Russia is saying it will block all sales to any nation implementing the G7 proposed price cap on Russian gas. (Russia is free to not sell anything if they don't want to, of course).
However, thanks to this invasion, Russia now only has a few years remaining of such significant gas exports left, no matter what: the more time passes the more substitutes for Russian gas are installed, because it is unacceptable to NATO and EU nations for Russia to have the capacity to threaten them with reduced fuel supply.
There's also the question of what fraction of Russian export capacity to Europe would vanish in the hypothetical where the pipelines going though Ukrainian territory were destroyed for whatever reason (I can think of at least three scenarios leading to that).
> There's also the question of what fraction of Russian export capacity to Europe would vanish in the hypothetical where the pipelines going though Ukrainian territory were destroyed for whatever reason (I can think of at least three scenarios leading to that).
Jamal is 33 billion m³ a year [1] and Soyuz 26 billion m³ [2], while each of the North Stream pipelines has 55 billion m³ capacity [3] - meaning that even in the case that both Jamal and Soyuz are irreparably destroyed for whatever reason, North Stream has more than enough capacity to take over. And that was the entire point why Ukraine, Austria and Poland were so opposed to the buildout of North Stream - had both been opened, Russia would have been able to completely cut out all the transit countries, leaving them completely at the mercy of Russia and Germany's notoriously Russia-amorous politicians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal%E2%80%93Europe_pipeline
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_transmission_syste...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
Jamal is 33 billion m³ a year [1] and Soyuz 26 billion m³ [2], while each of the North Stream pipelines has 55 billion m³ capacity [3] - meaning that even in the case that both Jamal and Soyuz are irreparably destroyed for whatever reason, North Stream has more than enough capacity to take over. And that was the entire point why Ukraine, Austria and Poland were so opposed to the buildout of North Stream - had both been opened, Russia would have been able to completely cut out all the transit countries, leaving them completely at the mercy of Russia and Germany's notoriously Russia-amorous politicians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamal%E2%80%93Europe_pipeline
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_transmission_syste...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
For (effectively) state-owned companies, politics trumps economics 101. Removing sanctions will cause a marginal drop in natural gas price for a few weeks, but no more.
At this point, the European natural gas market is sufficiently skewed by state involvement that "economics 101" is marginally more useful than astrology. Geopolitics 101 is what you should turn to for answers.
At this point, the European natural gas market is sufficiently skewed by state involvement that "economics 101" is marginally more useful than astrology. Geopolitics 101 is what you should turn to for answers.
Why would we open up NS2 if NS1 isn't even being used due to Russian decisions? What would added capacity do when they're not even using the existing links?
It's just pro Kremlin propaganda, it's the only thing you see when looking at Leipzig protest twitter posts
Putin can at any time decide to open North Stream 1 or the existing pipelines (Jamal or Transgas-Soyuz or Transgas-Drushba). It's understandable that Putin doesn't want to pay for the Soyuz and Drushba routes as he'd have to pay transit fees to Ukraine, but there is no excuse for not using Poland-Belarus bound Jamal even if North Stream 1 actually had technical defects. He is using gas as a weapon and extortion lever against Europe, there is no other way to describe it.
The call to open North Stream 2 is nothing more than Kremlin propaganda, and the only ones calling for it here in Germany are more-or-less plain Kremlin fifth column agents.
Besides: opening NS2 would be a symbolic caving before Putin - a signal that even invading a country for annexation gains, a no-no ever since WW2, is not too much of a crime for Europe to look away.
The call to open North Stream 2 is nothing more than Kremlin propaganda, and the only ones calling for it here in Germany are more-or-less plain Kremlin fifth column agents.
Besides: opening NS2 would be a symbolic caving before Putin - a signal that even invading a country for annexation gains, a no-no ever since WW2, is not too much of a crime for Europe to look away.
What do you want to do? the errors were made in the past. The only way forward is to normalise the relationship instead of further escalating this very dangerous situation.
Only way forward is ceasing relationship with such state
> The only way forward is to normalise the relationship
Yes, by removing Russia from Ukraine. No one thought of "normalising" relations with Nazi Germany's Hitler as my ancestors marched through Europe either.
What should we do? Send everything we reasonably can to Ukraine so that they can drive out Russia. And then send some more that they can get rid of Putin once and for all.
