3 ms·

The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energie

by rakoo 7y ago

The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).

ZeroGravitas 7y ago
The French Nuclear eventually needs replaced by something, either more nuclear or renewable, as it's bearing its end of life. That makes them not too different from any other nation, and they've made the same decision as every other nation, which is that nuclear is too expensive and slow to be considered. So I agree that other things should be done as well but unless someone has some secret method of building cheap nuclear that they're not sharing then France will spend 120 Billion to replace nuclear with renewables because the alternative would cost even more.
- rakoo 7y ago
  No, they've done the same as other countries, which is follow the so-called ecology-oriented organisations and kill nuclear because that's what the population is asking for, not because it's the best thing to do. Again, if priority number one is to reduce CO2 then renewable won't be enough. If the priority is to find something quick and cheap, then sure, a solar panel is cheap. Except if you need a sustained production for more than 30 years then it's actually more expensive than nuclear. Again, in France it's not replacing fossil, it's replacing nuclear, the second cleanest form of electricity. If you just want to please the masses and don't care about the environment, then sure, that choice was the good one.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    If you’d said that even a few years ago, you’d have been right. Now renewables-plus-batteries have about the same LCOE as nuclear even in France, with plenty of reason to expect both renewable production and storage to become even cheaper. (France already has pumped hydro plants, but I’m not even counting them in the LCOES because I don’t know their capacity or how long they will last, but they’re unlikely to build more because they apparently battery storage is now cheaper). And I’m saying this as someone who is a fan of nuclear tech and who thinks most of the public fears are disproportionate.

by rakoo 7y ago

ZeroGravitas 7y ago

The French Nuclear eventually needs replaced by something, either more nuclear or renewable, as it's bearing its end of life. That makes them not too different from any other nation, and they've made the same decision as every other nation, which is that nuclear is too expensive and slow to be considered. So I agree that other things should be done as well but unless someone has some secret method of building cheap nuclear that they're not sharing then France will spend 120 Billion to replace nuclear with renewables because the alternative would cost even more.

rakoo 7y ago
No, they've done the same as other countries, which is follow the so-called ecology-oriented organisations and kill nuclear because that's what the population is asking for, not because it's the best thing to do. Again, if priority number one is to reduce CO2 then renewable won't be enough. If the priority is to find something quick and cheap, then sure, a solar panel is cheap. Except if you need a sustained production for more than 30 years then it's actually more expensive than nuclear. Again, in France it's not replacing fossil, it's replacing nuclear, the second cleanest form of electricity. If you just want to please the masses and don't care about the environment, then sure, that choice was the good one.
- ben_w 7y ago
  If you’d said that even a few years ago, you’d have been right. Now renewables-plus-batteries have about the same LCOE as nuclear even in France, with plenty of reason to expect both renewable production and storage to become even cheaper. (France already has pumped hydro plants, but I’m not even counting them in the LCOES because I don’t know their capacity or how long they will last, but they’re unlikely to build more because they apparently battery storage is now cheaper). And I’m saying this as someone who is a fan of nuclear tech and who thinks most of the public fears are disproportionate.