Tap to unmute
Alleged mobsters pose as construction workers to rob NYC jewelers to Beyonce, Rihanna | NBC New York
Why French Nuclear Energy Failed
- Published on Jun 9, 2023 veröffentlicht
- Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/intoeurope
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. 🎨
See important Masterworks disclosures: masterworks.io/cd
Into Europe: France's nuclear industry faces a problem, in the midst of an energy crisis, half of its reactors are offline and it is struggling to turn them back on. It's an industry that was a source of pride for the French but that now faces existential difficulties.
So what happened to France's nuclear industry, and can it be saved?
00:37 France's nuclear build-up
02:41 The post-cold war world
03:27 Sponsored Segment
04:31 EDF vs Liberalism
06:22 The fall of France's nuclear Industry
07:36 The plan to revive nuclear in France
© All Rights Reserved.
France's Nuclear Build-up
Grubler, A. (2010). The costs of the French nuclear scale-up: A case of negative learning by doing. Energy Policy, 38(9), 5174-5188. doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010....
Folz, J.-M. (n.d.). Rapport - vie publique. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from www.vie-publique.fr/sites/def...
The ARENH Mechanism:
The ARENH, regulated access to France's historic nuclear energy. Magnus Commodities. (2022, August 17). Retrieved November 7, 2022, from www.magnuscmd.com/the-arenh-r...
The difficulties of EDF (3 part series by Le Point):
EDF, Les Racines d'un crash : "Une entreprise normale ferait faillite". LExpansion.com. (2022, October 4). Retrieved November 7, 2022, from lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actual...
EDF, Les Racines d'un crash : "C'est l'union soviétique, avec un peu plus d'argent". LExpansion.com. (2022, October 4). Retrieved November 7, 2022, from lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actual...
EDF, Les Racines d'un crash : Les "Trahisons" De l'Etat Actionnaire. LExpansion.com. (2022, October 5). Retrieved November 7, 2022, from lexpansion.lexpress.fr/actual...
Overview of Europe's nuclear future:
Hernandez, A. (2021, March 12). Europe's Sputtering Nuclear Renaissance. POLITICO. Retrieved November 7, 2022, from www.politico.eu/article/europ...
Comments • 577
Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/intoeurope
Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. 🎨
See important Masterworks disclosures: masterworks.io/cd
2:41 Chernobyl happened in 1986!
@Detre Chernobyl is not in France
masterworks sounds like a scam, did you do your research before promoting them?
Why does masterworks need to advertise if they’re so in demand there’s a waiting list?
Dispatchable nuclear with relatively easy thermal storage in sand or bricks and multiple steam turbine generators could do base load and peak power generation. Next generation must be designed with this capability to be competitive.
France's choice to pursue nuclear was one of the best ever made. It's so sad to see underinvestment in such a huge advantage.
in fact I say the only weak link right now is germany and their energetic tourret syndrom
france is reliant on Russian Uranus for its powerplants, even in war times!
There is a reason why Uranium is not on the sanctions list against Russia!
@F-Rune Russia is only the 6th largest producer of Uranium in the world...
As a French citizen, it still amazes me to see how our politics turned to dung what was before one of our best industries and what allowed us to have pretty cheap energy.
Everytime I think they've reach some kind of bottom in their silliness, they manage to dig even deeper.
And let's not talk about Alstom
Its has more to do with market forces bro and the public demands in this case
Ahem. French never had cheap energy. The reactors ran on tax money all this time, your electricity prices never reflected the costs of production.
Are any of you sure - that if in charge - you could do any better?
Interesting to see that the privatization of the electricity market had dire consequences in France as well. In Lithuania this year the government decided to go forward with the liberalization of our electricity market which spiked the prices to one of if not the highest in the entire union, as well as a collapse of one of the non - government "providers" of electricity, leaving many people screwed.
surely that must have freed up some tax money no?
@hagala these industries are probably the most subsedised in europe.
A government entity can simply keep selling their reserves for the price they bought it for and by the time prices come down fill their reserves back up again. Insulating them from market instability.
Private companies simply charge the market rate since they are just middle men buying it at the same time they sell it to the public forcing market rates onto the public.
Short term gains long term consequences
@hagala Why would it? Even then is that really worth it?
As a spaniard, we've also been benefiting by French nuclear energy policies during decades, also lowering our energy prices thanks to french energy sales trought our northern electrical interconection (same with Portugal).
Nuclear power is one of the best tools we have to gain energy independance as a union, and to allow us to grow our renewable energy park
Italy is the same. We also buy the nuclear power from France.
It's great to see the industry getting investment again, France has been a beacon of European energy independence for many years, and the decline of its nuclear industry seemed worrying.
Do not underestimate French: when its a matter of national pride and security they will find a way out for sure.
This is what happens when you try to fix something that isn't broken.
Exactly, why did France need a liberal market for its electricity?
@Luca J Something something EU something something.
@Luca J UE made it mandatory to open the market in France to competition. As a result, EDF, the company in charge of producing the electricity, has to sell the last one to the competition (competition that doesn't produce it btw, they're only distributors.)
@Luca J Same nonsense happened in Japan. Exactly the same.