Yes, by removing Russia from Ukraine. No one thought of "normalising" relations with Nazi Germany's Hitler as my ancestors marched through Europe either.
What should we do? Send everything we reasonably can to Ukraine so that they can drive out Russia. And then send some more that they can get rid of Putin once and for all.
> No one thought of "normalising" relations with Nazi Germany's Hitler as my ancestors marched through Europe either.
Yes they did - France and Britain attempted to appease Hitler for 5 years.
Of course the lesson to learn from that is exactly that appeasement doesn't work. Letting Hitler get away with annexing Czechoslovakia only emboldened him to go further.
Eventually enough has to be enough. I'd rather deal with the pain now than wait until Russia turns its attention to our own borders after it's finished with Ukraine.
Yes they did - France and Britain attempted to appease Hitler for 5 years.
Of course the lesson to learn from that is exactly that appeasement doesn't work. Letting Hitler get away with annexing Czechoslovakia only emboldened him to go further.
Eventually enough has to be enough. I'd rather deal with the pain now than wait until Russia turns its attention to our own borders after it's finished with Ukraine.
Spot on. We've seen this before with Hitler, and we are smarter now.
It's true the situation is different - Putin has nukes - but we have nukes as well, and there are ways to be tough without escalating to using them. This means we do not have to fold just because Hitler has nukes now. We should be as tough as needed to stop the expansion.
if a peace deal is as easy as some suggest like the one that was prevented by Boris Johnson(guarantee that Ukraine will never be part of NATO etc.) then I do not understand why you would like to escalate the situation even further.
One has also to acknowledge that the economic sanctions and the military support for Ukraine are also very hostile moves.
One has also to acknowledge that the economic sanctions and the military support for Ukraine are also very hostile moves.
> One has also to acknowledge that the economic sanctions and the military support for Ukraine are also very hostile moves.
Indeed. It is a good start but shame we aren't doing more.
Indeed. It is a good start but shame we aren't doing more.
This is so naïve. What makes you think that the Russians will keep North Stream 2 open, given the fact that they are closing North Stream 1 for the EU now?
If they will keep it open at all, it will be only after some heavy concessions on the EU side.
If they will keep it open at all, it will be only after some heavy concessions on the EU side.
They did quite clearly mention requiring heavy concessions on the EU side as the very first bit of their comment (which I don't agree with). Everything they wrote was centred around if "the EU removes the sanctions".
France is planning on having all reactors back online by winter. I guess the market isn't buying that, though.
Even if it was, CERN aren't going to suck up power and thus raise prices while there's still going to be a supply crunch elsewhere. A huge amount of gas usage for direct heating needs to be displaced with electric in the near term, so it's a good look for CERN to do their part and a good use of government money to not compete with the citizenry.
> French nuclear reactors [...] offline because of massive defects
There's no "massive defects" involved, it's a combination of 1. regular refueling maintenance which happens every summer; 2. some maintenance being delayed due to COVID-19 that was finally able to be scheduled this year; 3. a minor corrosion issue [1] being found with the welds in one of the newer plants, leading the power plant operator to stop all similar plants for safety reasons to be manually inspected.
> barely producing due to a lack of cooling water
There's plenty of cooling water, it's just warmer than usual upstream of some of the plants, and the plants have rules about not rejecting water above a certain temperature to the river in order to protect wildlife. These rules can be waived and in fact have been waived several times this summer and previous summers to continue producing at higher load -- it sucks for the fishes that get +1°C, but we're basically making a choice between warming up the rivers or warming up the planet with more CO2 emissions. This is indeed the same situation as in Beznau (CH, the article you linked), but absolutely not comparable to the problems with hydro in Italy that are actually due to lack of water. You can't waive a lack of water.
> no indication at all that the situation in France will clear up any time soon
(1) and (2) are absolutely going to clear up by winter. https://nuclear-monitor.fr/ shows the planned maintenance end dates. Just by the end of the month EDF is planning to have 11-12GW back online [2] (though their maintenance end dates tend to slip up by a few days in general). That leaves the 12 reactors (out of 56) impacted by (3). I suspect that if it actually comes to blackouts, (3) might also clear out, if we decide that the minor safety risk of the welding issues is less bad than the people actually dying due to lack of power. Unfortunately anything involving nuclear safety makes people freak out and require 100% reliability, even when it's absolutely irrational to do so and causes more human deaths.
