4 ms·

France is massively subsidizing nuclear power, and just like everybody else, has no real long term solution for the nuclear waste. Also, if there is a major acc

France is massively subsidizing nuclear power, and just like everybody else, has no real long term solution for the nuclear waste. Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society. Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up.

marsouin 5y ago
If I may, the taxpayer always pays in France anyway, it's the very basis of our nation . Orano, the group in charge of nuclear waste management isn't bankrupt at all. Also, there is a special agency (ANDRA) in charge of it and french facilities reuse up to 96% of fossile materials, which is not so bad.
gambiting 5y ago
>>Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society So you mean exactly how with coal the entire society bears the cost of just running the plants? Even if we set climate change aside for a second, there are huge health downsides to burning coal. I mention coal specifically because we're talking about the contrast with Germany here. >>Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up. The only issue I have with this is that nuclear power plants should have never been operated by private companies in the first place. They should have been national property and taxpayer funded from start to finish.
- gitanovic 5y ago
  That might be a good solution, I also am against privatization of some strategic assets, and energy production is obviously one of them
- ElKrist 5y ago
  It's the case for France. Electricité de France (EDF) operates the nuclear plants and is owned at 84.5% by the French State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...
gitanovic 5y ago
Yes, and in the meanwhile they live in a cleaner place, whereas in Germany people breathe toxic particles in the air (including radioactive particles released by burning coal) Also, there are possible solutions to nuclear waste, such as auto-breeding reactors that basically burn waste, or energy amplifiers... that also reduce nuclear waste to waste products with much more manageable half lifes. IMO Being a luddite with nuclear energy means not looking at reality for what it is
- lolc 5y ago
  I agree about the pollution caused by coal and that trading nuclear for coal is bad. But don't you think the "down-breeding" was tried and failed? It's been 50 years now.
  - gitanovic 5y ago
    Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor The CANDU is a successful attempt, the energy amplifier was never attempted, and self breeding reactors are a material engineering problem (alas not yet completely solved), not a physics problem. Throwing a fraction of what we are spending to chase the "fusion dream" we could have achieved a great deal more for present reality. Again that's all IMO. edited: clarification
  - vfclists 5y ago
    How about IFR reactors - https://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm https://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
  - tremon 5y ago
    FAFAIK, breeder reactors have never been operated commercially. There have been proof-of-concept reactors in the 60s and 70s, but nothing in widespread operation because of the political uncertainty of nuclear power. According to [1], no new reactors have been built between roughly 1985 and 2015, and the only new reactors are now found in Russia and India. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...
Maakuth 5y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... in Finland there is a long term solution for the waste. The operations are expected to start in 2023. The rest of what you say is are regulatory issue. Similarly coal burning externalities are paid not by the generating companies but the rest of the society. Not that I'm suggesting coal and nuclear to be the only options.
- pyrale 5y ago
  There is also one scheduled in france https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    The solution is always just around the corner. I'd like to wait for it to actually work before accumulating ever more of the stuff.
    - pyrale 5y ago
      I mean, what is there that could fail? It's basically a hole in the ground, That's it. I know Germany prefers to strip-mine their coal these days, but digging tunnels several kilometers deep is a skill that's been mastered for more than a century.
      - bayesian_horse 5y ago
        Earthquakes, ground water, flooding, other geological activity. This stuff will be radioactive for longer than Humans will remember it is there. These discussions are way more complicated than you apparently think, and they are both scientific and political. Nobody wants this stuff in their backyard, even a few kilometres underground. And Germany is relatively densely populated, making "nobody's backyard" a tight constraint...
    - ryathal 5y ago
namdnay 5y ago
Why would France subsidise power it is selling to Germany? The initial research and construction was drvien by the government, but french power is now extremely profitable (EDF even had to artificially increase prices in order to avoid distorting the european energy market) Nuclear waste is not a real problem - the total amount of long-term waste produced by France is less than 10 tons a year. That's for a country of half a million square km..
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Germany is selling more Power to France than the other way around...
  - ElKrist 5y ago
    What's your source? Over the last 3 years, France has exported more TWh with "Central West Europe" (includes Germany) than imported: https://bilan-electrique-2020.rte-france.com/prix-echanges-solde-france-echanges/# https://bilan-electrique-2020.rte-france.com/prix-echanges-s...
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      It's true, I was remembering older figures. It changed because of Germany's changing energy mixture. But still, even though France is exporting more energy than importing, over the whole year, at certain times, especially in winter they have to import coal power...
paulintrognon 5y ago
>> Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society Same goes with, say, hydropower. If a dam breaks and flood a region, the tax payers will pay. Are you against hydrolic dams ? I obviously not saying that we should phase out dams, what I am saying is, nuclear power is one of the safest energy we have, funnily enough[0]. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy
brnt 5y ago
COVRA and Urenco have long term solutions (1kY) for storage and disposal. In Finland they have as well. Not sure why you think there isn't anything in place for this.
- roelschroeven 5y ago
  As far as I can see Urenco produces nuclear fuel (through uranium enrichment), so they have nothing to do with nuclear waste. COVRA only does temporary storage (100 years). They are coordinating research into finding a final long-term solution, meaning they don't have a solution currently. Where do you get that 1000 year duration? I don't know about the Finnish solution. Do you have some links about that?
belorn 5y ago
The story of France subsidize get a bit of a wrinkle if we look at the actually numbers (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/progress_on_energy_subsidies_in_particular_for_fossil_fuels.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/progress_on_ene...). French subsidizes on nuclear is about the same size as Germany, but that is not the most strangest fact. The biggest subsidizes french pay on the energy grid is for fossil fuel! The fossil fuel subsidizes is also almost identical in size to Germany subsidizes to fossil fuels. Germany actually spend twice the amount of total subsidizes than France in the energy sector, with half of it going to renewables. The amount of nuclear subsidizes and fossil fuel subsidizes are similar, but then they have the combined amount added to just renewables. In raw numbers, the French pay about €25 billions of subsidizes with fossil fuels getting the biggest share. In Germany that is €50 billions, with about €25 billions going exclusively to renewables.
sofixa 5y ago
> Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up. That's just flat out wrong. Decomissioning costs are included in the TCO and electricity price, and IIRC for Hinckley Point C it's a big chunk of the costs. Furthermore, EDF is state-owned and won't just go bankrupt. Yes, the taxpayer will cover any shortcoming, but at least significant efforts are made to plan for decomissioning and cover the costs from the start; can anything similar be said about coal?

