15 ms·

Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions withou

by d--b 5y ago

Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy. But whether this happens or not remains to be seen.

Nbox9 5y ago
> It's particularly smart in this moment It may be particularly smart for this moment in internal French politics, but energy independence is a smart move for any sovereign.
- baud147258 5y ago
  well, with nuclear you're (and in this case, we're) still dependent on uranium mines and all the equipment that's require to build and maintain those power plants, some of which might not be manufactured in the countries
  - mlyle 5y ago
    That may be a problem in the long term, but there's not some spigot of gas you can turn off and cause an immediate problem.
    - Sanzig 5y ago
      Uranium is also much easier to trasport than gas thanks to the ridiculously high energy density of uranium. Reactor grade uranium has an energy density of about 3,500,000 MJ/kg in a light water reactor, whereas natural gas is about 55 MJ/kg - so uranium is about 64,000 times more energy dense on a per kilo basis. You don't need pipelines or fancy LNG terminals, either - it's pretty easy to transport in relatively unexciting bulk containers. So, once the security concerns are addressed, you can buy uranium from any country willing to sell it to you and ship it. The number two and number three producers of uranium worldwide are Canada and Australia, both of which France is very friendly with (a submarine kerfuffle with the latter notwithstanding).
      - mlyle 5y ago
        Sure, and France reprocesses, too, which aids fuel security. Of course, this doesn't mean they control the entire supply chain for needed parts for nuclear-- but if some critical piece broke they wouldn't have no energy immediately, either.
  - throw0101a 5y ago
    The top four producers of uranium (per tonnage) are Kazakhstan, Australia, Namibia, Canada: * https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu... Better than being dependent on oil and gas, especially if your current supplier is Russia.
    - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
      uranium doesn't matter, its fairly common. It's enriching that uranium that is held closley and is considered the 'Hard' part. Fun fact; This was the key measure in obamas iran deal. The US would give them the enriched uranium if they shut down their nuclear research.
  - imnotlost 5y ago
    Dependencies are a fact of life. Question is, does Europe really want to depend on journalist/dissident-murdering Russia?
    - galangalalgol 5y ago
      It is even in Russia's best interest to ne encouraged to diversify their economy before they simply run out of natural resources. If there is a steady decrease in the sale price of fossil fuels instead of a sudden one they will have more time to adapt right?
      - FredPret 5y ago
        I don't think that's really a worry (running out of resources). Our deepest mines are a paltry 4km; forests can be managed. Oil, gas, and coal will eventually run out, but the prices will have by then have risen to the point that use at scale will be impractical.
      - jurip 5y ago
        Those natural resources will last longer than Putin and his friends will be around.
  - Terry_Roll 5y ago
    The largest uranium fuel depot in the world is Chernobyl, Ukraine. Russia nearly bankrupted itself when it contained the nuclear disaster and even Gorbachev thinks it was Chernobyl that ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. Now with this in mind, I wouldnt be surprised considering the sanctions on Russia, if they perhaps make a grab for the uranium in Chernobyl and sell it, to claw back some of the costs they incurred for cleaning up Chernobyl. Strategically, it was useful for Russian politics to have something as risky as the Chernobyl nuke power station in the Ukraine during the soviet union era, ie different country if anything went wrong nothing to do with us sort of thing. However thats how it remains until now where the Iranians need uranium after their enrichers were destroyed with Stuxnet, so you have one potential customer there, you also have India & Pakistan, Israel as well as the UK and France who will all be needing a bit more uranium as we get off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.
    - skhr0680 5y ago
      > Strategically, it was useful for Russian politics to have something as risky as the Chernobyl nuke power station in the Ukraine during the soviet union era, ie different country if anything went wrong nothing to do with us sort of thing. The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP
      - Terry_Roll 5y ago
        It would appear that some countries also view nuke power stations like offensive firewalls, that's the Baltic sea nations captured in some respect. Germany's car industry and Russian Oil wealth is also a partnership I see.
      - djcapelis 5y ago
