3 ms·

Almost everybody that trumpets how fantastic France is doing with their nuclear fleet has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: https://en.wik

Almost everybody that trumpets how fantastic France is doing with their nuclear fleet has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity. France was ahead of the game in the 70's, but should have invested a lot more than they did since then. That they installed more than they needed also didn't help, especially not because the energy produced is sold on the open market at a net loss just to keep the reactors operating. And last but not least: they have an ever growing waste problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management_in_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_waste_management_in_Fr... The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing. If they did, they'd be running at an even higher loss. Probably the next generation will be presented the bill for that.

lucb1e 6mo ago
> has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: I actually did look into that and am familiar with the page, as well as the waste situation, thank you You've successfully ignored the core point of people are literally dying as we speak from the things we are choosing to continue to do. And not just like five in a mine somewhere, as you would have for solar resources as well, but millions, everywhere, every year It's so weird to read this moral framework where one puts engineering challenges and a risk of brown-outs over so many lives, especially when you include the 150M ~ 1B people that are expected to be uprooted and become climate migrants 25 years from now if we continue like this
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  Renewables and reduced consumption is the answer, not swapping out one fossil fuel for another, which - incidentally - if you did it at large scale would have massive geopolitical consequences. Your 'people are literally dying' holds zero weight: energy consumption will be what it will be unless we actually do something about that and it is the first - and by far the easiest - thing to address, well before we get to the choice of how to generate the power that we actually need. Our current consumption patterns per individual are simply not sustainable. Apologies for the bad news. Once you've solved that people will still be dying, this time because we waited too long to do something about it. But hopefully fewer people. And switching to nuclear isn't by itself some magic bullet, it will be extremely costly and there will be accidents that will take decades or even centuries to clean up, besides the waste issue. Nuclear proponents are much too prone to seeing it as a silver bullet, which it really is not, it has a whole slew of problems none of which you have even attempted to address. Finland is the only country that actually has the right attitude when it comes to nuclear.
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense. reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid. Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans
    - jacquesm 6mo ago
      > Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense. > It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans I think you are skating pretty close to disqualifying yourself from the discussion.
Moldoteck 6mo ago
It seems you are the one that doesnt understand the topic. EDF is still making big profits each year except 2022. Cooling isn't a problem either https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf EDF isn't building cooling towers there because exports are already maxed out. Waste storage isn't a problem. It'll be stored in Cigeo just like Onkalo. Over half of Cigeo cost is already reserved/covered by EDF (it includes operation till sealing). Cost was accounted in opex just like www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html . So please, avoid spreading nonsense
- jacquesm 6mo ago
  You have 67(!!) comments in this thread all of which amount to rabidly pro-nuclear and 'nothing to see here' arguments the bulk of which have been dealt with many times over. I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve but that last thing that people arguing for a balanced energy mix need is this kind of zealotry. Nuclear works, we know it works. It is expensive. It has a waste problem. It is slow to deploy and there are risks. Your head-in-the-sand strategy is not going to result in one more nuclear deployment, but it may convince a few more people that nuclear proponents are not rational about the downsides of the technology. Which is stupid because every technology has downsides.
  - Moldoteck 6mo ago
    What arguments have been dealt with many times over? Because I do not see that. I've provided sources from eurostat, nrel, unece, ourworldindata or even fraunhofer about gas firming in Germany. I can support any of my statements with data Waste problem for nuclear isn't different conceptually from waste problem of arsenic/cadmium/lead -> you need to isolate them somewhere deep underground for a long time. Eg. in Germany it's Herfa Neurode, in Finland-Onkalo, in Sweden - Fosmark, in Switzerland Terradura and in France - Cigeo. At their core concept it's just a deep hole that'll store dangerous waste forever. Nuclear is slow to deploy, yet France and Sweden achieved one of the fastest decarbonizations on the planet with it. Heck even UAE with Barakah recently managed to get ahead of Portugal and DK in terms of amount of clean TWh/y I'm in favor in deployment of nuclear and renewables because without nuclear it'll be renewables and gas. Heck, even France has a mix of nuclear and renewables and wants to expand both, just like Sweden. On the other hand countries that ban nuclear or even expand their policy on higher levels (EC, World Bank) have far worse emissions than France and are planning to use gas firming. It's interesting you are so concerned about my comments where I didnt explicitly asked to ban renewables nor stop their deployment but was arguing in favor in deploying of more nuclear on top but you are probably less concerned about comments from the people that say nuclear shouldn't be built entirely or even not extended like in case of Belgium. Heck even you said "were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned anyway" which is total nonsense - if a plant is unsafe to operate - operation wouldnt be allowed. Your other statements like "Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity." do show you even don't understand that npp in France are shut not because they can't cool but to save biodiversity. It's done in some npp without cooling towers and affects very little production while France is maxing exports at the same time. More details are available here https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf as I've already shown Or this statement "The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing." is nonsense too because provisions for long term waste management are described in EDF yearly financial reports and EDF made a statement that updated cigeo costs dont affect these plans https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/ministerial-order-assessing-the-industrial-reference-cost-of-the-cigeo-project https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ... . Situation is similar in other areas, Gosgen for example having a full cost breakdown https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte... So yes, my comments will probably not convince you, because you already have your position set, but these'll help others to see that some claims are pure nonsense