marsouin 5y ago

If I may, the taxpayer always pays in France anyway, it's the very basis of our nation . Orano, the group in charge of nuclear waste management isn't bankrupt at all. Also, there is a special agency (ANDRA) in charge of it and french facilities reuse up to 96% of fossile materials, which is not so bad.

gambiting 5y ago

>>Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society So you mean exactly how with coal the entire society bears the cost of just running the plants? Even if we set climate change aside for a second, there are huge health downsides to burning coal. I mention coal specifically because we're talking about the contrast with Germany here. >>Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up. The only issue I have with this is that nuclear power plants should have never been operated by private companies in the first place. They should have been national property and taxpayer funded from start to finish.

gitanovic 5y ago
That might be a good solution, I also am against privatization of some strategic assets, and energy production is obviously one of them
ElKrist 5y ago
It's the case for France. Electricité de France (EDF) operates the nuclear plants and is owned at 84.5% by the French State https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_Franc...

gitanovic 5y ago

Yes, and in the meanwhile they live in a cleaner place, whereas in Germany people breathe toxic particles in the air (including radioactive particles released by burning coal) Also, there are possible solutions to nuclear waste, such as auto-breeding reactors that basically burn waste, or energy amplifiers... that also reduce nuclear waste to waste products with much more manageable half lifes. IMO Being a luddite with nuclear energy means not looking at reality for what it is

lolc 5y ago
I agree about the pollution caused by coal and that trading nuclear for coal is bad. But don't you think the "down-breeding" was tried and failed? It's been 50 years now.
- gitanovic 5y ago
  Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor The CANDU is a successful attempt, the energy amplifier was never attempted, and self breeding reactors are a material engineering problem (alas not yet completely solved), not a physics problem. Throwing a fraction of what we are spending to chase the "fusion dream" we could have achieved a great deal more for present reality. Again that's all IMO. edited: clarification
- vfclists 5y ago
  How about IFR reactors - https://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm https://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifr.htm
- tremon 5y ago
  FAFAIK, breeder reactors have never been operated commercially. There have been proof-of-concept reactors in the 60s and 70s, but nothing in widespread operation because of the political uncertainty of nuclear power. According to [1], no new reactors have been built between roughly 1985 and 2015, and the only new reactors are now found in Russia and India. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_and_notable_breeder_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Development_an...