[1] https://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/20... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbeQue0XkAAraJu?format=png&name=...
There's no "massive defects" involved, it's a combination of 1. regular refueling maintenance which happens every summer; 2. some maintenance being delayed due to COVID-19 that was finally able to be scheduled this year; 3. a minor corrosion issue [1] being found with the welds in one of the newer plants, leading the power plant operator to stop all similar plants for safety reasons to be manually inspected.
> barely producing due to a lack of cooling water
There's plenty of cooling water, it's just warmer than usual upstream of some of the plants, and the plants have rules about not rejecting water above a certain temperature to the river in order to protect wildlife. These rules can be waived and in fact have been waived several times this summer and previous summers to continue producing at higher load -- it sucks for the fishes that get +1°C, but we're basically making a choice between warming up the rivers or warming up the planet with more CO2 emissions. This is indeed the same situation as in Beznau (CH, the article you linked), but absolutely not comparable to the problems with hydro in Italy that are actually due to lack of water. You can't waive a lack of water.
> no indication at all that the situation in France will clear up any time soon
(1) and (2) are absolutely going to clear up by winter. https://nuclear-monitor.fr/ shows the planned maintenance end dates. Just by the end of the month EDF is planning to have 11-12GW back online [2] (though their maintenance end dates tend to slip up by a few days in general). That leaves the 12 reactors (out of 56) impacted by (3). I suspect that if it actually comes to blackouts, (3) might also clear out, if we decide that the minor safety risk of the welding issues is less bad than the people actually dying due to lack of power. Unfortunately anything involving nuclear safety makes people freak out and require 100% reliability, even when it's absolutely irrational to do so and causes more human deaths.
[1] https://www.irsn.fr/FR/Actualites_presse/Actualites/Pages/20... [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FbeQue0XkAAraJu?format=png&name=...
> 3. a minor corrosion issue [1] being found with the welds in one of the newer plants, leading the power plant operator to stop all similar plants for safety reasons to be manually inspected.
Minor? Your link is outdated. EDF was forced to prolong the shutdowns recently [1].
> (1) and (2) are absolutely going to clear up by winter.
It will, but the drought is likely to reappear next summer, which is why not just the spot electricity market is bananas but also the futures market. Additionally, there is the very real potential of further issues cropping up - the French plants are almost all extremely old [2]
> Unfortunately anything involving nuclear safety makes people freak out and require 100% reliability, even when it's absolutely irrational to do so and causes more human deaths.
Well, the problem with nuclear is that even a tiny fuck up has the potential to irradiate a large region for decades. We still can't eat game or shrooms in Bavaria without checking them for radiation levels, and that over 35 years after Chernobyl.
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220825-france-prolongs-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran...
Minor? Your link is outdated. EDF was forced to prolong the shutdowns recently [1].
> (1) and (2) are absolutely going to clear up by winter.
It will, but the drought is likely to reappear next summer, which is why not just the spot electricity market is bananas but also the futures market. Additionally, there is the very real potential of further issues cropping up - the French plants are almost all extremely old [2]
> Unfortunately anything involving nuclear safety makes people freak out and require 100% reliability, even when it's absolutely irrational to do so and causes more human deaths.
Well, the problem with nuclear is that even a tiny fuck up has the potential to irradiate a large region for decades. We still can't eat game or shrooms in Bavaria without checking them for radiation levels, and that over 35 years after Chernobyl.
[1] https://www.france24.com/en/france/20220825-france-prolongs-...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Fran...
> Minor? Your link is outdated. EDF was forced to prolong the shutdowns recently [1].
Your link doesn't say anything about the severity of the issue, just the number of reactors it impacts (12, which is the same number I indicated).
> It will, but the drought is likely to reappear next summer
Sure, by then the welding issues are hopefully finally addressed (the plan is to have the maintenance done by January, but I strongly suspect this will slip by a few months) and then it's only the regular refueling which has been happening in summer for almost 50 years.
> which is why not just the spot electricity market is bananas but also the futures market
Well, no, that's due to a lack of electricity production capacity. Issues with the french nuclear fleet are part of that problem, but they're not all of that problem.
