4 ms·

> France is giving up on new nuclear plants because the can't build them sufficiently cheaply. No. France aiming at 50% of nuclear electricity (down from 75%)

> France is giving up on new nuclear plants because the can't build them sufficiently cheaply. No. France aiming at 50% of nuclear electricity (down from 75%) is a purely political move, to please some people that fear nuclear more than they fear climate change.

pfdietz 7y ago
It's the 50% that's the political statement. It's not realistic, given the state of the French nuclear industry, and their recent experience at building reactors. And I'm pretty sure their politician know this. There are no commitments there, real commitments with real money, to stay nuclear.
audunw 7y ago
I've never seen that anyone has been able to document this claim. Meanwhile it's pretty easy to show that nuclear today is too expensive. LCoE studies shows wind power being cheaper, and attempts at building nuclear reactors in Europe has repeatedly led to economic disasters. You could argue that you could get the cost down if you make a huge push for nuclear. But the last time we did that it was a combined push for nuclear weapons and energy, which made it easier to get support and funding for education and research. Now the only major application is energy. And though you could probably get the cost down to where it was before, the cost of renewables and storage is dropping very rapidly. It seems likely that renewables will reach a price point that nuclear could never catch up to, way before the cost of nuclear will be reasonable again. And since renewables will be so cheap, most countries will want at least 50% of energy to be renewable. And that will make covering the remaining 50% with nuclear more expensive, since you'd need more advanced and expensive load balancing power plants to support the renewables. I also think that the fact that renewables give us an increasing amount of days with overproduction, i.e. extremely cheap electricity, might be a very good thing when we'll want to create more hydrogen and synthetic fuels.
- maelito 7y ago
  > I've never seen that anyone has been able to document this claim. Are you aware that the French ministry of environment justifies closing Fessenheim because nuclear emits too much greenhouse gases ? And that some heads of EELV, the "green" french party, don't know what a life-cycle analysis is (or purposedly pretends not to know ) and asks for closing nuclear plants to be in line with the Paris 2015 climate deal ? This helps figure out how rational the current moves against nuclear are.
  - maelito 7y ago
    > And though you could probably get the cost down to where it was before, the cost of renewables and storage is dropping very rapidly. It seems likely that renewables will reach a price point that nuclear could never catch up to, way before the cost of nuclear will be reasonable again. And since renewables will be so cheap, most countries will want at least 50% of energy to be renewable. And that will make covering the remaining 50% with nuclear more expensive, since you'd need more advanced and expensive load balancing power plants to support the renewables. Without nuclear, with what life-cycle kgCO2e/kWh result, and when ?
    - pfdietz 7y ago
      In a post fossil fuel economy, and assuming CO2 from concrete manufacture is captured, CO2 emissions are zero. The question of CO2 emission before then, as fossil fuels are being phased out, is less important. During that process the better question is how much CO2 emission can be avoided per $ invested. By that metric, renewables will be much better than new nuclear.
Krasnol 7y ago
> is a purely political move, to please some people that fear nuclear more than they fear climate change. This is a lie. French people are overly pro-nuclear. It was and remains being about the costs. https://finance-commerce.com/2019/09/frances-nuclear-love-affair-shows-signs-of-souring/ https://finance-commerce.com/2019/09/frances-nuclear-love-af... Not only the costs of setting up new reactors but the costs of maintaining the old ones, maintaining waste and the ridiculously smaller costs of alternatives: https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-delivered-at-nuclears-expense-59426/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-del... It's dead. They don't even continue to throw money onto one of those seemingly "innovative" research programs anymore: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astrid/france-drops-plans-to-build-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactor-idUSKCN1VK0MC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri... And it's not only France: https://energypost.eu/200-400-nuclear-reactors-to-be-decommissioned-by-2040/ https://energypost.eu/200-400-nuclear-reactors-to-be-decommi...
- maelito 7y ago
  > This is a lie. French people are overly pro-nuclear. Have you seen that I've used the word "some" in my sentence ? This move was targeting a precise portion of the population. > Not only the costs of setting up new reactors but the costs of maintaining the old ones, maintaining waste and the ridiculously smaller costs of alternatives: https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-del.. https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-del.... You obviously know that the costs you refer to through this article do not include storage. Nor do not talk about the lifecycle carbon emissions.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    > Have you seen that I've used the word "some" in my sentence ? You don't make politics for "some" people. You make politics for the majority. Focusing on some minor group interest doesn't give you votes especially if their viewpoints contradict those of the majority. So what's your point there? It does not make any sense. > You obviously know that the costs you refer to through this article do not include storage. Nor do not talk about the lifecycle carbon emissions. Of course they do. This is the way decisions fall if you decide between several energy sources. You take everything in account and in the end you make a decision. The decision is: less nuclear.

