6 ms·

France is almost green here: > https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR Yet, many people think that nuclear is not the

France is almost green here: > https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR Yet, many people think that nuclear is not the way to go.

pydry 3y ago
France got a 40 year head start. They werent even aiming to decarbonize their electricity, it was a side effect of chasing energy independence during the oil crisis. It was the way to go in 1970. People think nuclear isnt the way to go now because it's eye wateringly expensive. EDF's bankruptcy and the rapidly exploding costs and risks of dealing with France's aging plants confirms this. In spite of still spending hand over fist, the % of nuclear power is in decline in France (theyre officially hoping solar and wind can fill in the gaps).
- jacquesm 3y ago
  'Force de Frappe' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
- vladvasiliu 3y ago
  It should also be noted that the French government went out of its way to gut the nuclear ecosystem for electoral reasons (F. Hollande hoping to get the Green vote some 15 years ago). Only recently did they realize that we don't have nearly enough renewables and that, yes, if you don't maintain your plants, they do tend to degrade rather quickly. And presenting the sector as a dead-end, of course they're now missing qualified people to do the maintenace and the design of new plants. This is in additation to the weird scheme forcing EDF to sell cheap energy to their competitors.
- krupan 3y ago
  I always hear it's so expensive, but compared to what? Just continuing to burn fossil fuels? Costs I see to solar and wind that I rarely see anyone mention are: What happens when you cover large deaths of land with solar and windmills? What does that do to the micro climates of those areas and what affects will that have on the global climate? What does that do to the wildlife (both plant and animal) long term? What are the true costs of the mines and manufacturing and transportation needed to build and maintain all of that? I grew up near hydroelectric dams and when I was young they were hailed as free renewable energy. By the time I hit highschool they were demonized for forever changing the river's ecosystem and nearly driving certain fish species to extinction. How does wind and solar not end up the same?
  - otherme123 3y ago
    In fact, I've seen the "solar and wind cover lots of land" in every single post about energy that comes on HN or Reddit. The answer the "compared to what?" is everything. It is clean, continuous, it's compact and other benefits. But it's expensive. You need over 30 years (being optimist) to break even. You need government financial support because no bank would finance that. That's the reason only countries like France or China build them: the costs are partially hidden in the country budgets or public owned corporations balances. About hydro, that was a "unknown unknown" paraprhasing Rumsfeld. You can't avoid what currently seems our best bet to our current knowledge (wind and solar) because maybe there's an unknown unknown that could bit us hard in 40 years.
  - 7952 3y ago
    The science of understanding environmental impact has improved hugely. We can actually know pretty well the answer to those kind of questions. And often the impact will be less damaging to the environment than what it is replacing (such as farmland).

France is almost green here: > https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR Yet, many people think that nuclear is not the way to go.

pydry 3y ago

France got a 40 year head start. They werent even aiming to decarbonize their electricity, it was a side effect of chasing energy independence during the oil crisis. It was the way to go in 1970. People think nuclear isnt the way to go now because it's eye wateringly expensive. EDF's bankruptcy and the rapidly exploding costs and risks of dealing with France's aging plants confirms this. In spite of still spending hand over fist, the % of nuclear power is in decline in France (theyre officially hoping solar and wind can fill in the gaps).

jacquesm 3y ago
'Force de Frappe' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_de_dissuasion
vladvasiliu 3y ago
It should also be noted that the French government went out of its way to gut the nuclear ecosystem for electoral reasons (F. Hollande hoping to get the Green vote some 15 years ago). Only recently did they realize that we don't have nearly enough renewables and that, yes, if you don't maintain your plants, they do tend to degrade rather quickly. And presenting the sector as a dead-end, of course they're now missing qualified people to do the maintenace and the design of new plants. This is in additation to the weird scheme forcing EDF to sell cheap energy to their competitors.
krupan 3y ago
I always hear it's so expensive, but compared to what? Just continuing to burn fossil fuels? Costs I see to solar and wind that I rarely see anyone mention are: What happens when you cover large deaths of land with solar and windmills? What does that do to the micro climates of those areas and what affects will that have on the global climate? What does that do to the wildlife (both plant and animal) long term? What are the true costs of the mines and manufacturing and transportation needed to build and maintain all of that? I grew up near hydroelectric dams and when I was young they were hailed as free renewable energy. By the time I hit highschool they were demonized for forever changing the river's ecosystem and nearly driving certain fish species to extinction. How does wind and solar not end up the same?
- otherme123 3y ago
  In fact, I've seen the "solar and wind cover lots of land" in every single post about energy that comes on HN or Reddit. The answer the "compared to what?" is everything. It is clean, continuous, it's compact and other benefits. But it's expensive. You need over 30 years (being optimist) to break even. You need government financial support because no bank would finance that. That's the reason only countries like France or China build them: the costs are partially hidden in the country budgets or public owned corporations balances. About hydro, that was a "unknown unknown" paraprhasing Rumsfeld. You can't avoid what currently seems our best bet to our current knowledge (wind and solar) because maybe there's an unknown unknown that could bit us hard in 40 years.
- 7952 3y ago
  The science of understanding environmental impact has improved hugely. We can actually know pretty well the answer to those kind of questions. And often the impact will be less damaging to the environment than what it is replacing (such as farmland).