3 ms·

California has been an oil state from the beginning. To this day there is urban oil extraction over various parts of LA: https://www.pbssocal.org/news-communit

California has been an oil state from the beginning. To this day there is urban oil extraction over various parts of LA: https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-history-with-urban-oil-drilling-is-nearing-an-end-after-years-of-health-concerns https://www.pbssocal.org/news-community/l-a-s-long-troubled-... It is only very recently that California started trying to decarbonize. When France did their amazing nuclear build, it was for energy independence, not for decarbonization purposes. It was a very forward thinking move, even if it wasn't as cheap initially imagined and ended up being stopped before fully completed. It was a national security project. However nuclear is cheap when the high upfront capital costs have been paid off, and it's down to just the operating expenses. Building it is oppressively expensive, however, especially as labor costs have risen in the many decades since the 1970s while. As France's nuclear fleet ages out and needs to be replaced, it seems unlikely that they will be able to pull off a build of a second fleet. Their efforts at prototyping the next design, the EPR, have been fairly disastrous, with builds at Flamanville and in Finland going very poorly. I suspect that Germany & California's current route to decarbonization through renewables will be followed by France in the coming decades.

boringg 1y ago
I will counter this. I think theres going to be a significant work to push down the costs of re-powering the aging nuclear fleet. Renewables will continue to be a force and work around the edges. Too much on the line to shut down nuclear for France. It will get subsidized and it provides energy independence. Potentially but not certain future where other people are also purchasing nuclear assets which pushes down maintenance / manufacturing costs. Risk is that China deploys globally and is the operator. France isn't known for high quality - reasonably costed items - fast time line products. As well - unspoken part of renewable is in case of a security incident in Europe (see Russia) - nuclear is much more stable work load then solar (could easily scatter bomb solar assets). I know that sounds unintuitive given peoples concern about Nuclear - but there is a such a common good to protect nuclear assets due to fallout where solar assets are localized. Germany de-carbonization path (shutting down their nuclear plants) was a massive mistake and have seriously hindered their economic long run competitiveness. Its been a black eye for them.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  > I think theres going to be a significant work to push down the costs of re-powering the aging nuclear fleet. The EPR2 costs just keeps spiraling. They haven't even started building yet or been able to agree on how to finance the subsidies. This is the same France that less than a month ago had another government collapse due to being underwater in debt with a spending problem and being unable to agree on how to fix it. A massive handout to the nuclear industry sounds like just the right plan! It is also funny that you mention Russia. You do know that the EU despite 19 sanction packages haven't been able to agree on sanctions for the Russian nuclear industry. We still are too reliant on it. Germany was able to quickly phase out Russian fossil gas, while france keeps being EUs no. 1 importer of Russian LNG. But I do love blaming everything on Germany. So much easier.
- epistasis 1y ago
  > Too much on the line to shut down nuclear for France. It will get subsidized and it provides energy independence. If the goal is energy independence, renewables will provide that more cheaply. If the goals are the other side effects of nuclear power: isotopes, national pride (Curie!), workforce augmentation for nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons, then these goals also require far fewer reactors than enough to power the entire country. I do not doubt that there may be some level of nuclear power in the future. But I would take a long bet that in 2050, France is closer to 0% nuclear power than it is to the current level. (That phrasing is confusing, but I think the fraction of nuclear power will be less than half its current amount)
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    > But I would take a long bet that in 2050, France is closer to 0% nuclear power than it is to the current level. Maybe, but I think the corollary goal is to have nuclear power be a bigger part of the remaining non-renewables. So if (exaggerating grossly) it's 90% renewable, 9% nuclear, and 1% other, that's arguably still better than the current state.
  - qball 1y ago
    >If the goal is energy independence, renewables will provide that more cheaply The only cheap renewable infrastructure comes from an enemy country and PV solar panels start degrading the moment you install them. If you think "energy independence" means "be completely and utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing" then sure, solar and wind offer a quick path to that. But that's not what the term means, it means "don't need to depend on any other country to keep the lights on". And for Western countries nuclear is really the only option there, whether you like it or not. If you think nuclear is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for the the continual refusal to develop indigenous electric capability the minute things start going sideways.
Yeul 1y ago
I'm sure they also did it for the nuclear weapons program. My own country never wanted nukes and they discovered large deposits of natural gas so that was it. After all nuclear energy was never as cheap as they envisioned in the 1950s.

boringg 1y ago

I will counter this. I think theres going to be a significant work to push down the costs of re-powering the aging nuclear fleet. Renewables will continue to be a force and work around the edges. Too much on the line to shut down nuclear for France. It will get subsidized and it provides energy independence. Potentially but not certain future where other people are also purchasing nuclear assets which pushes down maintenance / manufacturing costs. Risk is that China deploys globally and is the operator. France isn't known for high quality - reasonably costed items - fast time line products. As well - unspoken part of renewable is in case of a security incident in Europe (see Russia) - nuclear is much more stable work load then solar (could easily scatter bomb solar assets). I know that sounds unintuitive given peoples concern about Nuclear - but there is a such a common good to protect nuclear assets due to fallout where solar assets are localized. Germany de-carbonization path (shutting down their nuclear plants) was a massive mistake and have seriously hindered their economic long run competitiveness. Its been a black eye for them.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
> I think theres going to be a significant work to push down the costs of re-powering the aging nuclear fleet. The EPR2 costs just keeps spiraling. They haven't even started building yet or been able to agree on how to finance the subsidies. This is the same France that less than a month ago had another government collapse due to being underwater in debt with a spending problem and being unable to agree on how to fix it. A massive handout to the nuclear industry sounds like just the right plan! It is also funny that you mention Russia. You do know that the EU despite 19 sanction packages haven't been able to agree on sanctions for the Russian nuclear industry. We still are too reliant on it. Germany was able to quickly phase out Russian fossil gas, while france keeps being EUs no. 1 importer of Russian LNG. But I do love blaming everything on Germany. So much easier.
epistasis 1y ago
> Too much on the line to shut down nuclear for France. It will get subsidized and it provides energy independence. If the goal is energy independence, renewables will provide that more cheaply. If the goals are the other side effects of nuclear power: isotopes, national pride (Curie!), workforce augmentation for nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons, then these goals also require far fewer reactors than enough to power the entire country. I do not doubt that there may be some level of nuclear power in the future. But I would take a long bet that in 2050, France is closer to 0% nuclear power than it is to the current level. (That phrasing is confusing, but I think the fraction of nuclear power will be less than half its current amount)
- rkomorn 1y ago
  > But I would take a long bet that in 2050, France is closer to 0% nuclear power than it is to the current level. Maybe, but I think the corollary goal is to have nuclear power be a bigger part of the remaining non-renewables. So if (exaggerating grossly) it's 90% renewable, 9% nuclear, and 1% other, that's arguably still better than the current state.
- qball 1y ago
  >If the goal is energy independence, renewables will provide that more cheaply The only cheap renewable infrastructure comes from an enemy country and PV solar panels start degrading the moment you install them. If you think "energy independence" means "be completely and utterly dependent on Chinese manufacturing" then sure, solar and wind offer a quick path to that. But that's not what the term means, it means "don't need to depend on any other country to keep the lights on". And for Western countries nuclear is really the only option there, whether you like it or not. If you think nuclear is too expensive, just wait until you see the bill for the the continual refusal to develop indigenous electric capability the minute things start going sideways.

Yeul 1y ago

I'm sure they also did it for the nuclear weapons program. My own country never wanted nukes and they discovered large deposits of natural gas so that was it. After all nuclear energy was never as cheap as they envisioned in the 1950s.