9 ms·

Don’t even bother explaining that it is a result of an explicit political decision aiming to force the nuclear power industry to subsidize the renewables from i

by xyzzyz 4y ago

Don’t even bother explaining that it is a result of an explicit political decision aiming to force the nuclear power industry to subsidize the renewables from its profits. In the end, regardless of your efforts, people will use the losses the nuclear incurs to subsidize renewables as a proof that nuclear is uneconomical, and that renewables beat it handily and are the way to go.

rjzzleep 4y ago
Wonder how much of this is related to the fact that France's energy minister have been MBA and political science graduates for quite some time. The previous one was Hollande's partner, so it's just another kind of nepotism[1]. Macron selling off France's nuclear infrastructure probably doesn't help either. Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days? Were there more actual scientists and engineers in key positions in Government in the 60s and 70s? For example in Germany Helmut Schmidt(74-82) had a plan for the future where Germany was to build out a fiber optic grid, which the subsequent Chancellor Kohl scrapped because did not like the influence of public TV services and wanted copper for cable TV to counter it[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ségolène_Royal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ségolène_Royal [2] https://netzpolitik.org/2018/danke-helmut-kohl-kabelfernsehen-statt-glasfaserausbau/ https://netzpolitik.org/2018/danke-helmut-kohl-kabelfernsehe...
- ralph84 4y ago
  > Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days? You mean the Renaissance? Since then it's been 400 years of brain drain to the US.
  - sdze 4y ago
    You mean the US has competitive advantages because their products don't contain social costs like the ones from Europe?
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      I think it is simpler than that. The US gained a lot of highly qualified immigration around WWII, when Europe tore itself into shreds. Poles, Italians, Russians, Germans, you name it. And it is hard to disrupt the advantage of places like California ever since. Once you have top universities and top corporations somewhere, individuals will flock to them instead of trying to create competing hubs elsewhere. Plus the dominance of the English language all but guarantees that English-speaking countries will be the net benefactors of this global movement. For all their advantages, Germany, Japan et al. still struggle with their parochiality when attracting foreign talent, while the US can do this really, really well. Take the entire roster of top IT people in the US and make a checkmark next to every immigrant or a child of immigrants. Similar lists in Munich, Paris, Tokyo etc. would look very different. Most European countries struggle with the fact that recent immigrants tend to be overrepresented in prisons.
- secretfrenchman 4y ago
  Valery Giscard d'Estaing graduated from Polytechnique (best engineering school in France). He was a key driver of things like nuclear power, high-speed trains, the Minitel, etc.
threeseed 4y ago
> people will use the losses the nuclear incurs to subsidize renewables as a proof that nuclear is uneconomical, and that renewables beat it handily There is already plenty of proof around the world that renewables are cheaper than nuclear.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  Not if you calculate in the cost of wanting to have a nuclear weapons and submarine fleet…
- Krssst 4y ago
  Maybe cheaper as of today if we don't account for storage, but since buulding renewables use far more materials than nuclear, would fossil fuels which ensured cheap production and transport become lacking, or base materials extraction not being able to follow a rising demand, I am not sure it would still be the case.
  - TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
    If nuclear used fewer raw materials nuke plants wouldn't be huge - huge - capital projects, wouldn't take years to come online, and wouldn't have huge cleanup costs. If the money spent on nukes had been spent on renewables and on developing storage we wouldn't have these problems. This was predictable decades ago. The reality is that nukes are a political solution to a political problem. It's nice that they sometimes generate energy for a while, but there is no sense in which they've ever been a rational economic choice.
    - mathiasgredal 4y ago
      Nuclear uses roughly an order of magnitude fewer ressources than wind, without factoring in storage: https://imgur.com/a/Kc2h21O https://imgur.com/a/Kc2h21O. Source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrennial-technology-review-2015_1.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrenn... (page 390)
t0bia_s 4y ago
Probably not, when Europeans realize, that solar pannels manufacturing is dependent on China.

by xyzzyz 4y ago

rjzzleep 4y ago

Wonder how much of this is related to the fact that France's energy minister have been MBA and political science graduates for quite some time. The previous one was Hollande's partner, so it's just another kind of nepotism[1]. Macron selling off France's nuclear infrastructure probably doesn't help either. Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days? Were there more actual scientists and engineers in key positions in Government in the 60s and 70s? For example in Germany Helmut Schmidt(74-82) had a plan for the future where Germany was to build out a fiber optic grid, which the subsequent Chancellor Kohl scrapped because did not like the influence of public TV services and wanted copper for cable TV to counter it[2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ségolène_Royal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ségolène_Royal [2] https://netzpolitik.org/2018/danke-helmut-kohl-kabelfernsehen-statt-glasfaserausbau/ https://netzpolitik.org/2018/danke-helmut-kohl-kabelfernsehe...

ralph84 4y ago
> Does anyone here have historical knowledge of Europe's glory days? You mean the Renaissance? Since then it's been 400 years of brain drain to the US.
- sdze 4y ago
  You mean the US has competitive advantages because their products don't contain social costs like the ones from Europe?
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    I think it is simpler than that. The US gained a lot of highly qualified immigration around WWII, when Europe tore itself into shreds. Poles, Italians, Russians, Germans, you name it. And it is hard to disrupt the advantage of places like California ever since. Once you have top universities and top corporations somewhere, individuals will flock to them instead of trying to create competing hubs elsewhere. Plus the dominance of the English language all but guarantees that English-speaking countries will be the net benefactors of this global movement. For all their advantages, Germany, Japan et al. still struggle with their parochiality when attracting foreign talent, while the US can do this really, really well. Take the entire roster of top IT people in the US and make a checkmark next to every immigrant or a child of immigrants. Similar lists in Munich, Paris, Tokyo etc. would look very different. Most European countries struggle with the fact that recent immigrants tend to be overrepresented in prisons.
secretfrenchman 4y ago
Valery Giscard d'Estaing graduated from Polytechnique (best engineering school in France). He was a key driver of things like nuclear power, high-speed trains, the Minitel, etc.

threeseed 4y ago

> people will use the losses the nuclear incurs to subsidize renewables as a proof that nuclear is uneconomical, and that renewables beat it handily There is already plenty of proof around the world that renewables are cheaper than nuclear.

mensetmanusman 4y ago
Not if you calculate in the cost of wanting to have a nuclear weapons and submarine fleet…
Krssst 4y ago
Maybe cheaper as of today if we don't account for storage, but since buulding renewables use far more materials than nuclear, would fossil fuels which ensured cheap production and transport become lacking, or base materials extraction not being able to follow a rising demand, I am not sure it would still be the case.
- TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
  If nuclear used fewer raw materials nuke plants wouldn't be huge - huge - capital projects, wouldn't take years to come online, and wouldn't have huge cleanup costs. If the money spent on nukes had been spent on renewables and on developing storage we wouldn't have these problems. This was predictable decades ago. The reality is that nukes are a political solution to a political problem. It's nice that they sometimes generate energy for a while, but there is no sense in which they've ever been a rational economic choice.
  - mathiasgredal 4y ago
    Nuclear uses roughly an order of magnitude fewer ressources than wind, without factoring in storage: https://imgur.com/a/Kc2h21O https://imgur.com/a/Kc2h21O. Source: https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrennial-technology-review-2015_1.pdf https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/03/f34/quadrenn... (page 390)

t0bia_s 4y ago

Probably not, when Europeans realize, that solar pannels manufacturing is dependent on China.