        > The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP Along with three units each in Kursk and Smolensk NPPs. Plus I think a lot of people don't realize some of the other reactor units at Chernobyl continued operating until the last one finally shut down in 2000.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
- mhh__ 5y ago
  Hinkley Point doesn't look so expensive now (Electricity forwards have been greater than the rate the reactor is supposed to cost since august)
  - Xixi 5y ago
    Also keep in mind, a lot of the cost of Hinkley Point is not so much the cost to build the reactors, but the financing. Speaking from memory, we are talking about borrowing at something like 10% over 35 years. If France finances these new power plants, financing cost goes virtually to zero. So even if actually building the new reactors cost the same (unlikely, I hope they learnt a thing or two over the last 10 years...) they will end up a lot cheaper than Hinkley Point.
    - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
      Also insurance. All plants in the USA are insured by the government, I'm sure the same is true in France as well.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - epistasis 5y ago
      Finance is not free, there is always opportunity cost.
      - tim333 5y ago
        Interest rates are very low still though. Governments can borrow at nearer to 1% than 10%.
        epistasis 5y ago
        But that money could also be applied in other areas of the economy, that might have far better payback. And with France's current track record of nuclear construction, throwing more money at nuclear without fixing the fundamental problems first is serious misallocation of capital. Just the latest news that is the same as the last decade of bad news: > EDF now estimates the total cost of the project at 12.7 billion euros ($14.42 billion). Its expected cost has more than quadrupled from the first estimate made in 2004. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-delay-higher-costs-flamanville-3-reactor-2022-01-12/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de... $15B of lithium ion battery factory would have far far greater carbon impact, dollar for dollar. $1B on early stage startups would similarly be more impactful.
- stewbrew 5y ago
  Speaking about independence: where does the uran come from? And how is this clever since the EDF cannot sell their nuclear power without making losses?
  - eps 5y ago
    Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia Followed by Namibia, Niger, Russia, Uzbekistan, the US and China. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Uranium_production%2C_OWID.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Uranium_...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deepsun 5y ago
    > where does the uran come from All over the place. Uranite is pretty common. E.g. Canada has 200+ locations: https://www.mindat.org/min-4102.html https://www.mindat.org/min-4102.html (scroll to the very bottom).
    - natmaka 5y ago
      If a nuclear 'renaissance' arises, strategy will be at play: Russia and the US will obtain uranium from their 'partners', in Africa China will probably gain new partnerships, and other nations may encounter some difficulties. Moreover (source: UNECE): "mining impacts are technically highly dependent on ore grade, as the efforts required to extract a fixed quantity of ore is proportional to the amount of rock to be extracted, therefore inversely proportional to the grade. This is true at the individual mine level, for which such a model could be derived; more importantly, this assumption is valid for open pit and underground mines. Warner and Heath test this relationship and its influence over the full life cycle of the technology, showing that a lowering ore grade may lead to tripling life-cycle GHG emissions by 2050 in case of a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity" Read: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290... "Depending on conditions, median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."
- laserbeam 5y ago
  One does not exclude the other :p In general, whatever a politician's motivation is for any particular bill may or may not be aligned to yours, even though you may both agree on the outcome of that bill. And that's ok.
grammers 5y ago
Exactly. Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is just a political move for the upcoming election.
- nixass 5y ago
  >Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is just a political move for the upcoming election. Of course, that's why it says first reactor will go live in 2035, not in a day
  - karaterobot 5y ago
    Can't tell if you're joking, but I think they mean that the positive effects of making the promise are immediate for Macron, but he won't have to deal with the actual cost, logistics, political maneuvering, etc., until after he's re-elected, if at all. Cynically, he could make promises he has no intention of keeping.
    - signatoremo 5y ago
