4 ms·
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 i
by 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 agoIf 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.