Share.

24 commenti

  1. MossTheTree on

    This isn’t about being anti-renewables.

    It’s about setting domestic policy based on the goal (affordable and emissions-free power) not the strategy used to get there (nuclear vs. renewables vs. carbon capture etc.)

  2. ToughSpeed1450 on

    Big mistake. Renewable energy can play a much bigger role in the energy mix than people currently expect.

    This is the result of new technologies that make renewables much more reliable even at high volatility peak times.

  3. This-Guy-Muc on

    I don’t believe any nuclear renaissance until I see the plants going live. Nuclear is the most expensive way to produce electricity ever and waste issues are just as solved today as they were 60 years ago.

    Renewables have a RoI of less than 12 years by now, without subsidies. While there is no nuclear energy without subsidies. No private capital will ever be found for nuclear energy. No insurance ever cover it.

    Nuclear energy is a political project and stupid as hell unless one wants nukes.

  4. ToughSpeed1450 on

    This isn’t the 60s anymore. We should perhaps try to move on from trying to generate electricity by making hot steam.

  5. eucariota92 on

    And they still manage to have cheaper electricity prices and less emissions than the very very very green Germany.

    #FACTS

  6. Calm-Garlic-6569 on

    The context is chronic electricity over production. The French tend to consume less electricity thanks to more sober equipment. On the other hand quite a lot of electricity generation capacities were installed (solar, wind), and maintenance of the nuclear plants is now complete or close to it. This result in massive overproduction and difficulties to manage the grid. The government failed to widen electricity use quite enough for heating or manufacturing. So they have to set the renewable targets back in order to preserve the integrity of the grid.

    TLDR : Mismanagement in electricity supply and demand causes a set back in renewable targets.

  7. danRares on

    Nuclear energy is more clean then hydro that destroys habitats. Nuclear is the most clean energy. Bravo France

  8. Lol. Lots of Frances NPPs are something like 35ish years old atm. They can’t work forever. So they need to be replaced. With the currently planned (!) NPPs they can’t even replace their old ones that are ought to get shut down within the next few years.
    Who should finance these old fashioned monsters? If projects develope like Hinkley Point etc, it will take them way longer and will be more expensive than they say now. NPPs will then be 50 years+ in operation. That’s stupid.
    I guess it will take some efforts to tell Frances citizens that they will have to beg China for money and Russia for fuel rods.
    Just to be able to produce extremely expensive energy that nobody wants to buy then…

  9. Luxthill on

    I think it’s because they sell a huge part of the produced electricity to germany because they stopped all their power-plants following the dictate of the greenwashers and the magic windmills aren’t stable enough to power the industry. They need the French energy and they have reopened their coal plants to compensate the lies about green energy.

  10. Maeglin75 on

    I hope France handles it better than we here in Germany. If they have enough money to spare to finance one of the most expensive forms of energy production, they can certainly go for it.

    But when your are dealing with nuclear power, there is no room for any errors, incompetence, sloppiness, corruption or excessive austerity. Everything has to be handled perfectly, from the earliest design phases to the decommissioning of the plants many decades later.

    Worst case with a wind turbine or solar panel is that it falls someone on the head. Worst case with a nuclear reactor is rendering half a continent permanently uninhabitable.

    Same with the storage facilities for the radioactive waste. Here in Germany, our experts and engineers were just not competent enough, our control agencies not meticulous enough… We never found a viable location for a permanent storage facility for highly radioactive waste. Much worse, the one storage facility for medium radioactive waste turned out to be a total disaster. Asse 2 now threatens to contaminate most of the ground water in northern Germany. Billions have to be spent to retrieve the waste from the old salt mine… as soon as robot technology is advanced enough to even try it without sending the workers into their death.

    Again. I hope France does much better than we did. We Germans failed so hard that now no one wants to touch nuclear energy anymore with a long stick. Including the energy companies that would have to be forced against their will by the government to try to build a new reactor.

    Edit: I’m aware that reddit loves nuclear power and gets saltier than Asse 2 when someone dares to criticize it. But please, think first for a second if anything I wrote is wrong before you downvote out of hurt feelings. Do you really have so much trust in your government and energy companies that you are 100% sure they wont f*ck anything up? Ours here in Germany certainly did.

  11. TheSecondTraitor on

    We need to stop pushing the word renewable and instead start using green or emission-free. Even burning wood to make steam is considered renewable and subsidized. Nuclear is the future.

  12. HarryCumpole on

    I love how the comments split hairs over renewables, purely because this title frames nuclear as a “non-renewable”. As with most things, it’s a spectrum of differences with pros/cons that don’t scale in proportion to that spectrum. Renewables like solar don’t work at night, wind requires weather, nuclear produces waste and needs strict control. On the grand scheme of things, they are all in the region of being better energy production and harvesting mechanisms. Do what we must to rid ourselves of methods that release massive amounts of CO2, CH4 and other pollutants. These are all on the table. Germany got super twitchy with Fukushima Daiichi, but nuclear is one of the better short term transitional technologies.

  13. Besides just cost comparison, different energy sources come with big economic differences.

    Fossil fuel is commodity energy. Most is imported. If it is produced locally… surpluses are exported. 

    Nuclear or solar generation are “industrial energy,” produced by machines. The main cost is buying the plant equipment. 

    China pushed hard for solar because they prefer to build equipment over importing fuel. 

    Even for fuel producers… it can make sense to do solar/nuclear and export fuel. You get a new industry, and the old industry can just shift to export. 

    Europe’s plan was mostly renewables/solar. The EU, states, and various multiparty efforts engineered the grid system, pricing system and sector to subsidize development of renewable technology and industry. 

    This worked OK. European energy consumers paid more, but solar energy cost less every year. 

    Then… Just as renewables were becoming economically viable… **China!** China had become the lead producer of panels, batteries and other solar tech. European industry wasn’t efficient enough, or fast enough to win free market contracts. 

    So… now we are at a point where you can either import gas from Russia/etc. or you can import solar tech from China. Either way, energy stays an import industry. 

    I think France’s emphasis on nuclear energy relates to this. Nuclear energy is their domestic option. Most of the work/purchases is local. Gas and solar represent import options. 

    I also think this is being discussed either above or below the “calm reason” line. Ooh, we have a very tentative inadmission of the fact that Europe paid extremely high energy prices for 20 years in order to make renewables viable faster. Then… it turns out that “viable” means China manufactures everything. 

  14. emedan_mc on

    All non-renewables require cooling and France already has a deficit of rivers that are cool enough because of the increasingly warmer climate and lower flows. So the availability of nuclear power will worsen over time but more likely the rivers will die instead.

  15. romanohere on

    Nuclear is not renewable but doesn’t emit CO2, so its fine

  16. Mysterious_Feedback9 on

    I am all for nuclear but slashing renewable that can be deployed faster is not great. We need both.

  17. Timauris on

    France is already decarbonized in terms of electricity production. What they do is completely up to them. So goes for Spain and Scandinavia. The problematic countries are mostly the ones in central and eastern Europe – especially Germany, Poland and Czechia. Czechia and Poland are planning new nuclear reactors though, I wonder how Germany will fill its Dunkelflaute gaps.

  18. Tell me again where France gets all it’s nuclear fuel and where a good chunk is enriched.

  19. TheDoctorMagicOG on

    I can already see it that when the water is low and pretty much dried up. That Germany and neighbouring countries have to rout electricity to France in the Summer months.

  20. bonnydoe on

    The European grid is an internationally connected grid, and I like the idea that not all countries are depending on the same method of creating electricity.

Leave A Reply