4 ms·

Considering that France has been increasing the amount of nuclear in their mix, I think it's worth discussing nuclear for Germany and renewable for France.

dv_dt 4y ago
France seems to be unintentionally decreasing nuclear in their mix because of unreliability. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/paris-faces-an-evencolder-darker-winter-than-berlin/2022/07/29/6d2fe282-0efb-11ed-88e8-c58dc3dbaee2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/paris-faces-a...
cycomanic 4y ago
But they haven't, did you look at the graph (here is another one for electricity only https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:France_Electricity_production_1981-2017_(EIA).png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:France_Electricity_prod...)? The portion of nuclear has remained constant since the late 90s. Also France at the moment has turned off between 40 and 100% (I read about 40%, but saw 100% on TV some weeks ago) of their nuclear power plants, due to heat and maintance. Guess who is picking up the shortfall at the moment, German renewables and coal.
- panick21_ 4y ago
  > The portion of nuclear has remained constant since the late 90s. That just reflects the failure of French state to continue to invest. The socialist and green party based on general anti-nuclear sentiment stopped much of the investment.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Are you joking? In the last 24 years there was only 4 years with a socialist president. The greens had seats only 3 times of the last 6 six national assemblies since 1986 and that was 7,3 and 4 so they are not a very influential party in France. And saying that the the socialists in France are antinuclear is also quite off. While Hollande was quite critical (also due to massive cost overruns and shady security practices reading the Wikipedia article on nuclear power in France is quite eyeopening) they have traditionally been decidedly pro nuclear. No, there hasn't been much change because nuclear is so expensive. Projects have been going massively over budget (e.g. The EPR at Flammanville $15 billion instead of planned $4, planned to start operating in 2013 still not online.) [1]. [1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/france-nuclear-reactor-epr-expensive-mess/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/fr...
    - panick21_ 4y ago
      > A 1998 "Inquiry commission on Superphenix and fast neutrons reactor sector" [3] reported that "decision to close Superphénix was included in Jospin's program ... in the agreement between Socialist Party and Green Party". Also the same report says "despite many difficulties, the technical results are meaningful". In the explanation of vote at the end of the report, commission members says "give up on Superphenix has been a big error" and "Superphenix has to die because is a symbol". But I guess its fair that it was both sides of the political spectrum.

dv_dt 4y ago

France seems to be unintentionally decreasing nuclear in their mix because of unreliability. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/paris-faces-an-evencolder-darker-winter-than-berlin/2022/07/29/6d2fe282-0efb-11ed-88e8-c58dc3dbaee2_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/energy/paris-faces-a...

cycomanic 4y ago

But they haven't, did you look at the graph (here is another one for electricity only https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:France_Electricity_production_1981-2017_(EIA).png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:France_Electricity_prod...)? The portion of nuclear has remained constant since the late 90s. Also France at the moment has turned off between 40 and 100% (I read about 40%, but saw 100% on TV some weeks ago) of their nuclear power plants, due to heat and maintance. Guess who is picking up the shortfall at the moment, German renewables and coal.

panick21_ 4y ago
> The portion of nuclear has remained constant since the late 90s. That just reflects the failure of French state to continue to invest. The socialist and green party based on general anti-nuclear sentiment stopped much of the investment.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Are you joking? In the last 24 years there was only 4 years with a socialist president. The greens had seats only 3 times of the last 6 six national assemblies since 1986 and that was 7,3 and 4 so they are not a very influential party in France. And saying that the the socialists in France are antinuclear is also quite off. While Hollande was quite critical (also due to massive cost overruns and shady security practices reading the Wikipedia article on nuclear power in France is quite eyeopening) they have traditionally been decidedly pro nuclear. No, there hasn't been much change because nuclear is so expensive. Projects have been going massively over budget (e.g. The EPR at Flammanville $15 billion instead of planned $4, planned to start operating in 2013 still not online.) [1]. [1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/france-nuclear-reactor-epr-expensive-mess/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a33499619/fr...
  - panick21_ 4y ago
    > A 1998 "Inquiry commission on Superphenix and fast neutrons reactor sector" [3] reported that "decision to close Superphénix was included in Jospin's program ... in the agreement between Socialist Party and Green Party". Also the same report says "despite many difficulties, the technical results are meaningful". In the explanation of vote at the end of the report, commission members says "give up on Superphenix has been a big error" and "Superphenix has to die because is a symbol". But I guess its fair that it was both sides of the political spectrum.