> even a tiny fuck up has the potential to irradiate a large region for decades
Absolutely not. Tiny fuckups happen all the time and have no consequence. Major fuckups happen once in a while and also have no consequence (TMI, for example). Huge fuckups have happened twice in the past 40 years, and only once with major irradiation consequences (Fukushima Daiichi has roughly no exclusion zone left at this point 11 years after the accident, the last town has been reopened earlier this year). The nuclear industry has learned from all these fuckups, from the tiniest ones to the catastrophic ones, and something like the issue at Chornobyl just cannot happen in France.
Your link doesn't say anything about the severity of the issue, just the number of reactors it impacts (12, which is the same number I indicated).
> It will, but the drought is likely to reappear next summer
Sure, by then the welding issues are hopefully finally addressed (the plan is to have the maintenance done by January, but I strongly suspect this will slip by a few months) and then it's only the regular refueling which has been happening in summer for almost 50 years.
> which is why not just the spot electricity market is bananas but also the futures market
Well, no, that's due to a lack of electricity production capacity. Issues with the french nuclear fleet are part of that problem, but they're not all of that problem.
> even a tiny fuck up has the potential to irradiate a large region for decades
Absolutely not. Tiny fuckups happen all the time and have no consequence. Major fuckups happen once in a while and also have no consequence (TMI, for example). Huge fuckups have happened twice in the past 40 years, and only once with major irradiation consequences (Fukushima Daiichi has roughly no exclusion zone left at this point 11 years after the accident, the last town has been reopened earlier this year). The nuclear industry has learned from all these fuckups, from the tiniest ones to the catastrophic ones, and something like the issue at Chornobyl just cannot happen in France.
I'm wondering why OP is accumulating down votes. As far as I understand the situation the posting is correct.
OP is rabid anti-nuclear person with an axe to grind. It gets boring after a while, especially with rabid anti-nuclear people being partially responsible for the current crisis. If it wasn't for them, Europe would be much less dependent on Russia.
HN tends to be fairly pro-nuclear, which is not surprising given that the majority of its users are in the US which doesn't have a lot of the problems Europe has with nuclear - they have more than enough space to build nuclear plants safely away from population centers, earthquake-prone areas or flood-prone coasts or to store the waste.
For pro-nuclear HN people that want to read about themselves, here's a pretty honest analysis: https://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2022/08/ROBIN/64951 (in french)
It seems like the situation has resolved itself, at least the posting is not grey anymore.
I think that being pro-nuclear actually can make sense until there is enough renewable capacity installed. Its IMHO better than firing coal and generating more CO2. Also we already have nuclear waste, so we are already in a unfavorable situation and producing some more is probably the better tradeoff than ruining our climate. In my opinion, the safety of these power plants is, however, the biggest pain point that is not solved and will likely never be.
We still should work towards renewables so nuclear power can become a thing of the past.
I think that being pro-nuclear actually can make sense until there is enough renewable capacity installed. Its IMHO better than firing coal and generating more CO2. Also we already have nuclear waste, so we are already in a unfavorable situation and producing some more is probably the better tradeoff than ruining our climate. In my opinion, the safety of these power plants is, however, the biggest pain point that is not solved and will likely never be.
We still should work towards renewables so nuclear power can become a thing of the past.
[deleted]
You would think the countries with nuclear carriers would park them at home and figure a way to hook them into the grid.
That can be done with diesel locomotives [1], but with nuclear carriers? Not sure. For one, only the French and the US have nuclear carriers, with the British additionally running a nuclear submarine fleet.
Besides, even the largest US carriers of the Nimitz class barely reaches 200 MW of power (and the majority of it goes directly to the propellers via steam turbines, not via intermediate electrical systems). Your typical actual power plant however goes into the ~1000 MW/1GW and above region.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/that-time-a-canadian-town-derailed-a-die...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#...
Besides, even the largest US carriers of the Nimitz class barely reaches 200 MW of power (and the majority of it goes directly to the propellers via steam turbines, not via intermediate electrical systems). Your typical actual power plant however goes into the ~1000 MW/1GW and above region.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/that-time-a-canadian-town-derailed-a-die...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier#...
I heard they did it after the sunami, so it should be feasible. Yeah, it's not much, but it's something.