      It goes both way, isn’t it? Whoever in power in 2035 who will get to cut the ribbon of the reactors will make it like their own victory. Macron’s name and whatever he would do to make it happen will be conveniently forgotten.
  - adrianN 5y ago
    It's a pity that we should be completely carbon neutral around 2040 give or take a couple of years and power plants that go online in ten to fifteen years (if they are actually done by that time) save zero emissions until then.
- FrenchAmerican 5y ago
  I respectfully disagree on that. It"s on the contrary a decision made a few months before the elections - so that the French energy policy won't be a matter of debate on the voting day. French citizens have never been put in a position to vote between a pronuclear candidate and an antinuclear one. Well, of course, there are ecologists on the first round of the vote, but on the second rounds, both candidates are always pronuclear. Of course, they all started ten years to include electoral promises to balance the energy mix with more renewables but none delivered: France has recently been recognized as being at the worst country in the European Union with only 19% of renewables in our mix - despite having signed to reach 23% this year. The left is deeply divided on the matter ; in fact, the left is divided on all ecological issues: agriculture, industry, energy ... The right is pro-big-polluting agriculture in the name of our commercial deficit (we export a.lot), anti-regulation of industry on ecological grounds because our industry is weak (which is true but not a reason), and pronuclear in the name of sovereignty - on the energy issue but also for military reasons. The fact that the nuclear energy enables France to emit far less CO2 is just a welcome argument. But if we had petrol like Norway, it would be "drill, baby, drill !". The nuclear energy has nothing to do historically in France with ecology and the climate issue will reinforce that totally nondemocratic decision taken by the General De Gaulle in the name of our Grandeur. A policy that our technostructure follows without any true democratic supervision. Check and balances exist only on safety matters, but absolutely none of the French energy mix. Nowadays it has become a political subject of course. But it's really just theater and will stay so for quite a while. The public opinion had been leaning on the right more and more for the last 20 years. When elected, self-called Socialists acted clearly on a center-right: really more like Manchin than Biden (in a daring transposition of very different political landscapes). Funny detail: the French scientists had stalled in the research of the atomic bomb. That was a problem for the US in the context of the Cold War. So the US told the British to tip us in the right direction. That direction had already been deeply worked on but dismissed by the French scientists. That was very discrete, not even officially recognized by some secret treaty. A prominent English nuclear scientist had a good friend among the French team. He visited him for lunch a Sunday. They talked physics. The UK has already its bomb, so the French noticed when his friend wondered aloud if that path come be "another way" to reach fission. But the British moved on another subject immediately. Friends don't need many words. To thank the US, France later helped Israel - a lot - to build their own atomic bomb faster. Then France made a 180º turn in its foreign policy and sided with the Arab countries on the Israël/Palestine issue. When Arafat and his troops were besieged in Beyruth by Tsahal, France evacuated them to Tunisia.
rodgerd 5y ago
A point which may not be well-understood by people unfamiliar with French economic history is that for much of post-WW II period, France's power prices have been dramatically lower that other Western European countries (for industry, anyway). One of the challenges that moves to get away from nuclear generation have caused is the prospect of hurting the French industrial base more than it's already been undermined by offshoring. (The other concern is keeping an independent nuclear arsenal, which is completely coupled to having reactors.)
- secondaryacct 5y ago
  Not with fusion: the fusion reactors we aim at building eventually will have no relationship with our submarine fleet roaming the ocean pointing nukes at everyone.
  - throwaway2048 5y ago
    you need to prepare for what you know what will happen, not just what you hope will happen.
- Retric 5y ago
  Those where low wholesale prices via government subsides. Germany “subsidized” very early wind/solar adoption by forcing electricity consumers to pay through the nose for it. That isn’t to say either model is better, just that you can’t look at wholesale prices and see the underlying economic realities. Time is running out on early German subsides where France still needs to pay for decommissioning. France has a great track record with nuclear and I hope they can continue to leverage that excellence. Doing so cost effectively is more difficult especially when adding ever more inexpensive wind/solar generation to the EU grid.