The huge dependence on oil and the oil shock is a great perspective on the current gas crisis.
While Europe seems to have forgotten some of the lessons learned, the dependance on gas is still les severe than back then.
40 years of cheap energy with no acidents - I don't see how that is not a succes
It is, the incapacity to make it to 60 years is just a massive shame.
"cheap".. no tax funded subsidized energy hiding its true cost. but it was a good idea back in the day. it just no longer is.
The problem it isn't cheap.
It is highly taxfunded and will still cost billions in the future. Even reactors finished in the last 20 years were far more expensive to build and to operate then other typs of power generation in europe.
Reactors that are about to get started will be costing about 5 times as much to build and 3 times as much to operate then other power generation.
@pax und peace it is
As a Frenchman, I do agree with most of your analysis. We are now at the lowest point of our nuclear energy industry. Due to excess confidence, pride, and monopolistic abuses, EDF, Framatome, and AREVA are today in a sort of meltdown. However, you fail to mention the great potential still ahead and already taking shape, we have small and medium mostly private Companies eager to enter the fray of a completely nuclear new era. I am thinking about the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor undertakings that will bring in decentralized abundant and cheap energy, in every corner of the country and abroad. Thank you for your presentation
In how many years? You need a solution now. Go solar will ease the daytime load issue. And is much quicker.
@Walterwaltraud go solar? In france?? Oh I get it. Just install solar and the electrons will get so excited they will blow the power grid. Like, like you know, like yeah … going to Davis this year?
Personally I’m a big fan of the potential of MSRs .. but I think thorium is hugely over hyped. That said I’m still very excited for the possibilities of advanced nuclear going forward.
France's nuclear energy was an incredible achievement in this world. Its not only a technical and environmental achievement, but a marvel of national financial accounting. Look how Japan's trade balance went to hell the moment they turned off all their nuclear plants, for example--energy imports are often the top import item in a nation's current account. Nuclear energy in that way pays dividends. Plus, look at asthma rates in France vs Germany. France has half the per capita pollution as Germany simply because of its nuclear energy. France should invest the money to replace and upgrade its nuclear power stations. The investment will pay for itself environmentally and through the balance of trade too. I hope this can be done.
British people who go to live in France always complain about the very high cost of electricity there.
Here in the UK, the media often bemaons the fact that France manages to keep the energy cost down without mentioning there's a price at the back end
We have been exporting power to France through the interconnector while we would normally be importing from them.
Norways hyrdo power isnt doign so well due the decreased waterfall from drought and I really hope we sort it out soon as we are all in this together in the European Grid.
We should do what France did in the 80's again on a EU wide level, we develop and standardize a new more flexible reactor type for current and future grid service. We go on a building spree to replace all base-load electricity production by nuclear energy this we must do in combination with renewebles. The costs will be the lowest and we will create a new industry that can competitively produce green molecules to replace oil and gas for the chemical industry and ofcourse those profits stay in Europe. We can't do it without nuclear if we try Europe will become obsolete.
Yeah no. Europe is way to filled with people for a large amount of reactors. at least the west. 1 nuclear reactor going Chernobyl. ( yeah now repeat the bot response of " but its so rare to happen" Yeah, it only needs to happen once tho.) could cause half a country to be evacuated. 1 nuclear reactor in the Netherlands or Belgium breaking down mean you now have 5 million refugees in a single day. good luck with that.Europe does not need nuclear. Or at the very least. not at a much higher extent than we already have.
@R K Comparing soviet-designed Chernobyl (RBMK) reactors, with defective safety systems and NO containement structure vs. western-designed PWRs with advanced safety features AND a containement structure is beyond moronic.
@pxidr Good bot.
@R K The irony🤣. How much do you actually know about Chernobyl or western designs?
Bro i have a degree in business and energy and delt with the costs of energy a lot. Nuclear is not cheap at all. If we did what you suggested, firstly we'd need decades to do it and don't have the capacity to do it, secondly it would be extremely expensive and cost more than any alternative except for the underdeveloped wave power. Thirdly it would increase demand for uranium so the costs and emissions for mining uranium would grow much faster than they already do. That's right with every passing year uranium gets harder and harder to mine and more and more polluting and energy intensive. By the mid of a new nuclear plants lifespan, if we built one today, starting its operation in 15 years (realistic construction time) and then 15 more years.. and voila at that point even with current demand for uranium, it would consume so much energy that the energy needed in the entire nuclear plant supply chain and construction and dismantling would bring the life cycle emissions of nuclear power ABOVE gas power plants. Not to mention the costs. If it was possible I'd be all for it but its not feasible, we don't have easily accessible uranium anymore. It would be so simple so easy if nuclear was an option. Would solve all the problems. but it can't. it's impossible. it is a finite ressource and unless there's some significant nuclear power breakthrough we won't have much nuclear power left in the world by the end of this century.
Man you really need to make more uploads to make the channel grow you guys are so good
I am trying! Have been optimising my process the past couple of weeks so I should be able to produce faster in the future :)
@Into Europe well i will be looking closely 🤣🤣🤣
@Into Europe 2:41 Chernobyl happened in 1986!