That's 16 MW for all of Europe, which would be provided by the one nuclear carrier in the EU, the French Charles de Gaulle.
That's basically a drop in the ocean, not enough to even consider that "every little thing helps".
That's basically a drop in the ocean, not enough to even consider that "every little thing helps".
> countries with nuclear carriers
So France, with a single one.. and I'm sure it has better things to do
Unless you want them to surface their super stealthy and secret nuclear submarines that are in charge of nuclear dissuasion
So France, with a single one.. and I'm sure it has better things to do
Unless you want them to surface their super stealthy and secret nuclear submarines that are in charge of nuclear dissuasion
What's France currently doing with their's?
Last time I heard about it: somewhere in the Mediterranean to support NATO and show something to Putin
So, basically nothing...?
Yep, nothing besides doing its job supporting the organisation preventing a European war escalation as well ad providing intel to Ukraine.
Send an email to Macron though, I'm sure he'd like to hear about HN experts who want to use an air-carrier that develops less than 10% of the least powerful land based nuclear plant to power the grid...
Send an email to Macron though, I'm sure he'd like to hear about HN experts who want to use an air-carrier that develops less than 10% of the least powerful land based nuclear plant to power the grid...
"Yep, nothing besides doing its job supporting the organisation preventing a European war escalation as well ad providing intel to Ukraine."
Source?
Source?
Similar things were thought of before for Northern Ireland in the 70s but not implemented because it was impractical in that case. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4132635.stm
Wouldnt rule it out entirely especially as a political gesture of doing everything possible when unrest threatens, but not as a very meaningful intervention.
For those curious according to this source https://what-if.xkcd.com/130/ an Aircraft carrier produces about 191 Megawatts an hour
Unfortunately there's really only one county on earth with a substantial aircraft carrier force.
Unfortunately there's really only one county on earth with a substantial aircraft carrier force.
Understandably, since they're for a boat and the whole point is to move the boat, that's not actually electricity. They mostly make steam, which is used to turn propellers, which are used to move the boat.
They do make some electricity, well, by domestic standards it's a lot of electricity, but in terms of a country's need for electricity it's a drop in the bucket. The Ford is probably capable of making 125MW of electricity (details are classified) and is the only carrier of its type in service for a year or two yet. Older US carriers have smaller, less capable reactors and are less equipped to generate electricity from the steam.
How much is 125MW? Well, roughly this, one random mid-size wind farm: https://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/black_law.aspx
Admittedly you decide when you get 125MW from your aircraft carrier, whereas the wind blows when it likes - and the carrier is portable, sort of, but that's just not very much juice and it's the only one of its kind in the world.
They do make some electricity, well, by domestic standards it's a lot of electricity, but in terms of a country's need for electricity it's a drop in the bucket. The Ford is probably capable of making 125MW of electricity (details are classified) and is the only carrier of its type in service for a year or two yet. Older US carriers have smaller, less capable reactors and are less equipped to generate electricity from the steam.
How much is 125MW? Well, roughly this, one random mid-size wind farm: https://www.scottishpowerrenewables.com/pages/black_law.aspx
Admittedly you decide when you get 125MW from your aircraft carrier, whereas the wind blows when it likes - and the carrier is portable, sort of, but that's just not very much juice and it's the only one of its kind in the world.
It's actually Megawatt-hours per hour.
The entirety of Europe has 1.
It would be great if the UK would do this, but our new prime minister used to work for Shell, later on she was responsible for the UK shutting down it's gas storage facility in the north sea.
So; while we do nothing to reduce energy usage (including turning lamps off), UK energy companies are making some of the biggest profits ever.
So; while we do nothing to reduce energy usage (including turning lamps off), UK energy companies are making some of the biggest profits ever.
UK power prices have risen a lot -- that will cause consumers and businesses to reduce energy usage.
Our government has come up with a solution though - they'll cap consumer energy prices at the current below-market rate and subsidise businesses, and pay for the cost of doing it by running up a debt repaid over the next decade or two. Basically, we can continue using energy as before and will pay for it later - yay!
The unfortunate thing is that it was basically politically untenable for them not to do this. In the run up to the announcement (basically a u-turn) there was a steady drumbeat of news headlines and articles telling us that they were driving everyone into poverty by not capping energy rates, that it was destroying businesses and no-one could afford it, that the rest of Europe was doing this and only our incompetent leaders were failing to do so because they wanted us to freeze, and so on.