  - julienb_sea 5y ago
    Wind/solar generation have fundamental availability constraints that require supplementing with on-demand generation capacity. Nuclear is not exactly an answer for on-demand capacity because it is not possible to rapidly spin up and down, but having additional nuclear availability should allow France to have greater clean, stable energy capacity. It additionally introduces the possibility of broader energy exports to other European nations.
sharken 5y ago
[flagged]
KennyBlanken 5y ago
> Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. Only over the course of many decades do they net reduce carbon emissions, at the cost of much higher carbon emissions during the construction phase. Right now we need to be implementing the fastest carbon reductions possible and this does the exact opposite; for the next fifteen years, these plants will be a massive carbon emissions increase, and then it will take many years of operation to "pay that back." By then it will be far too late. Nuclear is one of the most expensive electricity generating technologies and it has only gotten more expensive, while solar, wind, and battery technologies are following expected plunging cost paths. Nuclear power plants are difficult to site geologically, difficult to site grid-wise (because the only way they are economical is through massive scale, and you can't just drop 5, 10, or more gigawatts onto the grid just anywhere), there is no need for base load which is the only thing nuke can provide (either in terms of capability, or economically), they don't like fussy climates/extreme weather (and if they use natural bodies of water, are vulnerable to invasive species, increasingly a problem around the world), they have very deep and exacting supply chains when countries have experienced significant supply chain problems for numerous different reasons, and you can't just snap your fingers and have qualified staff to run the plant. They require significant socio-political stability (functioning education, security, accountable political leadership_, and generate material that is extremely dangerous to life for generations, and have the potential to render entire geographical regions uninhabitable, again for generations. Guess what has none of these problems? Solar. Wind. Hydro. Energy storage. Nuclear power also doesn't solve the fundamental problems: the environmental impact of staggeringly large militaries, the amount of 'disposable' packaging used in almost everything, the cross-planet shipping of consumer goods most of which are, frankly, useless, heavy use of low occupancy vehicle travel, poor building efficiency, and proof-of-work cryptocurrency schemes.
- truthof080616 5y ago
- joshgachnang 5y ago
  I'd love some sources comparing the carbon emissions from building them, because otherwise I'm a big supporter of nuclear energy. I'd rather go solar/wind/hydro but I think they have some (not all) of the issues you've noted as well.
xps 5y ago
> It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy. This may help lowering the reliance of France on Russia but its energy production will still be reliant on other countries, as 100% of the required fuel (uranium) is imported.
- theshrike79 5y ago
  100% of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia. Uranium producing countries include Australia and Canada, who are a bit less crazy with their international politics and military movements.
  - kwhitefoot 5y ago
    > 100% of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia. No it doesn't. It's about a third. The total at the end of 2021 was about 8500 million cubic metre, divided as follows: Norway 3000, Russia 2300, LNG 2200, Algeria 640. https://www.bruegel.org/publications/datasets/european-natural-gas-imports/ https://www.bruegel.org/publications/datasets/european-natur...
JPLeRouzic 5y ago
> Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Exactly, Macron has a very long history of changing of advice, sometimes after just a few days. In 2017 he campaigned to stop most nuclear plants in France (which are really old anyway) [0]. I think here those statements were more to sooth the "CGT" and the big companies in the field after the government last statements on EDF. [1] He was the guy who dismantle Alstom to GE's and EDF's profits, then made Alstom buy what it just sold. It's hard to see any consistent strategy in any of his actions, except from a political point of view. He probably don't care of anything on any subject, it's just a matter of having the best posture to win elections. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-energy-strike-idUSKCN1NW1OZ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-energy-strike-idUS... [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/power-group-edfs-shares-slump-after-edf-drops-earnings-guidance-2022-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/power-group-edfs-sha...