Yes, but I care more about the story than seeing the guy's face all the time. But keep up the good work!
The biggest issue will be finding qualified specialized workers in the pipe welding industry!
I did an internship as a quality control tech in one of the leading nuclear welding company back in the 90s (yeah I am old) and already then, the most “nuclear accredited” senior pipe welders - who were imbued with crazy “magic” welding skills, and paid twice as much as the CEO of the company!!!! - couldn’t find apprentices or anyone to replace them… It’s so sad to see how all these skills went to waste! It will be hard to “retrain” new people…
We do have very capable pipe welding robots nowadays that can mitigate the issue somewhat.
La France est capable d'accomplir de grandes choses lorsqu'elle décide d'y aller à 100%, notamment dans les secteurs clefs des transports, du militaire ou de l'énergie. Les exemples de ces réussites sont nombreuses. Tant mieux si cette crise que le pays taverse permet au gouvernement et aux français de prendre conscience des erreurs des dernières années et de les corriger
Bravo, une vidéo qui vise juste et donne les bonnes clés de compréhension pour saisir l’état actuel de la filière nucléaire française
as an Austrian i am annoyed at my own government and the green party in it (which i voted for mind you) because atomic energy is still better for the environment then fossil energy. It would be better if our energy minister would focus on more important issues!
The complaint is that both nuclear AND gas are considered green, though. The reasoning is that while nuclear is better than fossil, subsidize them is also the wrong signal as the focus should still go to renewables. From this perspective it makes sense.
yes, austrian government is a pain in the ass for eu , and now with this war, austria try more to be fiend with putin insted of keeping close with europe
@Stefan Reiterer This is a good point, but the way Austria is making it is misleading.
In this context, the main problem of nuclear fission is that it relies on non-renewable fuel, not that it isn't green. Including it as a green alternative should, therefore, not be a problem.
Especially considering how ungreen sun and wind can be in comparison.
The responsibles are showing that they care more about ideology than facts, which is very dangerous for the future.
"Green" and "renewable" should not be held as synonyms.
The video is an eye opener. Let's hope French ingenuity can show the way once again.
A terminology question:
In the US, nuclear 'fleet' means the naval aspect of a nuclear program: ships, submarines, etc.
In France, does this mean land and sea together?
These are two different contexts.
This video is about the nuclear power plants meant to produce energy for the grid. EDF's nuclear fleet refers to the set of the nuclear power plants it controls.
What the military would call the nuclear fleet is the set of buildings that are including their own nuclear reactor for their alimentation in energy, which would indeed be a fleet of ships and submarines instead of plants.
The ruler’s back and showing us why he’s still the best content creator on European affairs ❤️
Privatisation shouldn't occur unless there is a firm commitment to sustained investment and development and a willingness to adapt to meet the changing needs of the nation. Failure to meet any of the expectations should result in tax penalties for these energy companies to the point that they become worthless to shareholders.
He also said the government milking big unsustainable dividends (for tax revenues puroposes) was part of the problem. That's typical of state-owned enterprises
I'd definitely welcome a European plant design, but they need to come up with something more reasonably priced and perhaps modular as well. Oh yeah, and they need to do it fast. Where are MSRs? Not long ago yt was full of it as the new saviour of nuclear.
MSRs have never left the prototype stage, so while they may be great in theory, we need something that we know will work today.
@Tealice Nonsense, China just started an MSR, the most difficult type a thorium LFTR, it took them 3yrs to build. The IMSR 200MWe by Terrestrial Energy is just finishing its 2nd stage CNSC approval in Canada. Has already bid on a new Darlington build.
As a Canadian, I must say I am surprised by your report here. I was always under the impression that France had the best nuclear industry in the world by far. At least in terms of waste management, they are breeding and burning and reprocessing their fuels better than anyone else. Of course with high level skills like that, the workers are paid much more now and so the cost to build a reactor has gone through the roof now. It is the same here in Ontario. Even the cost of refurbishment is far higher than a comparable hydro electric power station.I live in Ontario where we bet on nuclear while Quebec bet on Hydro and their electricity costs are far far lower there. Hydro is the way to go if you can. Nuclear is good for a place like France though where they have much less natural resources of their own. If you can't get the uranium from African colonies anymore, come buy it from us, we have plenty
>France has the best nuclear industry in the world
Yeah, that's what we want you to believe. :)
Unfortunately, the french govt and public in general has been very anti-nuclear for the past 20 years. Nuclear is once again viewed as positive by the public, but it's a recent thing.
So for 20 years, we've been telling EDF that nuclear was a thing of the past and that we had to move away from it only to act shocked now that they have not made the necessary investments to continue the fleet operation.
France only recycles once its fuel into MOX. Twice thru cycle. No multi-recyling. We used to operate the world's largest breeder reactor until 1997 but now the only breeder in comm operation is in Russia.
To sum up, while we've retained a good chunk of competence in nuclear engineering, we've lost most of our capabilites to actually build plants. And there's no easy solution, just practice.
Anyways, congrats on the Pickering refurbishment program that was passed in ontario.