The unfortunate thing is that it was basically politically untenable for them not to do this. In the run up to the announcement (basically a u-turn) there was a steady drumbeat of news headlines and articles telling us that they were driving everyone into poverty by not capping energy rates, that it was destroying businesses and no-one could afford it, that the rest of Europe was doing this and only our incompetent leaders were failing to do so because they wanted us to freeze, and so on.
The prices are just forcing some companies out of business not to reduce their energy usage. While some may invest in reducing their energy usage the reality is, many small businesses literally won't be able to afford to reduce their energy bill as the changes will require an up front investment. Larger companies most likely will just pass the cost on to consumers and keep on going.
The average home owner probably won't be able to afford a changing their fridge, their washing machine, their tv, etc. It'll be a case of turn off the heating during winter.
The average home owner probably won't be able to afford a changing their fridge, their washing machine, their tv, etc. It'll be a case of turn off the heating during winter.
I have plenty of karma to burn, so here is some information coming from reputable sources that also suggest where the problem really is.
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/04/25/watt-dnt-...
https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index/comparisons
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/business/2022/04/25/watt-dnt-...
What does Bitcoin energy consumption have to do with CERN?
Don't forget most mining is done in China, not Europe. And your first link mainly tries to show that Bitcoin consumption isn't a lot compared to other uses. So I don't really see the point.
Don't forget most mining is done in China, not Europe. And your first link mainly tries to show that Bitcoin consumption isn't a lot compared to other uses. So I don't really see the point.
They have been kicked out of China. Most went to the US, some went to other places in central Asia (e.g. Kazakhstan) but they largely left for the US. And some later left central Asia after causing various local blackouts and contributing nothing to their host country other than small bribes and sucking up energy subsidies.
You gotta admire the Chinese bureaucracy for not using kid's gloves when dealing with a problem. In the U.S. you would have miners suing the government, or the government suing the miners, the legality of crypto mining would make its way through the court system and eventually reach the Supreme Court. Then you would have governors possibly standing up to the federal government to retain their miners. In China, the government can decide overnight to kick crypto miners to the curb. No lawsuits, no court cases, no grand speeches, just an enforcement action without possibility of recourse.
Yeah, you could admire it, if they take actions you support.
What when they take actions that you not only don’t support, but they impact you and your livelihood? With the same level of not using kids gloves?
Cryptocurrency is a cancerous scam that needs to die. But I want to give them same due process rights as any other activity.
What when they take actions that you not only don’t support, but they impact you and your livelihood? With the same level of not using kids gloves?
Cryptocurrency is a cancerous scam that needs to die. But I want to give them same due process rights as any other activity.
> Cryptocurrency is a cancerous scam that needs to die. But I want to give them same due process rights as any other activity.
This doesn't make sense. You want it to die, which is done via LAWS. Yet you complain about the laws passed by the Chinese government to kill it?
https://fortune.com/2022/01/04/crypto-banned-china-other-cou...
China isn't alone in banning it, and the US COULD ban it as well (similar to how gold was banned in the past).
They not only choose not to, but it is rapidly becoming "financialized" - Trading on the CME, and the major players on wall street looking to get into the game and collect their "rent".
This doesn't make sense. You want it to die, which is done via LAWS. Yet you complain about the laws passed by the Chinese government to kill it?
https://fortune.com/2022/01/04/crypto-banned-china-other-cou...
China isn't alone in banning it, and the US COULD ban it as well (similar to how gold was banned in the past).
They not only choose not to, but it is rapidly becoming "financialized" - Trading on the CME, and the major players on wall street looking to get into the game and collect their "rent".
There’s a big difference in passing laws by authoritarian government vs laws passed by democratic government.
Try protesting and legally challenging laws in both cases as infringing on your rights.
Try protesting and legally challenging laws in both cases as infringing on your rights.
i think you forgot to add "communist" in your response.
Normally people like to write "authoritarian communist government" to make it sound really bad.
So like the people of China want crypto banned, and the government does it and this is BAD.
whereas the rest of the world adds fuel to this ponzi scheme and this is good?