by d--b 5y ago

Nbox9 5y ago

> It's particularly smart in this moment It may be particularly smart for this moment in internal French politics, but energy independence is a smart move for any sovereign.

baud147258 5y ago
well, with nuclear you're (and in this case, we're) still dependent on uranium mines and all the equipment that's require to build and maintain those power plants, some of which might not be manufactured in the countries
- mlyle 5y ago
  That may be a problem in the long term, but there's not some spigot of gas you can turn off and cause an immediate problem.
  - Sanzig 5y ago
    Uranium is also much easier to trasport than gas thanks to the ridiculously high energy density of uranium. Reactor grade uranium has an energy density of about 3,500,000 MJ/kg in a light water reactor, whereas natural gas is about 55 MJ/kg - so uranium is about 64,000 times more energy dense on a per kilo basis. You don't need pipelines or fancy LNG terminals, either - it's pretty easy to transport in relatively unexciting bulk containers. So, once the security concerns are addressed, you can buy uranium from any country willing to sell it to you and ship it. The number two and number three producers of uranium worldwide are Canada and Australia, both of which France is very friendly with (a submarine kerfuffle with the latter notwithstanding).
    - mlyle 5y ago
      Sure, and France reprocesses, too, which aids fuel security. Of course, this doesn't mean they control the entire supply chain for needed parts for nuclear-- but if some critical piece broke they wouldn't have no energy immediately, either.
- throw0101a 5y ago
  The top four producers of uranium (per tonnage) are Kazakhstan, Australia, Namibia, Canada: * https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/mining-of-uranium/world-uranium-mining-production.aspx https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fu... Better than being dependent on oil and gas, especially if your current supplier is Russia.
  - TrapLord_Rhodo 5y ago
    uranium doesn't matter, its fairly common. It's enriching that uranium that is held closley and is considered the 'Hard' part. Fun fact; This was the key measure in obamas iran deal. The US would give them the enriched uranium if they shut down their nuclear research.
- imnotlost 5y ago
  Dependencies are a fact of life. Question is, does Europe really want to depend on journalist/dissident-murdering Russia?
  - galangalalgol 5y ago
    It is even in Russia's best interest to ne encouraged to diversify their economy before they simply run out of natural resources. If there is a steady decrease in the sale price of fossil fuels instead of a sudden one they will have more time to adapt right?
    - FredPret 5y ago
      I don't think that's really a worry (running out of resources). Our deepest mines are a paltry 4km; forests can be managed. Oil, gas, and coal will eventually run out, but the prices will have by then have risen to the point that use at scale will be impractical.
    - jurip 5y ago
      Those natural resources will last longer than Putin and his friends will be around.
- Terry_Roll 5y ago
  The largest uranium fuel depot in the world is Chernobyl, Ukraine. Russia nearly bankrupted itself when it contained the nuclear disaster and even Gorbachev thinks it was Chernobyl that ultimately destroyed the Soviet Union. Now with this in mind, I wouldnt be surprised considering the sanctions on Russia, if they perhaps make a grab for the uranium in Chernobyl and sell it, to claw back some of the costs they incurred for cleaning up Chernobyl. Strategically, it was useful for Russian politics to have something as risky as the Chernobyl nuke power station in the Ukraine during the soviet union era, ie different country if anything went wrong nothing to do with us sort of thing. However thats how it remains until now where the Iranians need uranium after their enrichers were destroyed with Stuxnet, so you have one potential customer there, you also have India & Pakistan, Israel as well as the UK and France who will all be needing a bit more uranium as we get off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases.
  - skhr0680 5y ago
    > Strategically, it was useful for Russian politics to have something as risky as the Chernobyl nuke power station in the Ukraine during the soviet union era, ie different country if anything went wrong nothing to do with us sort of thing. The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP
    - Terry_Roll 5y ago