Sadly hydro power has a very detrimental effect on nature by destroying habitats for fish and other aquatic life. In Europe many hydro dams are being removed for this reason and also because they are slowly falling apart.
Arguably it did at one point and it still does have a very impressive safety record. But those times have mostly passed.
The only problem with your assesment is that it is false, they had cheap energy for a lot of time and it has paid out a lot, its that no new reinvestments in the industry were made for basically 40 years because the solution seemed even better than it was
I knew that there would be some mention of privatization of national industries to explain much of the ongoing problems
The issue is that the privatised company cut back on maintainence so that 1/2 are not certified
If all were online france would export current to germany belgium and italy
Meneer Hugo, I don't think it's a "disaster" it's a tightrope, a margin that the French government hopes to reach in the event of difficult winter conditions. The margin for winter was supposed to be between 45 and 50 gigawatts according to the CEO of EDF, it is now close to 45. It could be a disaster for Germany if France is not able to provide electricity to their country. The reactors are old but if you look inside these reactors, almost everything is new. We have the same kind of problems in Belgium. A few years ago, certain political groups complained about our reactors and made a big deal of MICRO-cracks inside the concrete of equipment that was part of a multilayer of security; we no longer hear them.
But again, French citizens can bring down their own country with their ultra-individualistic mindset, go on strike at the most inopportune moment and then blame their government...
Marco and Scholz agree that France will help Germany with gas (if needed) while Germany will help France (if needed) with electricity this winter
But it’s the fault of the government, they joined the EU electricity market.
Which is the main reason why price are so high the production cost in France is at around 60€ mWh (normally it’s at 40€) but we paid it 100€ to 200€, because like he says EDF is force to sell its electricity at loss to « reduced an unfair monopoly » as Brussels bureaucrats say. And since price are high people who had a contract with alternative providers prefer to turn back to EDF but EDF doesn’t have that electricity because it’s obligated to sell it’s energy at production cost (production cost which since then have rise by a quarter) so EDF as to buy it’s own electricity from it’s concurrent at market price.
So it’s not our fault if this is happening and if we don’t show displeasure the government will do nothing about it and even worsen the situation Macron wanted dismantle half of nuclear powers plants but then he saw all the manifestation and he backdown
And we are not ultra individualistic we want the best for our country and our people
Doing the math always helps. Check the cost to construct a nukular power plant:
1:56 cost to build from 5 Francs to 12 Francs per kW. 12 Francs is about 1 Euros, same price as home solar.
This is before the EPR cost explosion and before considering costs of waste treatment and storage.
well waste storage is easy enough, just dump it in an abandonned deep mine, line the walls with concrete if you're paranoid
plus there are some promising avenues for actually making something useful out of it
solar is pretty nice, but not sufficiently scalable (outside of deserts), because, sure, you can and should cover rooftops with it, but then you still need a lot more space to meet energy demand and you don't really want to use wild or arable land for it
@yjlom There is the Homer Simpson Paradoxon - the most dangerous technology is operated by the least responsible people.
Also, how to pass information onwards 100.000+ years? Paper? Floppy disk? Engraved stone?
@Daniel Ciesinger Where is that coming from?
The Simpsons is a comedic cartoon. This is not how power plants are handled in real life, especially in France.
@Loïc Caquelard By todays standards, working in a nuclear power plant is one of the least attractive job propositions. So this is why you don't get the best. You get the leftovers who are incapable of getting better jobs.
Do you have actual evidence of this, besides cartoons?
While it is true that the field has known a lowered popularity thanks to the anti-nuclear propaganda of ideologists, this meant that there were less candidates to sort into the formations, not that the ones exiting them weren't adequately trained.
Great stuff, really well explained
Great video. It's not that easy to explain the extent of the idiocy, weakness and short-sightedness of French politicians
Some are also plain traitors too.
Thanks for this I have been banging on about this a the past year as media groups in the UK used the French governments imposition of a 4% price increase inferring French energy was better managed . IMO the French have lived on borrowed time for too long
Don‘t listen to the sponsoring. When bond markets are up - which they currently are - all alternative modes of investment usually devalue. Also, by investing in Masterworks you do not hold parts of the artwork, but a derivative denominating your share in the value of the art piece. These derivatives are currently the focus of new regulation by many lawmakers due to the rise in fraudulent behaviour on those markets resulting from underregulation. Worst case: Platform goes down, you lose all your money invested, 2nd worst case: Government decides the contracts are illegal and reimburse owners with the initial amount invested -> no protection from inflation, nothing gained
It is sad to see how many channels - even if they have good content - do not screen their sponsors.
I acknowledge that youtubers have to take on some dodgy sponsors if they want to make money, but this art scammery is a next level rip-off. The art market is a scam even before you add all the shit you describe, mostly there to launder money.
@Felix Krull Almost every ad on Clip-Share is crap. Meanwhile, they censor the users and prevent them from expressing themselves and calling out liars as they should be called out, with curse words and insults
A big thing to take away is economic liberalism is not always the solution. Especially not the golden boy everyone thought it was after the collapse of the USSR.
How on earth is that the takeaway? Nuclear was hampered by the public through the legislative process.
