3 ms·

The whole French Nuclear industry is government owned, steered and run - there currently is no economic model in the western world, which supports a successful

by lispm 6y ago

The whole French Nuclear industry is government owned, steered and run - there currently is no economic model in the western world, which supports a successful market-based model for nuclear power. France runs a lot of totally outdated reactors, because there is not enough money available to replace them. Even extending the lifetimes costs a lot of money, which had better be invested in a future decentralized market-oriented energy landscape.

xroche 6y ago
> France runs a lot of totally outdated reactors, because there is not enough money available to replace them We don't replace them because there is no political will to do so, and the green party has successfully put fear-mongering campaigns against nuclear energy. > Even extending the lifetimes costs a lot of money, which had better be invested in a future decentralized market-oriented And yet France electricity cost is half the price of what you have in Germany, where you will find the "decentralized energy revolution".
- lispm 6y ago
  > We don't replace them because there is no political will to do so There is no money for it and France does not know how to do it --- see the exploding problems, costs and time overrun of the EPR. > And yet France electricity cost is half the price of what you have in Germany, where you will find the "decentralized energy revolution". The French tax payer pays. In Germany the electricity costs are higher for private consumers and cheaper for industrial consumers.
hokkos 6y ago
There is nothing wrong in having public investment only conventional nuclear plant. Small Modular Reactor is still a possibility for private investment. France reactors are not outdated but functional and updated for post Fukushima security standard following an independent authority audit, and initially envisaged for 40 years, but determined fit for 50 years, the same reactors are found to be suited for 100 years in the USA. The point is there is no needs to close and rebuild what is working, and as the lasted IEA NEA report showed the cheapest electricity is from lifetime extension of current nuclear, by wide margins, not renewable, in France. https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51110/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020-edition https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51110/projected-costs-of-ge...
orthecreedence 6y ago
> there currently is no economic model in the western world, which supports a successful market-based model for nuclear power. I keep seeing this argument, and every time I do, I think "who cares?" Why do we care if it's economically viable? We're facing catastrophic planetary change. Act now, worry about the economics later. Take a fraction of the military budget and build a bunch of state-owned nuclear power plants. Why does the market even need to enter into it at all? I keep beating this dead horse, but if you want to make nuclear economically viable, there's an incredibly easy solution: make the price of fossil fuels incorporate the cost of their externalities. When gas is $30/gallon, nuclear won't seem so bad. We should have been taxing them to all hell 20 years ago, but what better time than now? Why are we letting supply and demand determine such a crucial matter?
- lispm 6y ago
  > Take a fraction of the military budget and build a bunch of state-owned nuclear power plants. Sure, it will just not make an impact. Just more problems. Invest the money where the it scales to a solution.

by lispm 6y ago

xroche 6y ago

> France runs a lot of totally outdated reactors, because there is not enough money available to replace them We don't replace them because there is no political will to do so, and the green party has successfully put fear-mongering campaigns against nuclear energy. > Even extending the lifetimes costs a lot of money, which had better be invested in a future decentralized market-oriented And yet France electricity cost is half the price of what you have in Germany, where you will find the "decentralized energy revolution".

lispm 6y ago
> We don't replace them because there is no political will to do so There is no money for it and France does not know how to do it --- see the exploding problems, costs and time overrun of the EPR. > And yet France electricity cost is half the price of what you have in Germany, where you will find the "decentralized energy revolution". The French tax payer pays. In Germany the electricity costs are higher for private consumers and cheaper for industrial consumers.

hokkos 6y ago

There is nothing wrong in having public investment only conventional nuclear plant. Small Modular Reactor is still a possibility for private investment. France reactors are not outdated but functional and updated for post Fukushima security standard following an independent authority audit, and initially envisaged for 40 years, but determined fit for 50 years, the same reactors are found to be suited for 100 years in the USA. The point is there is no needs to close and rebuild what is working, and as the lasted IEA NEA report showed the cheapest electricity is from lifetime extension of current nuclear, by wide margins, not renewable, in France. https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51110/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020-edition https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_51110/projected-costs-of-ge...

orthecreedence 6y ago

> there currently is no economic model in the western world, which supports a successful market-based model for nuclear power. I keep seeing this argument, and every time I do, I think "who cares?" Why do we care if it's economically viable? We're facing catastrophic planetary change. Act now, worry about the economics later. Take a fraction of the military budget and build a bunch of state-owned nuclear power plants. Why does the market even need to enter into it at all? I keep beating this dead horse, but if you want to make nuclear economically viable, there's an incredibly easy solution: make the price of fossil fuels incorporate the cost of their externalities. When gas is $30/gallon, nuclear won't seem so bad. We should have been taxing them to all hell 20 years ago, but what better time than now? Why are we letting supply and demand determine such a crucial matter?

lispm 6y ago
> Take a fraction of the military budget and build a bunch of state-owned nuclear power plants. Sure, it will just not make an impact. Just more problems. Invest the money where the it scales to a solution.