Maakuth 5y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... in Finland there is a long term solution for the waste. The operations are expected to start in 2023. The rest of what you say is are regulatory issue. Similarly coal burning externalities are paid not by the generating companies but the rest of the society. Not that I'm suggesting coal and nuclear to be the only options.

pyrale 5y ago
There is also one scheduled in france https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cig%C3%A9o
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  The solution is always just around the corner. I'd like to wait for it to actually work before accumulating ever more of the stuff.
  - pyrale 5y ago
    I mean, what is there that could fail? It's basically a hole in the ground, That's it. I know Germany prefers to strip-mine their coal these days, but digging tunnels several kilometers deep is a skill that's been mastered for more than a century.
    - bayesian_horse 5y ago
      Earthquakes, ground water, flooding, other geological activity. This stuff will be radioactive for longer than Humans will remember it is there. These discussions are way more complicated than you apparently think, and they are both scientific and political. Nobody wants this stuff in their backyard, even a few kilometres underground. And Germany is relatively densely populated, making "nobody's backyard" a tight constraint...
  - ryathal 5y ago

namdnay 5y ago

Why would France subsidise power it is selling to Germany? The initial research and construction was drvien by the government, but french power is now extremely profitable (EDF even had to artificially increase prices in order to avoid distorting the european energy market) Nuclear waste is not a real problem - the total amount of long-term waste produced by France is less than 10 tons a year. That's for a country of half a million square km..

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Germany is selling more Power to France than the other way around...
- ElKrist 5y ago
  What's your source? Over the last 3 years, France has exported more TWh with "Central West Europe" (includes Germany) than imported: https://bilan-electrique-2020.rte-france.com/prix-echanges-solde-france-echanges/# https://bilan-electrique-2020.rte-france.com/prix-echanges-s...
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    It's true, I was remembering older figures. It changed because of Germany's changing energy mixture. But still, even though France is exporting more energy than importing, over the whole year, at certain times, especially in winter they have to import coal power...

paulintrognon 5y ago

>> Also, if there is a major accident, it is not the power companies or their investors that will pay the cost, it is the tax payers and the rest of society Same goes with, say, hydropower. If a dam breaks and flood a region, the tax payers will pay. Are you against hydrolic dams ? I obviously not saying that we should phase out dams, what I am saying is, nuclear power is one of the safest energy we have, funnily enough[0]. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

brnt 5y ago

COVRA and Urenco have long term solutions (1kY) for storage and disposal. In Finland they have as well. Not sure why you think there isn't anything in place for this.

roelschroeven 5y ago
As far as I can see Urenco produces nuclear fuel (through uranium enrichment), so they have nothing to do with nuclear waste. COVRA only does temporary storage (100 years). They are coordinating research into finding a final long-term solution, meaning they don't have a solution currently. Where do you get that 1000 year duration? I don't know about the Finnish solution. Do you have some links about that?

belorn 5y ago

The story of France subsidize get a bit of a wrinkle if we look at the actually numbers (https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/progress_on_energy_subsidies_in_particular_for_fossil_fuels.pdf https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/progress_on_ene...). French subsidizes on nuclear is about the same size as Germany, but that is not the most strangest fact. The biggest subsidizes french pay on the energy grid is for fossil fuel! The fossil fuel subsidizes is also almost identical in size to Germany subsidizes to fossil fuels. Germany actually spend twice the amount of total subsidizes than France in the energy sector, with half of it going to renewables. The amount of nuclear subsidizes and fossil fuel subsidizes are similar, but then they have the combined amount added to just renewables. In raw numbers, the French pay about €25 billions of subsidizes with fossil fuels getting the biggest share. In Germany that is €50 billions, with about €25 billions going exclusively to renewables.

sofixa 5y ago

> Same with decommissioning the nuclear plants, for which the companies are supposed to hold back some funds, but they just undercalculate that, go bankrupt and the taxpayer pays up. That's just flat out wrong. Decomissioning costs are included in the TCO and electricity price, and IIRC for Hinckley Point C it's a big chunk of the costs. Furthermore, EDF is state-owned and won't just go bankrupt. Yes, the taxpayer will cover any shortcoming, but at least significant efforts are made to plan for decomissioning and cover the costs from the start; can anything similar be said about coal?