Now, we can talk about stupid moves like giving away dividends to shareholders for no good reason. But simply saying that forcing a monopoly is the solution is frankly brain-dead.
@da_Revo Public services should be owned and regulated by the government. Profit motive should be second especially in something as basic as electricity.
It rarely is. Longterm and sustainable anything just doesn't go together with libralism.
It is great for quick and dirty consumer goods and stuff. Anything important it will eat itself from the inside out and when it all collapses in on itself the public can have it back.
It happens over and over again and still people keep saying it is the way forward.
@Max Kaufmann Fixing prices is a great way to burn money. I don't even need to make this argument anymore. People will just mine Bitcoin and pocket the difference.
Nationalize energy production and grid in all European countries! Free market competition makes no sense when each country has only 1 grid...
We now have a european grid. Which is what was the original point of the privatisation.
But it created many new problems.
We need one big european utility now. With renewables we need the ability to diversify and deploy resources where they make sense all over europe. It makes the conversion to renewables so much easier and cheap. It is the obvious thing to do.
@Joao vMR but nationalizing it on the country level would be stupid. There now is an integrated european grid, lets use it in the most efficient way.
That way spain where it is sunny can provide most the energy during the day for europe. And norway can supply spain at night with hydro, and netherlands can supply bulgaria with their excess wind capacity etc.
Going full renewables on an individual level is near impossible, on a continent wide level it becomes orders of magnitude easier and cheaper.
And otherwise you get disparity where some country with little access to good resources to use for renewables need to import energy from other countries who are along the north sea for example and can exploit wind in a massive way. Then it would again bennefit the northwestern countries a lot more and make the eastern countries dependends again. Forcing them to go nuclear which are massive pits that absorb massive amounts of public money.
Speak for yourself. God, I dont want to return to the time where there only was a regulated market, with prices set politically, and subsidized by our own taxes.
If we had all consumers in a regulated market we would have terrible shortages rigth now or, if there was no shortages, we would be puting up huge amounts of public debt, and with the dificulty of borrowing in southern europe and the raising in interest rates in northern europe we would have huge interest payments every year, wich means, of course, raising taxes in corporations and industries (because a goverment that wants nationalization of the energy market is likelly to also want that) meaning that we would turn the european products even less competitive and chronically crpile our economies even further than they alerady are.
Oh god, and imagine states setting the energy mix with their populism... We wouldnt even have nuclear energy rigth now
@Duck 0351 this was never the case when utilities where national industries. Not even trough the 70s and all the oil embargos.
Non of that happened and there is no reason things would be different now.
They are all theorethic doom scenarios that have no relation to reality at all. All the same theorethical doom scenarios can be made for any market structure. It's just a bunch of nonsense.
I support France's move to go all-in on nuclear. If anything, France should go much, much further. They should work with Spain, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Poland, Slovenia, and Croatia to boost nuclear around Europe, not just France. This past year, I learned that with climate change wreaking havoc on rainfall levels, we can't rely on rivers to always be there when we need them. All of the countries I listed have coastlines. Access to abundant cooling will be important for energy security.
France should lobby that the entire nuclear industry be government-owned, not private.
@Baron von Limbourgh Why is Hydro Quebec such a massive money maker for Quebec? Why is Saudi Aramco such a money maker for Saudi Arabia?
Why is Equinor a massive success story for Norway? If anything, Norway should revert back to the 60s, and mandate 100% government ownership over Equinor, and 50% of all oil production licenses in the country.
Spain still plans to shut down their whole fleet and nuclear is downright illegal in denmark.
I guess France and others have already done their part by lobbying hard to get nuclear included into the so-called "green taxonomy".
But french nuclear industry is already way to busy trying to fix/extend the service life of its fleet (+ a few EPR in the UK).
The rest of EUrope will probably have to get contracts with Korea and the US for their future reactors.
Yet those reactors have help seriously reduce CO2 emission.
Great video! Sadly for french nuclear industry Poland has signed a contract with South Korea and the US only. Their offer has been rejected.
Having said that, the EPR design really seems troubled. France should clean house and focus on building successfully domestically and in the UK with the Hinkley C and Sizewell C plants before it can be trusted with more export orders.
@Angelica Oung The EPR works in Finland though
@Me Neither very glad to see Olkiluoto come through tho very late and out of budget
I hope France succeeds, i hope France manages to undo decades of neglect and media damage the Nuclear debate has done to our simple necesity of providing the literal driving force of both our past and our new economy's and industries of the future... within the context of climate change
Un video tr'es important. Merci d'avoir e'clairci cette situation difficile!
Although many are talking about a nuclear renaissance most countries that have large reactor fleets are building not enough to replace older ones. E.g. the US and most European countries. Even with rapid expansion the share of nuclear energy will decline for at least 2 decades. During that time renewables expand rapidly and storage technology and smart grids evolve. I am not sure nuclear reactors are economically viable in the future if they even are today.
