4 ms·

This will provide a nice data-point for those who argue nuclear makes more financial sense over wind/solar/battery, but some anti-nuclear cabal is stopping thei

This will provide a nice data-point for those who argue nuclear makes more financial sense over wind/solar/battery, but some anti-nuclear cabal is stopping their construction. Maybe they are right and France will make lots of money selling energy to its neighbors, or they are wrong, and France will be stuck with some of the highest energy prices in the euro region.

LatteLazy 5y ago
Of course, no one will know for over a decade while these are being built. Assuming they come in on schedule. And that France ever admits the costs. And by then people will be on to arguing the next next generation really will be much better this time...
marcosdumay 5y ago
Or some group will stop their construction... I think nuclear doesn't make sense nowadays, but it's hard to disagree that there are many groups working hard to stop it. How you decided it's a conspiracy cabal somewhere eludes me, they are very visible and very loud.
- megaman821 5y ago
  Where there are large profits to be made, detractors seem to have very little effect. Why are these groups so much effective than deforestation, blood diamonds, or child labor groups?
  - marcosdumay 5y ago
    You are asking why those groups can't stop what is mostly illegal activities, but have an impact on ones that are completely dependent on formal government involvement?
neamar 5y ago
France has historically been a net exporter of its mostly nuclear electricity. Electricity price is average compared to the rest of Europe, https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/ https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/
- Gwypaas 5y ago
  With government subsidies everything can be made to look cheap. Not saying we should not subsidize some energy production, but nuclear seems like a woefully inefficient use of it. >In 2010, as part of the progressive liberalisation of the energy market under EU directives, France agreed the Accès régulé à l'électricité nucléaire historique (ARENH) regulations that allowed third party suppliers access up to about a quarter of France's pre-2011 nuclear generation capacity, at a fixed price of €42/MWh from 1 July 2011 until 31 December 2025.[47][48][49] > As of 2015, France's household electricity price, excluding taxation, is the 12th cheapest amongst the 28 member European Union and the second-cheapest to industrial consumers.[50] The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is not published by EDF or the French government but is estimated to be between €59/MWh and €83/MWh.[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
  - panick21_ 5y ago
    All power in Europe is subsidies in so many different ways. An accurate comparison of prices is basically impossible. I would argue, by literally any meassure, French investment in nuclear in the 60-70 was absolutely paid off. CO2 saved in the 80s is far better then CO2 saved now. The only reason nuclear didn't become universal in the US is cheap coal plants. The US would be 100x better off if they had build a few 100 nuclear reactors instead.
    - Gwypaas 5y ago
      The main reason is cost. Then gas plants undercut everything which had a steam cycle and the nuclear industry has been living on government handouts ever since. Alternating between "small and modular" and "big and efficient" to have something to try and hype with. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Over-commitment_and_cancellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... > By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[48] > Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[49][50][51] > Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[52] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States: > Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[53]

LatteLazy 5y ago

Of course, no one will know for over a decade while these are being built. Assuming they come in on schedule. And that France ever admits the costs. And by then people will be on to arguing the next next generation really will be much better this time...

marcosdumay 5y ago

Or some group will stop their construction... I think nuclear doesn't make sense nowadays, but it's hard to disagree that there are many groups working hard to stop it. How you decided it's a conspiracy cabal somewhere eludes me, they are very visible and very loud.

megaman821 5y ago
Where there are large profits to be made, detractors seem to have very little effect. Why are these groups so much effective than deforestation, blood diamonds, or child labor groups?
- marcosdumay 5y ago
  You are asking why those groups can't stop what is mostly illegal activities, but have an impact on ones that are completely dependent on formal government involvement?

neamar 5y ago

France has historically been a net exporter of its mostly nuclear electricity. Electricity price is average compared to the rest of Europe, https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/ https://strom-report.de/electricity-prices-europe/

Gwypaas 5y ago
With government subsidies everything can be made to look cheap. Not saying we should not subsidize some energy production, but nuclear seems like a woefully inefficient use of it. >In 2010, as part of the progressive liberalisation of the energy market under EU directives, France agreed the Accès régulé à l'électricité nucléaire historique (ARENH) regulations that allowed third party suppliers access up to about a quarter of France's pre-2011 nuclear generation capacity, at a fixed price of €42/MWh from 1 July 2011 until 31 December 2025.[47][48][49] > As of 2015, France's household electricity price, excluding taxation, is the 12th cheapest amongst the 28 member European Union and the second-cheapest to industrial consumers.[50] The actual cost of generating electricity by nuclear power is not published by EDF or the French government but is estimated to be between €59/MWh and €83/MWh.[51] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
- panick21_ 5y ago
  All power in Europe is subsidies in so many different ways. An accurate comparison of prices is basically impossible. I would argue, by literally any meassure, French investment in nuclear in the 60-70 was absolutely paid off. CO2 saved in the 80s is far better then CO2 saved now. The only reason nuclear didn't become universal in the US is cheap coal plants. The US would be 100x better off if they had build a few 100 nuclear reactors instead.
  - Gwypaas 5y ago
    The main reason is cost. Then gas plants undercut everything which had a steam cycle and the nuclear industry has been living on government handouts ever since. Alternating between "small and modular" and "big and efficient" to have something to try and hype with. From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#Over-commitment_and_cancellations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_St... > By the mid-1970s it became clear that nuclear power would not grow nearly as quickly as once believed. Cost overruns were sometimes a factor of ten above original industry estimates, and became a major problem. For the 75 nuclear power reactors built from 1966 to 1977, cost overruns averaged 207 percent. Opposition and problems were galvanized by the Three Mile Island accident in 1979.[48] > Over-commitment to nuclear power brought about the financial collapse of the Washington Public Power Supply System, a public agency which undertook to build five large nuclear power plants in the 1970s. By 1983, cost overruns and delays, along with a slowing of electricity demand growth, led to cancellation of two WPPSS plants and a construction halt on two others. Moreover, WPPSS defaulted on $2.25 billion of municipal bonds, which is one of the largest municipal bond defaults in U.S. history. The court case that followed took nearly a decade to resolve.[49][50][51] > Eventually, more than 120 reactor orders were cancelled,[52] and the construction of new reactors ground to a halt. Al Gore has commented on the historical record and reliability of nuclear power in the United States: > Of the 253 nuclear power reactors originally ordered in the United States from 1953 to 2008, 48 percent were canceled, 11 percent were prematurely shut down, 14 percent experienced at least a one-year-or-more outage, and 27 percent are operating without having a year-plus outage. Thus, only about one fourth of those ordered, or about half of those completed, are still operating and have proved relatively reliable.[53]