Tell us, when the US outlawed ownership of gold under executive order 6102 was this "authoritarian" because it is unclear that the people voted on it or asked for it?
Normally people like to write "authoritarian communist government" to make it sound really bad.
So like the people of China want crypto banned, and the government does it and this is BAD.
whereas the rest of the world adds fuel to this ponzi scheme and this is good?
Tell us, when the US outlawed ownership of gold under executive order 6102 was this "authoritarian" because it is unclear that the people voted on it or asked for it?
You're mocking him, but he was accurate - it is authoritative government, even more so than in the West.
I'd say expropriation of gold was authoritarian, i.e. undemocratic, because it was done by president, not Congress. US, with its strong president, is not a perfect democracy, powerful groups/president can do things that demos does not want.
That's not claiming it was a bad decision or policy. There were probably good reasons for that step, and it may have helped the country.
I'd say expropriation of gold was authoritarian, i.e. undemocratic, because it was done by president, not Congress. US, with its strong president, is not a perfect democracy, powerful groups/president can do things that demos does not want.
That's not claiming it was a bad decision or policy. There were probably good reasons for that step, and it may have helped the country.
Individuals and partnerships deserve due process rights; limited-liability corporations do not.
I just hope it dies before we do!
I stand by what I said.
>You gotta admire the Chinese bureaucracy for not using kid's gloves when dealing with a problem
Do you feel the same way when the "problem" is "people who want a say in government" or "student activists" or "Uyghurs" and "dealing" with it involves genocide? It's true that authoritarian countries can act decisively on real problems sometimes, when their own private politics align. But they far more regularly act "decisively" to make things worse, to crush freedoms, to cover up their own corruption, etc. It's not particularly admirable that once in a while they have good issues too.
Do you feel the same way when the "problem" is "people who want a say in government" or "student activists" or "Uyghurs" and "dealing" with it involves genocide? It's true that authoritarian countries can act decisively on real problems sometimes, when their own private politics align. But they far more regularly act "decisively" to make things worse, to crush freedoms, to cover up their own corruption, etc. It's not particularly admirable that once in a while they have good issues too.
>they far more regularly act "decisively" to make things worse, to crush freedoms, to cover up their own corruption, etc.
That's why Democracy is the worst form of government excluding the alternatives. But it would be nice to have a democratic government that is also capable of acting decisively. I don't have any ideas how you'd do that, but it doesn't seem wrong to express the desire.
That's why Democracy is the worst form of government excluding the alternatives. But it would be nice to have a democratic government that is also capable of acting decisively. I don't have any ideas how you'd do that, but it doesn't seem wrong to express the desire.
This would be possible only when all in the parliament would agree and want the same policy and same law as soon as possible. This is indeed rare, even in dire circumstances like hospitals full of sick people and more coming, or energy crisis in Europe.
Democracy being swift like autocracy is basically impossible. Any pretense of democratic government action needs the discussion to happen, which takes lots of time, and this makes the action not swift.
Instead, the way western governments seem to approach these crises is that lawful process is violated by the government more or less, tough dubious measures are introduced more or less in the interest of the country, then some people protest, maybe lawsuits get filed, then justice system gets bogged down for years, and in some cases we get rulings that government broke the law. This usually changes nothing.
Democracy being swift like autocracy is basically impossible. Any pretense of democratic government action needs the discussion to happen, which takes lots of time, and this makes the action not swift.
Instead, the way western governments seem to approach these crises is that lawful process is violated by the government more or less, tough dubious measures are introduced more or less in the interest of the country, then some people protest, maybe lawsuits get filed, then justice system gets bogged down for years, and in some cases we get rulings that government broke the law. This usually changes nothing.
>In China, the government can decide overnight to kick crypto miners to the curb. No lawsuits, no court cases, no grand speeches, just an enforcement action without possibility of recourse.
That's called "authoritarianism".
That's called "authoritarianism".
You admire how dictatorship ignores any law when its convenient for them. You realize this goes hand in hand with overall situation in China re uighurs concentration camps, useless lockdowns killing people in situation where rest of the world goes meh, supporting russia despite sanctions and so on and on.
No, I dont admire them. That government has earned 0 respect, despite some hard numbers they can achieve (or not, who knows)
No, I dont admire them. That government has earned 0 respect, despite some hard numbers they can achieve (or not, who knows)
That doesn't sound one bit admirable to me.
