5 ms·

> Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. Yeah, they're not 100% nuclear. In any case, their results are far bet

by Reedx 7y ago

> Even in 'all-nuke' France 7 to 11% of the powergrid is produced by fossil-fuel plants. Yeah, they're not 100% nuclear. In any case, their results are far better than countries who eschewed nuclear. France produces one-tenth the carbon pollution from electricity [compared to Germany]. French electricity costs are just 59% of German electricity prices. As such, according to the prevailing economic wisdom, French electricity should be far more carbon intensive than German's. And yet the opposite is the case.[1] So it seems France made a good decision. Their electricity is both cleaner and cheaper... 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05/if-saving-the-climate-requires-making-energy-so-expensive-why-is-french-electricity-so-cheap/#1d0c5831bd98 https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/02/05...

natmaka 7y ago
It is apparently cheaper because in France, as in many countries, the nuke was and remains heavily subsided, decommission costs under evaluated, mishaps hidden... The French public financial auditing institution (la Cour des Comptes) published in 2012 that public nuke investments are opaque, and that it costed around 228 10e9 euros, plus nowadays 3.4 10e9 euros per year for the sole maintenance. Nuke risk is what it is, and even financially it is not sound. Read there, starting folio 269: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... It is so expensive it cannot be hidden anymore. Electricity in France is absolutely not cheap, its price there is average in Europe. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Germany now pays in order to solve the problem. France isn't completely dumb and a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. However those are only words, until now. Meanwhile... Germany solves its problem. Comparing France and Germany when it comes to industrial and technical problems is not fair, as Germany is so far ahead we don't see them anymore (and yep, I'm French, but facts are facts).
- hokkos 7y ago
  What you wrote is so disingenuous it is unbelievable. So 228B€ for 50 years of 85% of the electricity consumption, and decarbonised. When with the push for renewable, it will cost 121B€ for currently 5,1% of wind and 1.9% for solar. Currently nuclear electricity is bought 42€/MWh by the useless competitor thanks to the ARENH, when wind cost us 89.4€/MWh and solar 294€/MWh and are not dispatchable, uncorrelated with consumption, intermittent, and will also add 30B€ to the grid because of the decentralised organisation. Also renewable made us build a gaz plan in Landivisiau because Brittany opposed the Plogoff nuclear plant and renewable are unreliable. Also you failed to mention, that what droved the rise in French electricity is solely because of the renewable. Germany didn't solve it's problem its electricity is still heavily carbonated. https://i.imgur.com/zatyuXX.png https://i.imgur.com/zatyuXX.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK2NouwWkAERV5V?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK2NouwWkAERV5V?format=jpg&name=... https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2018-04/20180418-rapport-soutien-energies-renouvelables.pdf#page=46 https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2018-04/20180418... https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19506/file/Annexe%201_CSPE%202019.pdf#page14 https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19506/file/Annexe%201_CS... https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19600/file/Calculs%20Tarifs%20Metropole%20T11.xlsx https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19600/file/Calculs%20Tar... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_%C3%A9lectrique_breton https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_%C3%A9lectrique_breton
  - natmaka 7y ago
    > So 228B€ for 50 years of 85% of the electricity consumption Nope. Nuke plant did not provide 85% during those 50 years. It even doesn't today (only about 71%). In 1971 approximatively approx 5% of the French gridpower was produced by nuke plants. Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_France#Le_d%C3%A9ploiement_du_programme_nucl%C3%A9aire_civil https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fr... How exactly do you think it may have produced 85% of the gridpower for 50 years? This is inept and misleading. Moreover 228B€ is an estimation, the report states (folio 270) that the information is not available, mixed up with all other activities of EDF. The real cost may be superior. Everyone is free to interpret such opacity as good or bad sign. Even worse, the report explicitly states that it completely neglects the first batch of R&D, when civilian and military domains where not clearly separated, which was a major effort. Source: (folio 36) https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... Therefore a fair part of fundamental research isn't accounted in those 228B€. Also: nuke energy is not (completely) decarbonised. Fuel extraction, transport... aren't. > When with the push for renewable, it will cost 121B€ for currently 5,1% of wind and 1.9% for solar. This 121B€ budget is not spent, as it starts in... 2018, ending in 2047! Putting it in front of the production right now is at best 'disingenuous', it is in fact a huge lie. You can't read the future, you can't know what renewables will produce in the 2019 to 2047 timeframe and afterwards, therefore there is no conclusion to draw, no way to consider this investment as a bad one. > Currently nuclear electricity is bought 42€/MWh by the useless competitor thanks to the ARENH Only 100TW (about 1/4 of the production), sold by specification at a price equal to the nuke official production price. Given the credits nuke engulfed and the decades of monopoly, this is a very low-key counterbalancing measure. > when wind cost us 89.4€/MWh and solar 294€/MWh and are not dispatchable, uncorrelated with consumption, intermittent, and will also add 30B€ to the grid because of the decentralised organisation. Germany chose this horrible wind/solar/biomass path. Poor Germans, they don't know that those challenges have no solution, that they are doomed to fail. You should inform them. An EPR or two may save them! > Also renewable made us build a gaz plan in Landivisiau because Brittany opposed the Plogoff nuclear plant and renewable are unreliable. A transition costs. At its very beginning nuke was engulfing huge amounts of money without producing anything significant during the 1950-1970 period. After 70 years, right now, nuke isn't a newborn, however new projects are very (very!) overbudget and late (Olkiluoto, Flamanville). > Also you failed to mention, that what droved the rise in French electricity is solely because of the renewable. Source? > Germany didn't solve it's problem its electricity is still heavily carbonated. This is a work in progress. At least do they really search for an elegant (non polluting but also not risk-inducing) solution, instead of raising the risk by letting aging plant run after their planned end-of-life date. French vs. Germany, on an industrial challenge. Lemme try to guess who will win...

