4 ms·

France's peak energy consumption is more than 40% higher than it's trough energy demand [1]. Most years France generates ~10% of its energy from fossil fuels. N

France's peak energy consumption is more than 40% higher than it's trough energy demand [1]. Most years France generates ~10% of its energy from fossil fuels. Nuclear was indeed used to supply a substantial part of the peak energy demand. The substantial majority of its peak demand was fulfilled with nuclear energy. France's share of fossil fuels actually used to be lower than 10%. France's more recent uptick in fossil fuels accompanied by a drop in the share of nuclear power generation [2]. Renewable energy production increased, but its intermittency leads to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. A real world example of how the shortcomings of renewables as compared to nuclear power results in more carbon emissions. As per your own comments, solar and wind even with substantial overproduction leave a quarter of electricity demand unfulfilled. The places that are fortunate to have hydroelectric or geothermal power available could go carbon free, but the rest are left supplying a quarter of energy with fossil fuels. The overproduction puts their price well above the cost of nuclear when you don't cherry pick one of the most infamous cost overruns as a representative example. And let's just be generous and ignore the ecological devastation caused by covering 2-4% of the Earth's land surface in solar panels. So we have a more expensive option that leaves a quarter of electricity demand to be fulfilled by other sources (mostly fossil fuels), requires massive amounts of land to be cleared and covered in solar panels, and is subject the challenges of intermittent power generation. And we have nuclear, which is cheaper, much less land intensive, and generates consistent energy. The superior choice is unambiguous. And real world examples demonstrate this. Look at the disparity between France and Germany. The former is the posterchild of nuclear, the latter the posterchild of renewables. France's carbon intensity of electricity is usually more than a factor of 4 times smaller than Germany's. We've already put nuclear and renewables to the test. And nuclear proves to be far superior. 1. https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/daily-load-curves.html https://www.services-rte.com/en/view-data-published-by-rte/d... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/media/File:France_Electricity_production_1981-2017_(EIA).png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France#/...

philipkglass 6y ago
I'll be interested again when France builds new reactors cheaper than new renewables. Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3, even if they don't have further cost overruns, are going to produce electricity at a higher cost per MWh than German solar farms completed in the same year. If France does build 6 more EPRs, a proposal floated last year, they will have a chance to prove that the problems to date were merely FOAK learning experiences.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  France doesn't need to build new reactors largely because it's existing reactor fleet is still enough to fulfill demand. That's one of the biggest advantages of nuclear power, it lasts for the better part of a century not a decade or two. A serial run if reactor production makes more sense once the disparity between supply and demand is greater. I'll be interested in renewables once Germany's carbon intensity per Watt is on the same order of magnitude as France. They need to drop from ~500 grams per Watt to under a hundred.

philipkglass 6y ago

I'll be interested again when France builds new reactors cheaper than new renewables. Flamanville 3 and Olkiluoto 3, even if they don't have further cost overruns, are going to produce electricity at a higher cost per MWh than German solar farms completed in the same year. If France does build 6 more EPRs, a proposal floated last year, they will have a chance to prove that the problems to date were merely FOAK learning experiences.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
France doesn't need to build new reactors largely because it's existing reactor fleet is still enough to fulfill demand. That's one of the biggest advantages of nuclear power, it lasts for the better part of a century not a decade or two. A serial run if reactor production makes more sense once the disparity between supply and demand is greater. I'll be interested in renewables once Germany's carbon intensity per Watt is on the same order of magnitude as France. They need to drop from ~500 grams per Watt to under a hundred.