      It would appear that some countries also view nuke power stations like offensive firewalls, that's the Baltic sea nations captured in some respect. Germany's car industry and Russian Oil wealth is also a partnership I see.
    - djcapelis 5y ago
      > The same type of reactor as Chernobyl is still in operation at the Leningrad NPP Along with three units each in Kursk and Smolensk NPPs. Plus I think a lot of people don't realize some of the other reactor units at Chernobyl continued operating until the last one finally shut down in 2000.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
mhh__ 5y ago
Hinkley Point doesn't look so expensive now (Electricity forwards have been greater than the rate the reactor is supposed to cost since august)
- Xixi 5y ago
  Also keep in mind, a lot of the cost of Hinkley Point is not so much the cost to build the reactors, but the financing. Speaking from memory, we are talking about borrowing at something like 10% over 35 years. If France finances these new power plants, financing cost goes virtually to zero. So even if actually building the new reactors cost the same (unlikely, I hope they learnt a thing or two over the last 10 years...) they will end up a lot cheaper than Hinkley Point.
  - seanmcdirmid 5y ago
    Also insurance. All plants in the USA are insured by the government, I'm sure the same is true in France as well.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - epistasis 5y ago
    Finance is not free, there is always opportunity cost.
    - tim333 5y ago
      Interest rates are very low still though. Governments can borrow at nearer to 1% than 10%.
      - epistasis 5y ago
        But that money could also be applied in other areas of the economy, that might have far better payback. And with France's current track record of nuclear construction, throwing more money at nuclear without fixing the fundamental problems first is serious misallocation of capital. Just the latest news that is the same as the last decade of bad news: > EDF now estimates the total cost of the project at 12.7 billion euros ($14.42 billion). Its expected cost has more than quadrupled from the first estimate made in 2004. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-delay-higher-costs-flamanville-3-reactor-2022-01-12/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-announces-new-de... $15B of lithium ion battery factory would have far far greater carbon impact, dollar for dollar. $1B on early stage startups would similarly be more impactful.
stewbrew 5y ago
Speaking about independence: where does the uran come from? And how is this clever since the EDF cannot sell their nuclear power without making losses?
- eps 5y ago
  Kazakhstan, Canada, Australia Followed by Namibia, Niger, Russia, Uzbekistan, the US and China. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Uranium_production%2C_OWID.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Uranium_...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deepsun 5y ago
  > where does the uran come from All over the place. Uranite is pretty common. E.g. Canada has 200+ locations: https://www.mindat.org/min-4102.html https://www.mindat.org/min-4102.html (scroll to the very bottom).
  - natmaka 5y ago
    If a nuclear 'renaissance' arises, strategy will be at play: Russia and the US will obtain uranium from their 'partners', in Africa China will probably gain new partnerships, and other nations may encounter some difficulties. Moreover (source: UNECE): "mining impacts are technically highly dependent on ore grade, as the efforts required to extract a fixed quantity of ore is proportional to the amount of rock to be extracted, therefore inversely proportional to the grade. This is true at the individual mine level, for which such a model could be derived; more importantly, this assumption is valid for open pit and underground mines. Warner and Heath test this relationship and its influence over the full life cycle of the technology, showing that a lowering ore grade may lead to tripling life-cycle GHG emissions by 2050 in case of a sustained growth of installed nuclear capacity" Read: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290... "Depending on conditions, median life cycle GHG emissions could be 9 to 110 g CO2-eq/kWh by 2050."
laserbeam 5y ago
One does not exclude the other :p In general, whatever a politician's motivation is for any particular bill may or may not be aligned to yours, even though you may both agree on the outcome of that bill. And that's ok.

