3 ms·

Yes but even those problems are far easier to handle than the ones of renewables. On one side we have investment problems, large scale planning issues, politica

Yes but even those problems are far easier to handle than the ones of renewables. On one side we have investment problems, large scale planning issues, political issues, workforce issues. On the other side we simply have the tech ... just not existing at all (and nobody knows if it will). Current rollout of renewables in France has also been a financial disaster and I don't see many people talking about that.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
>Yes but even those problems are far easier to handle than the ones of renewables. I don't think so. Look at UK's recent transition to renewables. They're making big moves nowadays, but we only talk about Germany. France is going backwards (it was an excellent idea to build nuclear plants after WW2, but not so much today compared to renewables' plunging cost and progress in energy storage).
- realusername 5y ago
  France's renewable story has also been a disaster, 120 billions euros invested (half of the total cost of the whole nuclear grid (!) ) for 5% of the electricity production. Even Flamanville isn't as bad as that, there's hope it'll be good for future plants, that was just completely wasted.
kitkat_new 5y ago
France needs renewables, if they don't want to ruin themselves and build 150 additional reactors. If they want to become carbon neutral at some point... "On the other side we simply have the tech ... just not existing at all (and nobody knows if it will)." What tech doesn't exist in your opinion? P2G is tech with "large scale planning issues".
- realusername 5y ago
  > France needs renewables, if they don't want to ruin themselves and build 150 additional reactors. If they want to become carbon neutral at some point... As I said in another comment, France's investment in renewable has actually been even worse in terms of results than Flamanville. 120 billions euros (half of the cost of the whole nuclear grid) for 5% of the production, you can't really go lower than that. In terms of carbon, the other European countries have a lot to catchup to reach France's level. They currently fight very hard against carbon pricing because well, that would mean the french industry would have an edge compared to them... P2G just isn't good enough for now, let's be fair.
  - kitkat_new 5y ago
    > France's investment in renewable has actually been even worse in terms of results than Flamanville. so what? France inefficiently invests into renewables, thus renewables aren't the answer and we wait for a miracle? > P2G just isn't good enough for now, let's be fair. what does good enough mean? not as cheap as burning subsidized natural gas?
jka 5y ago
It looks like solar capacity has been ramping up fairly steadily[1] in France in recent years, from near-zero around 2007 - perhaps that's a sign of progress? (and regarding apparent investment issues: is that definitely a case of poor financial results, or could it be that large up-front investments were required in order to foster development, and that the returns are just beginning?) [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_France

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago

>Yes but even those problems are far easier to handle than the ones of renewables. I don't think so. Look at UK's recent transition to renewables. They're making big moves nowadays, but we only talk about Germany. France is going backwards (it was an excellent idea to build nuclear plants after WW2, but not so much today compared to renewables' plunging cost and progress in energy storage).

realusername 5y ago
France's renewable story has also been a disaster, 120 billions euros invested (half of the total cost of the whole nuclear grid (!) ) for 5% of the electricity production. Even Flamanville isn't as bad as that, there's hope it'll be good for future plants, that was just completely wasted.

kitkat_new 5y ago

France needs renewables, if they don't want to ruin themselves and build 150 additional reactors. If they want to become carbon neutral at some point... "On the other side we simply have the tech ... just not existing at all (and nobody knows if it will)." What tech doesn't exist in your opinion? P2G is tech with "large scale planning issues".

realusername 5y ago
> France needs renewables, if they don't want to ruin themselves and build 150 additional reactors. If they want to become carbon neutral at some point... As I said in another comment, France's investment in renewable has actually been even worse in terms of results than Flamanville. 120 billions euros (half of the cost of the whole nuclear grid) for 5% of the production, you can't really go lower than that. In terms of carbon, the other European countries have a lot to catchup to reach France's level. They currently fight very hard against carbon pricing because well, that would mean the french industry would have an edge compared to them... P2G just isn't good enough for now, let's be fair.
- kitkat_new 5y ago
  > France's investment in renewable has actually been even worse in terms of results than Flamanville. so what? France inefficiently invests into renewables, thus renewables aren't the answer and we wait for a miracle? > P2G just isn't good enough for now, let's be fair. what does good enough mean? not as cheap as burning subsidized natural gas?

jka 5y ago

It looks like solar capacity has been ramping up fairly steadily[1] in France in recent years, from near-zero around 2007 - perhaps that's a sign of progress? (and regarding apparent investment issues: is that definitely a case of poor financial results, or could it be that large up-front investments were required in order to foster development, and that the returns are just beginning?) [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_France