In 2050 the energy demand will be three times that of today, we need to switch all our industry to electricity to replace fossil energy as primary source. This ensures that there will always be a base-load demand that will be coming from new industry's that produces green molecules to substitute current fossil bases chemicals. Nuclear is economically viable, if we build many costs and delays will be lower then today. They are economically viable and will produce new value adding industries what makes them the most economically viable ever.
@Fred Bcf Wind and solar are much cheaper in Europe than all the other energy sources with the exception of lignite. All 3 are below 10 cent per kWh while nuclear is at 11-13 cent. The high prices of electricity at the moment is due to coal and gas import prices being high.
Situation in Czech rep: Last year we produced 77TWh of electricity. If we were about to de-carbonize industry and use electric cars, we would need at least 135TWh of electricity.
i.e. would would need to nearly DOUBLE the electricity production over short period of time (one or two decates).
Or we could start importing electricity from abroad. But we are landlocked country, surrounded by electricity importers. Those GreenDeal plans are totally unrealistic and there is no way to fulfill them.
Thank god there is one country with a good set of brains. Energy is to big and important to privatise. Or at least not completely.
The widespread corrosion problems aren’t a result of mismanagement. They’re indicative of a design or a manufacturing problem.
There are different aspects involved.
1) Nearly all attempts on privatizing state monopolies in the last decades failed more or less - especially if the former monopolist was forced to subsidize their competitors and/or selling them services at a fixed price. The only way to privatize such corporations would be to split them up equally - but that is often not possible.
2) Backbone infrastructure should never be controlled by private owned companies or by companies operating like private owned companies. Maintaining backbone infrastructure does only work if it is nationalized - at least within a capitalist market-based economy.
3) In the long run fission technology will not be economically feasible. It is based on consuming limited ressources and therefore not sustainable, and it can not compete with renewables. Without subsidies by the state electricity generated by any new reactor would be very expensive, it becomes cheap only after decades, but then the reactors start to break down due to the immanent wear.
Isn't a French company that provides electricity to London? I once heard it from a video 'joking' about the higher prices of electricity in London and how French was taking advantage of the free energy market in UK...
I think EDF opeates a few projects in the UK and our nuclear power plant in particular.
If you check on the power generation of the grid, when the wind blows we have been exporting power to them while we would normally be buying so I pray the wind keeps blowing all through this winter
This is a great video summarizing the history of Nuclear in France. One thing that could be more explored would be the EU's influence on it. ##
Germany and Austria are big voices in the EU, and are proudly active against any type of nuclear. Austria went as far as to request the EU for "less penaltys" in case a country fails to reach net-zero by not using nuclear, as "it is a harder path, yet the right one to make". Ideology > Facts and Planet. This reflects even the latest EU Taxonomy - which is decades overdue - only considers certain nuclear technologies as "green", and labeled it TOGETHER with Natural gas, a rising fossil fuel. It doesn't really show a will to develop the industry.
Meanwhile, many Asian countries that have steady support, and kept the industry going show very good track records: literally half the time AND half the cost. Both Asia and African countries can rely on their technologies, and so do some countries in Eastern Europe.
EU is on a track to becoming even more dependent on external expertise. There's a huge ideology that NetZero can be achieved only with renewables by Germany and Austria. Everything is being left in the in-debt EDF, which does not currently have enough expertise for their own operations in France and in the UK, much less for the whole continent. This will be made worst in 2040, with many reactors decommissioning. And yet, any nuclear future is put solely on their shoulders.
If the EU does not offer it, countries that truly need nuclear will look elsewhere to get the projects going. This is already seen in Eastern European countries, with Slovakia close to commission a Russian reactor, and plans to build another one soon, Poland having deals with both USA and South Korea, Czech Republic and Estonia with all the above, and RollsRoyce UK, ....
Depending on how cold this winter actually becomes, we'll see if they keep true to their word.
Renewables go a long way, but supplemented with nuclear the EU could be netzero in like 2-3 decades if they put their backs into it.
France didn't profiled much in terns of selling as they were selling energy in summers when prices are lowest in year
it seem to me that the EU is starting to centralize the political power in order to stabilize the big hole the Russian left in the Energy industry. In my opinion i am glade they are going for more renewables energy since the Climate Change is getting worst and worst every year.
We need a single european wide utility. That can deploy resources all over europe where they make sense and it being one large network. It is the way forward.
It takes about 30 years from a point where money for the construction project are allocated, to the point where the nuclear power plant has paid for itself and starts earning money. No private investor will bother with such long term investment. Even young investors would be retired old men by then. That is why it is fine to have national single company monopoly over this sector where the state is the investor. Another factor is that the more you build, the faster you build it. Russia, China and South Korea are pretty damned fast at conmstruction project of an NPP, because they hgave experience. While American Westinghouse and French splinters of EDF have been sitting on their thumbs while making fuel rods and spare parts for the last decade.
The Chernobyl acident was in 1986 and Fall of The Berlin Wall was in 1989.
Fall of Soviet Union was in 1991, Chernobyl is a dumb mistake on my part 🤦🏻♂️
@Into Europe the Berlin Wall fell before the USSR did
A pretty good alternative to privatization would have been democratization of the utilities with the United States establishing electrical cooperatives and its early expansion of electrical infrastructure in the western United States. Nowadays these electrical cooperatives have provided extraordinarily reliable electricity at low rates with many of the states with the highest electrical reliability scores having a large number of these cooperatives.