grammers 5y ago

Exactly. Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is just a political move for the upcoming election.

nixass 5y ago
>Such reactors cannot be built in a day so right now this is just a political move for the upcoming election. Of course, that's why it says first reactor will go live in 2035, not in a day
- karaterobot 5y ago
  Can't tell if you're joking, but I think they mean that the positive effects of making the promise are immediate for Macron, but he won't have to deal with the actual cost, logistics, political maneuvering, etc., until after he's re-elected, if at all. Cynically, he could make promises he has no intention of keeping.
  - signatoremo 5y ago
    It goes both way, isn’t it? Whoever in power in 2035 who will get to cut the ribbon of the reactors will make it like their own victory. Macron’s name and whatever he would do to make it happen will be conveniently forgotten.
- adrianN 5y ago
  It's a pity that we should be completely carbon neutral around 2040 give or take a couple of years and power plants that go online in ten to fifteen years (if they are actually done by that time) save zero emissions until then.
FrenchAmerican 5y ago
I respectfully disagree on that. It"s on the contrary a decision made a few months before the elections - so that the French energy policy won't be a matter of debate on the voting day. French citizens have never been put in a position to vote between a pronuclear candidate and an antinuclear one. Well, of course, there are ecologists on the first round of the vote, but on the second rounds, both candidates are always pronuclear. Of course, they all started ten years to include electoral promises to balance the energy mix with more renewables but none delivered: France has recently been recognized as being at the worst country in the European Union with only 19% of renewables in our mix - despite having signed to reach 23% this year. The left is deeply divided on the matter ; in fact, the left is divided on all ecological issues: agriculture, industry, energy ... The right is pro-big-polluting agriculture in the name of our commercial deficit (we export a.lot), anti-regulation of industry on ecological grounds because our industry is weak (which is true but not a reason), and pronuclear in the name of sovereignty - on the energy issue but also for military reasons. The fact that the nuclear energy enables France to emit far less CO2 is just a welcome argument. But if we had petrol like Norway, it would be "drill, baby, drill !". The nuclear energy has nothing to do historically in France with ecology and the climate issue will reinforce that totally nondemocratic decision taken by the General De Gaulle in the name of our Grandeur. A policy that our technostructure follows without any true democratic supervision. Check and balances exist only on safety matters, but absolutely none of the French energy mix. Nowadays it has become a political subject of course. But it's really just theater and will stay so for quite a while. The public opinion had been leaning on the right more and more for the last 20 years. When elected, self-called Socialists acted clearly on a center-right: really more like Manchin than Biden (in a daring transposition of very different political landscapes). Funny detail: the French scientists had stalled in the research of the atomic bomb. That was a problem for the US in the context of the Cold War. So the US told the British to tip us in the right direction. That direction had already been deeply worked on but dismissed by the French scientists. That was very discrete, not even officially recognized by some secret treaty. A prominent English nuclear scientist had a good friend among the French team. He visited him for lunch a Sunday. They talked physics. The UK has already its bomb, so the French noticed when his friend wondered aloud if that path come be "another way" to reach fission. But the British moved on another subject immediately. Friends don't need many words. To thank the US, France later helped Israel - a lot - to build their own atomic bomb faster. Then France made a 180º turn in its foreign policy and sided with the Arab countries on the Israël/Palestine issue. When Arafat and his troops were besieged in Beyruth by Tsahal, France evacuated them to Tunisia.

rodgerd 5y ago

A point which may not be well-understood by people unfamiliar with French economic history is that for much of post-WW II period, France's power prices have been dramatically lower that other Western European countries (for industry, anyway). One of the challenges that moves to get away from nuclear generation have caused is the prospect of hurting the French industrial base more than it's already been undermined by offshoring. (The other concern is keeping an independent nuclear arsenal, which is completely coupled to having reactors.)

secondaryacct 5y ago
Not with fusion: the fusion reactors we aim at building eventually will have no relationship with our submarine fleet roaming the ocean pointing nukes at everyone.
- throwaway2048 5y ago
  you need to prepare for what you know what will happen, not just what you hope will happen.
Retric 5y ago
Those where low wholesale prices via government subsides. Germany “subsidized” very early wind/solar adoption by forcing electricity consumers to pay through the nose for it. That isn’t to say either model is better, just that you can’t look at wholesale prices and see the underlying economic realities. Time is running out on early German subsides where France still needs to pay for decommissioning. France has a great track record with nuclear and I hope they can continue to leverage that excellence. Doing so cost effectively is more difficult especially when adding ever more inexpensive wind/solar generation to the EU grid.
- julienb_sea 5y ago
  Wind/solar generation have fundamental availability constraints that require supplementing with on-demand generation capacity. Nuclear is not exactly an answer for on-demand capacity because it is not possible to rapidly spin up and down, but having additional nuclear availability should allow France to have greater clean, stable energy capacity. It additionally introduces the possibility of broader energy exports to other European nations.

