3 ms·

Macron announced[1][2][3] plans to build 14 new reactors. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/business/nuclear-power-france/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/

Macron announced[1][2][3] plans to build 14 new reactors. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/business/nuclear-power-france/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/11/business/nuclear-power-france... [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/world/europe/france-macron-nuclear-power.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/10/world/europe/france-macro... [3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-build-up-to-14-new-nuclear-reactors-by-2050-says-macron https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/10/france-to-buil...

_ph_ 4y ago
Yes, he did. Is there any chance he will build them, if you look at the unfinished Flammaville reactor, which is like 10 years overdue and equally over the price estimate? France currently has like 58 reactors, all of them very old. It is doubtful that France can even keep up the current production levels.
ncmncm 4y ago
None of the money spent on cancelled reactors is ever given back. And, they will all be cancelled, so all that is unknown is how much money will turn out to have been diverted from renewables, first.
- orwin 4y ago
  Will giving this money to built up solar and extract the needed neodyme/copper increase the worldwide deployment of solar and wind, or are the mines already running at close to max capacity anyway and new developments are stalled by a lack of workforce, administrative decisions, or environmentalists? If the response is 2, what's the real issue?
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    Money is diverted from build-out for political and military pressures. Is that "administrative"?
    - orwin 4y ago
      I was talking about mines authorization in Peru (environmental blocks) and in China (administrative blocks). You did not respond to my question. Do you think your argument 'money to nuclear is bad cause it slows down renewables ' is really true? Aren't we close to max production capacity yet? And in this case, why not continue with nuclear instead of building new coal?
      - ncmncm 4y ago
        Yes, money is in fact fungible. No, we are nowhere near max production capacity, as demonstrated by prices still falling. Nobody is building new coal except China.

_ph_ 4y ago

Yes, he did. Is there any chance he will build them, if you look at the unfinished Flammaville reactor, which is like 10 years overdue and equally over the price estimate? France currently has like 58 reactors, all of them very old. It is doubtful that France can even keep up the current production levels.

ncmncm 4y ago

None of the money spent on cancelled reactors is ever given back. And, they will all be cancelled, so all that is unknown is how much money will turn out to have been diverted from renewables, first.

orwin 4y ago
Will giving this money to built up solar and extract the needed neodyme/copper increase the worldwide deployment of solar and wind, or are the mines already running at close to max capacity anyway and new developments are stalled by a lack of workforce, administrative decisions, or environmentalists? If the response is 2, what's the real issue?
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Money is diverted from build-out for political and military pressures. Is that "administrative"?
  - orwin 4y ago
    I was talking about mines authorization in Peru (environmental blocks) and in China (administrative blocks). You did not respond to my question. Do you think your argument 'money to nuclear is bad cause it slows down renewables ' is really true? Aren't we close to max production capacity yet? And in this case, why not continue with nuclear instead of building new coal?
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      Yes, money is in fact fungible. No, we are nowhere near max production capacity, as demonstrated by prices still falling. Nobody is building new coal except China.