Nuclear energy is simply never going to catch up to the cost-effectiveness of renewables, the technology is just too far behind now. The gap is even growing every year.
This isn't so simple.
Renewable energies come with lots of restrictions that scale up badly. Both wind turbines and solar pannels require much more land surface than nuclear power plants and require that land to be where the wind and sunlight are. And given the high costs and losses of energy storage, most of that renewable energy has to be used immediately. This prevents from installing more production based on sun and wind than is needed so that the excess is used when the sunlight or wind is absent and therefore explicitly imposes a certain portion of other sources into the mix to still have enough energy during these down times.
But the most important problem right now with wind and solar that hasn't been solved so far is to build these infrastructures in a way that is secured in the long run and safe to the environment. Wind turbines and solar pannels both rely on non-renewable resources, among which rare earths are the scarcest. Their mining and processing is difficult and expensive to do in a way that doesn't spoil the environment too much. With most of the currently known reserves of these are in China, which makes absolutely nothing to mine and process them in an environmentally sound way. Additionally, China deciding to stop exporting these to some country would put a stop in its ability to build wind turbines and solar pannels, unless by going through third parties, thus increasing costs by a lot.
If these materials were mined and processed with more care to the environment, prices would also go way up, thus making wind and solar energy much more expensive to develop.
The nature of the pollution produced by this industry also makes it far more difficult to contain than nuclear fission's. The amount of waste is incredibly larger and, since it is chemically polluting rather than radioactive, it never stops being a hazard instead of diminishing in harm with time faster the more it is hazardous.
All alternatives must be developped so that we can pursue these different options within the limits of our access to them.
well... you carefully avoided talking about the elephant in the room...
2 times, in the late 90's early 2000's and from 2012 to 2017, there were left coalitions including the "greens" governing France... both time, there was a deal to make the green work together within the coalition: slow down, stop projects or close nuclear power plants ... if you're looking for the reason why the industry lost its competency, well, that's a pretty good point to start from...
Ben je van mening dat we in Nederland het voorbeeld van Frankrijk moeten volgen en ook hier meer nucleaire centrales zouden moeten bouwen ?
Just build them on stilts, so the rising sea level won't be a problem.
Tuurlijk niet. Dr moeten 50 of 60 jaar gigantische subsidies in anders wil niemand die electriciteit kopen.
Als overdag the strike price 3 of 4 cent is en zo'n centrale een vaste operationele prijs heeft van 30 cent moet er voor iedere kwh die die produceert over t hele leven van de centrale 25 cent belasting geld bij.
En elektra van renewables word ieder jaar alleen maar goedkoper. Dus moet er ieder jaar meer bij.
T is een idioot idee.
Chernobyl disaster took place in 1986...not 1984 :)
No mention of Fessenheim closed because the germans wanted it , what a great Friend they are :)
No friendship possible with Germany. Serfdom of antagonism
They should go green at lightning speed because it's cheaper in LCOE. The co dituo s for wind and solar are great.
For substituting reactors, that's their own business. But load following is either wasteful or adds complexity (or wear and tear) by design, thus sticking to one replacement design but only say 30% if the lectric load (like in Spain..) sounds most reasonable to me. They have droughty, it's expensive, EdF carries close to 90 billion im debt...
Thus go green and make Renault a BEV superpower.
@Walterwaltraud France nuclear fleet does load following that may effect capacity factor but that's about it and france is connected to EU grid and has headroom for export and their product is much preferred to W/S because it's dependable, i'm not sure about this causing damage to the reactors france is doing studies to possibly extend the rectors to 60 years and this fact alone goes against what you said, france recent problems are due to pile up of work not done in covid times (poor management) and pushing reactors to limit in same period to secure supply (lack of oversight and awareness)
And by the way the W/S suffer from reliability the most, expensive batteries and bigger grid is required and that's not even enough to address it constant on/off for wind turbines is proving bad for their life span that is dwindling from expected 20y to 13-15y (example denmark) all of this nukes your LCOE argument as non of this is mentioned
You addressed some good points and challenges facing nuclear grid but non that can't be overcome, and your supposed better alternatives are laughable and would not make anything better but worst by a long shot and cost trillions doing that like any renewables grid just ink on paper and studies far from any real life example
@Ihab - You are obviously not an engineer. The load following of French nuclear reactors is something I've know for decades, only the first generation of reactors was not able to to that. But as I stated before, that still wastes capital and energy if you cannot make good use of the lower end of the energy load curve. Such might be electrolysis, but when those are only working part time, it's wasted tied capital as well. Or heating water, charging cars, raising the load on bauxit melting etc. On a grand scale, btw and since you appear to be a nuclear tech fan but no expert, I'd suggest you start looking at the supply side and availabilty of exploitable uranium oxide globally. You fanboys seem to miss that, whilst I look at the engineering and macroeconomics mostly. You never look at the negatives of your on fanboydom and never fail to amaze in trying to downplay all the upsides that another alternative provides.
