5 ms·

the anti-nuclear policy was in Germany France was proud of the nuclear energy. It had plenty of cheap and carbon-free electricity (it was once exported to all

the anti-nuclear policy was in Germany France was proud of the nuclear energy. It had plenty of cheap and carbon-free electricity (it was once exported to all the neighbouring countries) It was a way to be independent energy wise, as more countries can export nuclear fuel than oil. It was building power plants, and processing nuclear waste from other countries And it made plenty of engineers busy ! France used to be a country led by engineers.

lairv 4y ago
Anti-nuclear policy sure was more significant in Germany as it has led to the complete stop of its use, but in France it has also slowed down the development of the industry. Although it has evolved positively over the last three years, nuclear energy remains controversial in public opinion [0,1], and many ecologist and left-wing movements have militated against nuclear power for the last 30 years. Whether or not it had an impact on the country policy toward nuclear power would require a more in-depth and complete archive work, but just remember that Emmanuel Macron was advocating toward reducing the share of nuclear power when he was elected for the first time in 2017 [2] (he has now changed) [0] https://www.ifop.com/publication/lopinion-des-francais-sur-lenergie-nucleaire/ https://www.ifop.com/publication/lopinion-des-francais-sur-l... [1] https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/sondage-exclusif-une-majorite-de-francais-reconnait-les-merites-du-nucleaire-1361153 https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/sondage-ex... [2] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87skbx https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87skbx
- merb 4y ago
  wow... I mean france basically said at the start of the energy crises that they will build tons of new nuclear plants! they even were the most influential country within the eu which made it possible that the eu gives funding for nuclear plants. I'm really not sure what you want? of course for everything there is an anti movement, but france is definitly not anti-nuclear, neither are most of its people.
kergonath 4y ago
The Superphenix closure was entirely political. The turning point was when the socialists had to ally with the environmentalists because they were getting short on votes. That would be the “gauche plurielle” circa 1997. In parallel the Gaullist old guard, who were all about sovereignty were overtaken on the right by neo-liberals looking to get a quick buck, for whom the Russian oligarchs were role models, also in the mid-1990s. But even at that point it was uneasy. I think most informed people would have been pro-nuclear, but that was a politically risky thing to say out loud. The environmentalists (well, most of them anyway; there always were some who saw that the alternative to nuclear was coal and oil, not sunshine and rainbows) were always against because they were mostly hippies doubtful of any state-run project and somehow nuclear bombs. > France used to be a country led by engineers. And teachers and doctors. But we’ve got the politicians we vote for.
- pfdietz 4y ago
  Superphénix was a fiasco. And France has since given up entirely on fast reactors. They've mothballed the entire program, cancelling what was to be the next fast reactor prototype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world. If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors. But they don't think there's enough of a market for them to be worth continuing to develop.
  - kergonath 4y ago
    > Superphénix was a fiasco. And France has since given up entirely on fast reactors. It was not really a fiasco; it was shut down before being really productive. Sure, there were some wrinkles, but it was a one-off, not the 10th in a fleet so this sort of kinks are expected. It was an experimental reactor, the design was not supposed to be directly useable as a commercial reactor. Nevertheless, it had a whole scientific life ahead, some experiments would have been useful for nuclear fusion as well. There aren't many reactors able to produce fast neutrons with that spectrum. Regardless of the state of SFRs, closing it was a purely political decision, the consequence of horse trading between the socialists and the environmentalists without considering any engineering or scientific aspect. > BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world. France does not really think anything. There is no master plan, all the decisions are done in a certain context without really any long term thinking. What you see is an industry that has lost its political support. Now that some of the stupidity of the whole mess is dawning on some politicians there is a bit of flailing around, but do not mistake that for some kind of strategy. > If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors. That is not entirely true. There are thermal reactors that can work with unenriched uranium, it's just that PWRs are not the most fuel-efficient design. In any case, no, nobody serious is advocating for using only nuclear. It is just one tool in the toolbox, and there are better sources for some uses.

lairv 4y ago

Anti-nuclear policy sure was more significant in Germany as it has led to the complete stop of its use, but in France it has also slowed down the development of the industry. Although it has evolved positively over the last three years, nuclear energy remains controversial in public opinion [0,1], and many ecologist and left-wing movements have militated against nuclear power for the last 30 years. Whether or not it had an impact on the country policy toward nuclear power would require a more in-depth and complete archive work, but just remember that Emmanuel Macron was advocating toward reducing the share of nuclear power when he was elected for the first time in 2017 [2] (he has now changed) [0] https://www.ifop.com/publication/lopinion-des-francais-sur-lenergie-nucleaire/ https://www.ifop.com/publication/lopinion-des-francais-sur-l... [1] https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/sondage-exclusif-une-majorite-de-francais-reconnait-les-merites-du-nucleaire-1361153 https://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/sondage-ex... [2] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87skbx https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x87skbx

merb 4y ago
wow... I mean france basically said at the start of the energy crises that they will build tons of new nuclear plants! they even were the most influential country within the eu which made it possible that the eu gives funding for nuclear plants. I'm really not sure what you want? of course for everything there is an anti movement, but france is definitly not anti-nuclear, neither are most of its people.

kergonath 4y ago

The Superphenix closure was entirely political. The turning point was when the socialists had to ally with the environmentalists because they were getting short on votes. That would be the “gauche plurielle” circa 1997. In parallel the Gaullist old guard, who were all about sovereignty were overtaken on the right by neo-liberals looking to get a quick buck, for whom the Russian oligarchs were role models, also in the mid-1990s. But even at that point it was uneasy. I think most informed people would have been pro-nuclear, but that was a politically risky thing to say out loud. The environmentalists (well, most of them anyway; there always were some who saw that the alternative to nuclear was coal and oil, not sunshine and rainbows) were always against because they were mostly hippies doubtful of any state-run project and somehow nuclear bombs. > France used to be a country led by engineers. And teachers and doctors. But we’ve got the politicians we vote for.

pfdietz 4y ago
Superphénix was a fiasco. And France has since given up entirely on fast reactors. They've mothballed the entire program, cancelling what was to be the next fast reactor prototype. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASTRID_(reactor) BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world. If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors. But they don't think there's enough of a market for them to be worth continuing to develop.
- kergonath 4y ago
  > Superphénix was a fiasco. And France has since given up entirely on fast reactors. It was not really a fiasco; it was shut down before being really productive. Sure, there were some wrinkles, but it was a one-off, not the 10th in a fleet so this sort of kinks are expected. It was an experimental reactor, the design was not supposed to be directly useable as a commercial reactor. Nevertheless, it had a whole scientific life ahead, some experiments would have been useful for nuclear fusion as well. There aren't many reactors able to produce fast neutrons with that spectrum. Regardless of the state of SFRs, closing it was a purely political decision, the consequence of horse trading between the socialists and the environmentalists without considering any engineering or scientific aspect. > BTW, you can infer from this that France doesn't think nuclear is going to power the world. France does not really think anything. There is no master plan, all the decisions are done in a certain context without really any long term thinking. What you see is an industry that has lost its political support. Now that some of the stupidity of the whole mess is dawning on some politicians there is a bit of flailing around, but do not mistake that for some kind of strategy. > If it did, breeders would be necessary, as there's not enough cheap enough uranium to do it with burner reactors. That is not entirely true. There are thermal reactors that can work with unenriched uranium, it's just that PWRs are not the most fuel-efficient design. In any case, no, nobody serious is advocating for using only nuclear. It is just one tool in the toolbox, and there are better sources for some uses.