lucb1e 6mo ago

> has no clue how they are really doing. You can start here: I actually did look into that and am familiar with the page, as well as the waste situation, thank you You've successfully ignored the core point of people are literally dying as we speak from the things we are choosing to continue to do. And not just like five in a mine somewhere, as you would have for solar resources as well, but millions, everywhere, every year It's so weird to read this moral framework where one puts engineering challenges and a risk of brown-outs over so many lives, especially when you include the 150M ~ 1B people that are expected to be uprooted and become climate migrants 25 years from now if we continue like this

jacquesm 6mo ago
Renewables and reduced consumption is the answer, not swapping out one fossil fuel for another, which - incidentally - if you did it at large scale would have massive geopolitical consequences. Your 'people are literally dying' holds zero weight: energy consumption will be what it will be unless we actually do something about that and it is the first - and by far the easiest - thing to address, well before we get to the choice of how to generate the power that we actually need. Our current consumption patterns per individual are simply not sustainable. Apologies for the bad news. Once you've solved that people will still be dying, this time because we waited too long to do something about it. But hopefully fewer people. And switching to nuclear isn't by itself some magic bullet, it will be extremely costly and there will be accidents that will take decades or even centuries to clean up, besides the waste issue. Nuclear proponents are much too prone to seeing it as a silver bullet, which it really is not, it has a whole slew of problems none of which you have even attempted to address. Finland is the only country that actually has the right attitude when it comes to nuclear.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  nuclear is not fossil fuel. Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense. reduced consumption - this sounds like sweet (post) communist times ive experienced when i was a kid. Finland built Onkalo, Sweden started Fosmark, Switzerland approved terradura and France will have cigeo. It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans
  - jacquesm 6mo ago
    > Are you from Austria/Germany? Because from what I know only there are kids told such nonsense. > It's not a big deal to dig a hole, except maybe for germans I think you are skating pretty close to disqualifying yourself from the discussion.

Moldoteck 6mo ago

It seems you are the one that doesnt understand the topic. EDF is still making big profits each year except 2022. Cooling isn't a problem either https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf EDF isn't building cooling towers there because exports are already maxed out. Waste storage isn't a problem. It'll be stored in Cigeo just like Onkalo. Over half of Cigeo cost is already reserved/covered by EDF (it includes operation till sealing). Cost was accounted in opex just like www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html . So please, avoid spreading nonsense

jacquesm 6mo ago
You have 67(!!) comments in this thread all of which amount to rabidly pro-nuclear and 'nothing to see here' arguments the bulk of which have been dealt with many times over. I don't know what it is that you are trying to achieve but that last thing that people arguing for a balanced energy mix need is this kind of zealotry. Nuclear works, we know it works. It is expensive. It has a waste problem. It is slow to deploy and there are risks. Your head-in-the-sand strategy is not going to result in one more nuclear deployment, but it may convince a few more people that nuclear proponents are not rational about the downsides of the technology. Which is stupid because every technology has downsides.
- Moldoteck 6mo ago
  What arguments have been dealt with many times over? Because I do not see that. I've provided sources from eurostat, nrel, unece, ourworldindata or even fraunhofer about gas firming in Germany. I can support any of my statements with data Waste problem for nuclear isn't different conceptually from waste problem of arsenic/cadmium/lead -> you need to isolate them somewhere deep underground for a long time. Eg. in Germany it's Herfa Neurode, in Finland-Onkalo, in Sweden - Fosmark, in Switzerland Terradura and in France - Cigeo. At their core concept it's just a deep hole that'll store dangerous waste forever. Nuclear is slow to deploy, yet France and Sweden achieved one of the fastest decarbonizations on the planet with it. Heck even UAE with Barakah recently managed to get ahead of Portugal and DK in terms of amount of clean TWh/y I'm in favor in deployment of nuclear and renewables because without nuclear it'll be renewables and gas. Heck, even France has a mix of nuclear and renewables and wants to expand both, just like Sweden. On the other hand countries that ban nuclear or even expand their policy on higher levels (EC, World Bank) have far worse emissions than France and are planning to use gas firming. It's interesting you are so concerned about my comments where I didnt explicitly asked to ban renewables nor stop their deployment but was arguing in favor in deploying of more nuclear on top but you are probably less concerned about comments from the people that say nuclear shouldn't be built entirely or even not extended like in case of Belgium. Heck even you said "were waved off from being properly fixed because they were going to be decommissioned anyway" which is total nonsense - if a plant is unsafe to operate - operation wouldnt be allowed. Your other statements like "Oh, and good chance that in the summer months (when demand is pretty high, especially in the South of France) they may have to shut down again because of a lack of cooling capacity." do show you even don't understand that npp in France are shut not because they can't cool but to save biodiversity. It's done in some npp without cooling towers and affects very little production while France is maxing exports at the same time. More details are available here https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf https://www.vie-publique.fr/files/rapport/pdf/288726.pdf as I've already shown Or this statement "The cost of which (besides the maintenance costs mentioned above) has not been accounted for in the electricity pricing." is nonsense too because provisions for long term waste management are described in EDF yearly financial reports and EDF made a statement that updated cigeo costs dont affect these plans https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journalists/all-press-releases/ministerial-order-assessing-the-industrial-reference-cost-of-the-cigeo-project https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/journ... . Situation is similar in other areas, Gosgen for example having a full cost breakdown https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte.html https://www.kkg.ch/de/uns/geschaefts-nachhaltigkeitsberichte... So yes, my comments will probably not convince you, because you already have your position set, but these'll help others to see that some claims are pure nonsense