5 ms·

The french energy mix is around 50% fossil fuels [1]. The reduction in CO2 emissions over the last two decades were only due to better efficiency (lower energy

by fsh 2y ago

The french energy mix is around 50% fossil fuels [1]. The reduction in CO2 emissions over the last two decades were only due to better efficiency (lower energy usage) and renewables. [1] https://www.iea.org/countries/france/energy-mix https://www.iea.org/countries/france/energy-mix

littlestymaar 2y ago
“Energy mix” is not the same as “electricity mix”, a lot if this is gas used to power cars and trucks, which are another problem entirely and isn't solved by renewable alone but by another technology (electric cars) which synergies even better with nuclear than with renewables. Of course reductions over “the last two decades” aren't due to nuclear, since France was already all nuclear two decades ago, duh. Most of emissions reductions over that period where due to: improved efficiency (car engine, notably), but also massive disindustrialization unfortunately (which ultimately raised the emissions, since we now import goods produced with a more emissive electricity mix than us), renewables are only marginal in that regard (it mostly substituted nuclear production…)
- fsh 2y ago
  The climate doesn't care which sector emits the CO2. For a societal analysis, focusing on only electricity makes very little sense.
  - littlestymaar 2y ago
    The thing is: no alternative to nuclear can help on non-electricity emissions either, so when it comes to the topic of nuclear vs the rest, it doesn't make sense to talk about the whole and it makes sense to focus on electricity. That doesn't mean we don't care about the others, it's just completely irrelevant to the discussion. I do care about biodiversity or women's right as well, that doesn't mean it's relevant to bring in unrelated topics.
hnbad 2y ago
Didn't France also have to literally shut down a nuclear plant because of the drought last year or so? As climate change escalates, having a power plant you need to shut down when the river runs dry and then need to spend days booting up again isn't the best choice for sustainable and reliable electricity.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  Yes, but not for the reasons you think: none of the river the plants is built on ran dry, and given that we're talking about France biggest river, if they eventually do we would have much bigger problems that shutting down the riverside plants anyway (keep in mind that you van build nuclear plants on seashores as well, and we do for roughly half of them). The reasons why we shut down (or reduce the power, more often) of some nuclear plants during summer is because we set environmental limits in terms of river temperatures, to protect wildlife. This is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it's also am example of the incredibly high bar we put on nuclear operations on every aspects (which we could afford for years, because how efficient they are compared to pretty much any other industries). Another example of that is how coal plants are actually allowed to, and do, emit more radioactive elements in their neighborhood than what's allowed for an NPP. I wish more industries (and agriculture) would be set to such high environmental constraints but in the meantime there's a clear imbalance against nuclear (the fact that leveling entire forests for coal mining or to install solar fields is allowed, despite being much more damageable in comparison to localized increase in water temperature never cease to appall me).

by fsh 2y ago

littlestymaar 2y ago

“Energy mix” is not the same as “electricity mix”, a lot if this is gas used to power cars and trucks, which are another problem entirely and isn't solved by renewable alone but by another technology (electric cars) which synergies even better with nuclear than with renewables. Of course reductions over “the last two decades” aren't due to nuclear, since France was already all nuclear two decades ago, duh. Most of emissions reductions over that period where due to: improved efficiency (car engine, notably), but also massive disindustrialization unfortunately (which ultimately raised the emissions, since we now import goods produced with a more emissive electricity mix than us), renewables are only marginal in that regard (it mostly substituted nuclear production…)

fsh 2y ago
The climate doesn't care which sector emits the CO2. For a societal analysis, focusing on only electricity makes very little sense.
- littlestymaar 2y ago
  The thing is: no alternative to nuclear can help on non-electricity emissions either, so when it comes to the topic of nuclear vs the rest, it doesn't make sense to talk about the whole and it makes sense to focus on electricity. That doesn't mean we don't care about the others, it's just completely irrelevant to the discussion. I do care about biodiversity or women's right as well, that doesn't mean it's relevant to bring in unrelated topics.

hnbad 2y ago

Didn't France also have to literally shut down a nuclear plant because of the drought last year or so? As climate change escalates, having a power plant you need to shut down when the river runs dry and then need to spend days booting up again isn't the best choice for sustainable and reliable electricity.

littlestymaar 2y ago
Yes, but not for the reasons you think: none of the river the plants is built on ran dry, and given that we're talking about France biggest river, if they eventually do we would have much bigger problems that shutting down the riverside plants anyway (keep in mind that you van build nuclear plants on seashores as well, and we do for roughly half of them). The reasons why we shut down (or reduce the power, more often) of some nuclear plants during summer is because we set environmental limits in terms of river temperatures, to protect wildlife. This is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but it's also am example of the incredibly high bar we put on nuclear operations on every aspects (which we could afford for years, because how efficient they are compared to pretty much any other industries). Another example of that is how coal plants are actually allowed to, and do, emit more radioactive elements in their neighborhood than what's allowed for an NPP. I wish more industries (and agriculture) would be set to such high environmental constraints but in the meantime there's a clear imbalance against nuclear (the fact that leveling entire forests for coal mining or to install solar fields is allowed, despite being much more damageable in comparison to localized increase in water temperature never cease to appall me).