by Reedx 7y ago

natmaka 7y ago

It is apparently cheaper because in France, as in many countries, the nuke was and remains heavily subsided, decommission costs under evaluated, mishaps hidden... The French public financial auditing institution (la Cour des Comptes) published in 2012 that public nuke investments are opaque, and that it costed around 228 10e9 euros, plus nowadays 3.4 10e9 euros per year for the sole maintenance. Nuke risk is what it is, and even financially it is not sound. Read there, starting folio 269: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... It is so expensive it cannot be hidden anymore. Electricity in France is absolutely not cheap, its price there is average in Europe. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Germany now pays in order to solve the problem. France isn't completely dumb and a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") states that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewables must replace it. However those are only words, until now. Meanwhile... Germany solves its problem. Comparing France and Germany when it comes to industrial and technical problems is not fair, as Germany is so far ahead we don't see them anymore (and yep, I'm French, but facts are facts).

hokkos 7y ago
What you wrote is so disingenuous it is unbelievable. So 228B€ for 50 years of 85% of the electricity consumption, and decarbonised. When with the push for renewable, it will cost 121B€ for currently 5,1% of wind and 1.9% for solar. Currently nuclear electricity is bought 42€/MWh by the useless competitor thanks to the ARENH, when wind cost us 89.4€/MWh and solar 294€/MWh and are not dispatchable, uncorrelated with consumption, intermittent, and will also add 30B€ to the grid because of the decentralised organisation. Also renewable made us build a gaz plan in Landivisiau because Brittany opposed the Plogoff nuclear plant and renewable are unreliable. Also you failed to mention, that what droved the rise in French electricity is solely because of the renewable. Germany didn't solve it's problem its electricity is still heavily carbonated. https://i.imgur.com/zatyuXX.png https://i.imgur.com/zatyuXX.png https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK2NouwWkAERV5V?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EK2NouwWkAERV5V?format=jpg&name=... https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2018-04/20180418-rapport-soutien-energies-renouvelables.pdf#page=46 https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2018-04/20180418... https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19506/file/Annexe%201_CSPE%202019.pdf#page14 https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19506/file/Annexe%201_CS... https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19600/file/Calculs%20Tarifs%20Metropole%20T11.xlsx https://www.cre.fr/content/download/19600/file/Calculs%20Tar... https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_%C3%A9lectrique_breton https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacte_%C3%A9lectrique_breton
- natmaka 7y ago
  > So 228B€ for 50 years of 85% of the electricity consumption Nope. Nuke plant did not provide 85% during those 50 years. It even doesn't today (only about 71%). In 1971 approximatively approx 5% of the French gridpower was produced by nuke plants. Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_France#Le_d%C3%A9ploiement_du_programme_nucl%C3%A9aire_civil https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrie_nucl%C3%A9aire_en_Fr... How exactly do you think it may have produced 85% of the gridpower for 50 years? This is inept and misleading. Moreover 228B€ is an estimation, the report states (folio 270) that the information is not available, mixed up with all other activities of EDF. The real cost may be superior. Everyone is free to interpret such opacity as good or bad sign. Even worse, the report explicitly states that it completely neglects the first batch of R&D, when civilian and military domains where not clearly separated, which was a major effort. Source: (folio 36) https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rapport_thematique_filiere_electronucleaire.pdf https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/EzPublish/Rappor... Therefore a fair part of fundamental research isn't accounted in those 228B€. Also: nuke energy is not (completely) decarbonised. Fuel extraction, transport... aren't. > When with the push for renewable, it will cost 121B€ for currently 5,1% of wind and 1.9% for solar. This 121B€ budget is not spent, as it starts in... 2018, ending in 2047! Putting it in front of the production right now is at best 'disingenuous', it is in fact a huge lie. You can't read the future, you can't know what renewables will produce in the 2019 to 2047 timeframe and afterwards, therefore there is no conclusion to draw, no way to consider this investment as a bad one. > Currently nuclear electricity is bought 42€/MWh by the useless competitor thanks to the ARENH Only 100TW (about 1/4 of the production), sold by specification at a price equal to the nuke official production price. Given the credits nuke engulfed and the decades of monopoly, this is a very low-key counterbalancing measure. > when wind cost us 89.4€/MWh and solar 294€/MWh and are not dispatchable, uncorrelated with consumption, intermittent, and will also add 30B€ to the grid because of the decentralised organisation. Germany chose this horrible wind/solar/biomass path. Poor Germans, they don't know that those challenges have no solution, that they are doomed to fail. You should inform them. An EPR or two may save them! > Also renewable made us build a gaz plan in Landivisiau because Brittany opposed the Plogoff nuclear plant and renewable are unreliable. A transition costs. At its very beginning nuke was engulfing huge amounts of money without producing anything significant during the 1950-1970 period. After 70 years, right now, nuke isn't a newborn, however new projects are very (very!) overbudget and late (Olkiluoto, Flamanville). > Also you failed to mention, that what droved the rise in French electricity is solely because of the renewable. Source? > Germany didn't solve it's problem its electricity is still heavily carbonated. This is a work in progress. At least do they really search for an elegant (non polluting but also not risk-inducing) solution, instead of raising the risk by letting aging plant run after their planned end-of-life date. French vs. Germany, on an industrial challenge. Lemme try to guess who will win...