sharken 5y ago

[flagged]

KennyBlanken 5y ago

> Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. Only over the course of many decades do they net reduce carbon emissions, at the cost of much higher carbon emissions during the construction phase. Right now we need to be implementing the fastest carbon reductions possible and this does the exact opposite; for the next fifteen years, these plants will be a massive carbon emissions increase, and then it will take many years of operation to "pay that back." By then it will be far too late. Nuclear is one of the most expensive electricity generating technologies and it has only gotten more expensive, while solar, wind, and battery technologies are following expected plunging cost paths. Nuclear power plants are difficult to site geologically, difficult to site grid-wise (because the only way they are economical is through massive scale, and you can't just drop 5, 10, or more gigawatts onto the grid just anywhere), there is no need for base load which is the only thing nuke can provide (either in terms of capability, or economically), they don't like fussy climates/extreme weather (and if they use natural bodies of water, are vulnerable to invasive species, increasingly a problem around the world), they have very deep and exacting supply chains when countries have experienced significant supply chain problems for numerous different reasons, and you can't just snap your fingers and have qualified staff to run the plant. They require significant socio-political stability (functioning education, security, accountable political leadership_, and generate material that is extremely dangerous to life for generations, and have the potential to render entire geographical regions uninhabitable, again for generations. Guess what has none of these problems? Solar. Wind. Hydro. Energy storage. Nuclear power also doesn't solve the fundamental problems: the environmental impact of staggeringly large militaries, the amount of 'disposable' packaging used in almost everything, the cross-planet shipping of consumer goods most of which are, frankly, useless, heavy use of low occupancy vehicle travel, poor building efficiency, and proof-of-work cryptocurrency schemes.

truthof080616 5y ago
joshgachnang 5y ago
I'd love some sources comparing the carbon emissions from building them, because otherwise I'm a big supporter of nuclear energy. I'd rather go solar/wind/hydro but I think they have some (not all) of the issues you've noted as well.

xps 5y ago

> It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy. This may help lowering the reliance of France on Russia but its energy production will still be reliant on other countries, as 100% of the required fuel (uranium) is imported.

theshrike79 5y ago
100% of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia. Uranium producing countries include Australia and Canada, who are a bit less crazy with their international politics and military movements.
- kwhitefoot 5y ago
  > 100% of Europe's natural gas comes from Russia. No it doesn't. It's about a third. The total at the end of 2021 was about 8500 million cubic metre, divided as follows: Norway 3000, Russia 2300, LNG 2200, Algeria 640. https://www.bruegel.org/publications/datasets/european-natural-gas-imports/ https://www.bruegel.org/publications/datasets/european-natur...

JPLeRouzic 5y ago

> Keep in mind that the presidential election is in 3 months. Exactly, Macron has a very long history of changing of advice, sometimes after just a few days. In 2017 he campaigned to stop most nuclear plants in France (which are really old anyway) [0]. I think here those statements were more to sooth the "CGT" and the big companies in the field after the government last statements on EDF. [1] He was the guy who dismantle Alstom to GE's and EDF's profits, then made Alstom buy what it just sold. It's hard to see any consistent strategy in any of his actions, except from a political point of view. He probably don't care of anything on any subject, it's just a matter of having the best posture to win elections. [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-energy-strike-idUSKCN1NW1OZ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-energy-strike-idUS... [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/power-group-edfs-shares-slump-after-edf-drops-earnings-guidance-2022-01-14/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/power-group-edfs-sha...