Yeah, that's not a good thing.
Then why are their economy and financial sectors sinking so fast? Can't they just order it corrected?
They can, and they have. China has been building ghost cities for years to prop up their own capital figures, all those apartments would be on the books for prices no Chinese could afford, and stayed empty for years.
It seems to have worked out for them and eventually the cities became inhabited. But it was a huge gamble and here in the west we would call it a scam.
Of course one thing you can't fake is international currency when trading with other countries. But this is one thing China has more than enough of because we all pay them to make our goods.
It seems to have worked out for them and eventually the cities became inhabited. But it was a huge gamble and here in the west we would call it a scam.
Of course one thing you can't fake is international currency when trading with other countries. But this is one thing China has more than enough of because we all pay them to make our goods.
That may be the biggest "fake it till you make it" operation in history...
https://statisticstimes.com/economy/united-states-vs-china-e...
if you look carefully, you can see that based on PPP China has overtaken the US. You may also notice that the US is the one on the downtrend?
Most countries have had serious economic and financial issues over the last few years.
if you look carefully, you can see that based on PPP China has overtaken the US. You may also notice that the US is the one on the downtrend?
Most countries have had serious economic and financial issues over the last few years.
> What does Bitcoin energy consumption have to do with CERN?
Priorities. Bitcoin (as other POW based cryptocurrencies) waste a huge load of energy, with a single Bitcoin transaction that cost over US$100 of energy (old estimation when energy costs were a lot lower) and mining farms sprouting everywhere hosting thousands of nodes of which each one draws 2000-5000 Watts, just like one or two heaters, but kept on 24/7 with their fans pumping heat into the atmosphere. My point is that before looking at CERN, maybe, just maybe, they should look at other places where energy is wasted by turning it directly into money (and heat), also without creating businesses and jobs.
Priorities. Bitcoin (as other POW based cryptocurrencies) waste a huge load of energy, with a single Bitcoin transaction that cost over US$100 of energy (old estimation when energy costs were a lot lower) and mining farms sprouting everywhere hosting thousands of nodes of which each one draws 2000-5000 Watts, just like one or two heaters, but kept on 24/7 with their fans pumping heat into the atmosphere. My point is that before looking at CERN, maybe, just maybe, they should look at other places where energy is wasted by turning it directly into money (and heat), also without creating businesses and jobs.
Aha I see.
I don't think that's very doable though. Bitcoin ASICs only stay relevant for a short time, when they're surpassed by more efficient models, and no longer economically viable. I doubt the owners of these are willing to turn them off and let their investment expire without using them. Also, the increasing cost of electricity dramatically reduces that write-off period.
Besides that, CERN is mostly publicly funded and one huge consumer so the government has lots of control over them which they don't have over miners, which are also more fragmented between many different operators. And the research CERN do is not time critical.
So I still think it makes sense. CERN is one thing they can actually do without too much trouble and has a relatively large effect.
I don't think that's very doable though. Bitcoin ASICs only stay relevant for a short time, when they're surpassed by more efficient models, and no longer economically viable. I doubt the owners of these are willing to turn them off and let their investment expire without using them. Also, the increasing cost of electricity dramatically reduces that write-off period.
Besides that, CERN is mostly publicly funded and one huge consumer so the government has lots of control over them which they don't have over miners, which are also more fragmented between many different operators. And the research CERN do is not time critical.
So I still think it makes sense. CERN is one thing they can actually do without too much trouble and has a relatively large effect.
I'm not entirely sure how to interpret a page detailing how Bitcoin is responsible for 0.43% of total worldwide electricity consumption.
You're going to have to be more specific because right now I can't even figure out what you're trying to argue.
You're going to have to be more specific because right now I can't even figure out what you're trying to argue.
I'd like to see cryptominers reduce their frivolous and wasteful activities.
If history has taught us anything it is this - As long as there is money to be made people will literally destroy anything to get it.
Ah good, so we can stop shifting timelines every few weeks.
[deleted]
EL PSY KONGROO
It's a shame that the timing just had to coincide with the start of LHC Run 3, though. They only managed to generate around 5-6 months of data after 3 years of upgrades. I imagine that should still be enough to keep the scientists busy this Winter, though.