pfdietz 7y ago

It's the 50% that's the political statement. It's not realistic, given the state of the French nuclear industry, and their recent experience at building reactors. And I'm pretty sure their politician know this. There are no commitments there, real commitments with real money, to stay nuclear.

audunw 7y ago

I've never seen that anyone has been able to document this claim. Meanwhile it's pretty easy to show that nuclear today is too expensive. LCoE studies shows wind power being cheaper, and attempts at building nuclear reactors in Europe has repeatedly led to economic disasters. You could argue that you could get the cost down if you make a huge push for nuclear. But the last time we did that it was a combined push for nuclear weapons and energy, which made it easier to get support and funding for education and research. Now the only major application is energy. And though you could probably get the cost down to where it was before, the cost of renewables and storage is dropping very rapidly. It seems likely that renewables will reach a price point that nuclear could never catch up to, way before the cost of nuclear will be reasonable again. And since renewables will be so cheap, most countries will want at least 50% of energy to be renewable. And that will make covering the remaining 50% with nuclear more expensive, since you'd need more advanced and expensive load balancing power plants to support the renewables. I also think that the fact that renewables give us an increasing amount of days with overproduction, i.e. extremely cheap electricity, might be a very good thing when we'll want to create more hydrogen and synthetic fuels.

maelito 7y ago
> I've never seen that anyone has been able to document this claim. Are you aware that the French ministry of environment justifies closing Fessenheim because nuclear emits too much greenhouse gases ? And that some heads of EELV, the "green" french party, don't know what a life-cycle analysis is (or purposedly pretends not to know ) and asks for closing nuclear plants to be in line with the Paris 2015 climate deal ? This helps figure out how rational the current moves against nuclear are.
- maelito 7y ago
  > And though you could probably get the cost down to where it was before, the cost of renewables and storage is dropping very rapidly. It seems likely that renewables will reach a price point that nuclear could never catch up to, way before the cost of nuclear will be reasonable again. And since renewables will be so cheap, most countries will want at least 50% of energy to be renewable. And that will make covering the remaining 50% with nuclear more expensive, since you'd need more advanced and expensive load balancing power plants to support the renewables. Without nuclear, with what life-cycle kgCO2e/kWh result, and when ?
  - pfdietz 7y ago
    In a post fossil fuel economy, and assuming CO2 from concrete manufacture is captured, CO2 emissions are zero. The question of CO2 emission before then, as fossil fuels are being phased out, is less important. During that process the better question is how much CO2 emission can be avoided per $ invested. By that metric, renewables will be much better than new nuclear.

Krasnol 7y ago

> is a purely political move, to please some people that fear nuclear more than they fear climate change. This is a lie. French people are overly pro-nuclear. It was and remains being about the costs. https://finance-commerce.com/2019/09/frances-nuclear-love-affair-shows-signs-of-souring/ https://finance-commerce.com/2019/09/frances-nuclear-love-af... Not only the costs of setting up new reactors but the costs of maintaining the old ones, maintaining waste and the ridiculously smaller costs of alternatives: https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-delivered-at-nuclears-expense-59426/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-del... It's dead. They don't even continue to throw money onto one of those seemingly "innovative" research programs anymore: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astrid/france-drops-plans-to-build-sodium-cooled-nuclear-reactor-idUSKCN1VK0MC https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-nuclearpower-astri... And it's not only France: https://energypost.eu/200-400-nuclear-reactors-to-be-decommissioned-by-2040/ https://energypost.eu/200-400-nuclear-reactors-to-be-decommi...

maelito 7y ago
> This is a lie. French people are overly pro-nuclear. Have you seen that I've used the word "some" in my sentence ? This move was targeting a precise portion of the population. > Not only the costs of setting up new reactors but the costs of maintaining the old ones, maintaining waste and the ridiculously smaller costs of alternatives: https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-del.. https://reneweconomy.com.au/france-solar-auction-success-del.... You obviously know that the costs you refer to through this article do not include storage. Nor do not talk about the lifecycle carbon emissions.
- Krasnol 7y ago
  > Have you seen that I've used the word "some" in my sentence ? You don't make politics for "some" people. You make politics for the majority. Focusing on some minor group interest doesn't give you votes especially if their viewpoints contradict those of the majority. So what's your point there? It does not make any sense. > You obviously know that the costs you refer to through this article do not include storage. Nor do not talk about the lifecycle carbon emissions. Of course they do. This is the way decisions fall if you decide between several energy sources. You take everything in account and in the end you make a decision. The decision is: less nuclear.