So once more, wind and solar provide very steady cheap energy, very decentralized, and since they are dispersed in a very decentralized way an adapted infrastructure in the transmission net is needed. But that comes organically, as the net needs to be rebuilt every couple of decades anyway and network planners aren't silly fanboy but serious utility engineers. It raises the resilience of the network, ask anyone in Northern America or Ukraine for that matter. It lowers the export of funds to resource rich country (how many uranium mines in France, just for the record?), makes use of engineering skills locally etc. But - it definitely needs buffering. Now your battery argument falls flat on the face, the only moment those are useful are in mobility and day-night storage. Gas peaker plants and gas underground storage however are legacy technology, rather low tech low capital investments and thus the easiest way to go in backups. None of that is needed if you have rivers like Québec or Egypt, or geothermal like Iceland.
(more later, gotta operate some megawatt gas turbines.... as opposed to you, I am not a layman in this field...).
So we are ignoring GErmanys gas dependence, to harp on Frances nuclear. The problem with Frances nuclear was that Hollande wanted to cut the nuclear output to 50% and further and they also put an environmentalist as energy minister. So what ever was wrong, was the the fault of nuclear technology, but of the politicians.
Great video as always! In my opinion nuclear is just dead simply due to being completely uncompetitive against cheaper renewables. France doesn‘t have the time or money to replace 50 reactors in the next decade
Don’t be so sure of that. I believe we haven’t even began to tap nuclear power’s potential in the long term. As for renewable being cheap, they are not so reliable. Eventually we will also need to decarbonize industrial processes that require high heat which will be much more efficient with nuclear plants that can supply high quality heat directly (this might require advanced reactors.)
"Impossible n'est pas français"
just an idea and maybe a bit of a dream. wat if the EU creates an "interstate" (nuclear)energy company .
(the sneaky mentos comercial tho JK
The problems, the infighting, won't go away by making political decisions with national pride in mind.
Today there is much more competition for nuclear fuel than 40 years ago, but in turn the U238 concentration in the ore is declining. France is doomed to fail. When by 2035 the first new reactor needs filled, the price for the fuel will no longer be neglectable and renewables are cheaper already today.
Now we're seeing what happens when policymakers are influenced by activists, they get what they thought they wanted: a forced reduction in fossil fuel usage causing energy problems.
This kind of action never ends well. We've spent decades wasting time and resources on dilute intermittent power sources while penalizing dense reliable sources, and we are now suffering energy shortages and seriously weakened infrastructure due to our obsession with RE.
The pain and suffering of this crisis - a crisis of not enough reliable electricity - is happening right now. As usual the poorer parts of the world suffer the most as coal, oil and gas that was slated for them is now being diverted to wealthier countries. How can we talk about reducing emissions when wealthy countries are throwing their climate targets out the window to keep warm this winter?
Like fossil fuels, nuclear can produce nation-scale electricity reliably year-round, regardless of time of day or season. Unlike fossil fuels it does so cleanly.
if we are going to successfully decarbonize, energy must be secure and reliable first.
Where were policymakers influenced by activists? Examples?
Germany, Australia, USA, EU, everywhere that has set Renewable energy as their goal. Even electricitymaps has a tag for % of renewables. Renewable or not is utterly irrelevant, its actually nothing but a misleading marketing term like all natural or chemical free. Calling something Renewable tells us absolutely nothing about its sustainability, functionality, environmental impact or any useful criteria at all yet thats what we've decided to base energy policy on, is % of renewables. 🤦♀️
Renewables includes wildly different systems that have nothing in common except that we decided to call them renewables. We need to critically examine each option individually and stop thinking that being called renewable matters at all.
Reliable electricity supply is crucial for social and economic stability and growth which in turn leads to eradication of poverty. Energy policy should not favor wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, hydro, nuclear, gas, or coal but should support all energy systems in a manner which avoids energy shortage and energy poverty. All energy always requires taking resources from our planet and processing them, thus negatively impacting the environment. It should be our goal to minimize negative impacts, to base our energy policy on the three objectives, energy security, energy affordability, and environmental protection.
What's important is reliable, affordable, and low environmental impact. Focusing on renewable instead is counterproductive.
Ideology blinds people to facts and politicians are no exception. This isn't a sporting event or popularity contest and we should stop acting like it is. We need more involvement with engineers and energy infrastructure experts and stop depending on those that have no training or experience in any relevant field shaping policy because of the popularity of useless buzzwords like renewable.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
It DID save France, it was the forced liberalization and privatization that screwed it up, which is funnily similar in many EU countries.
The unability of the French political class to make tough, unpopular decisions is the reason the country is in this situation. The German « Greens » have no issue using coal for electricity generation, yet the French are weak enough to let their neighbours dictate their decisions.
As always: weak men bring hard times.
Moving away from nuclear power was possibly the most stupid decision ever made, not just in france, but in all western nations. We are paying the price now.
IMAO, if doing nuclear, state led nuclear is the way to go. Like the original plutonium enrichment reactors, on the whole nuclear is a matter of state security rather than one of open market economics.
The world needs to build 2-3 times as many nuclear power plants if we are serious about dealing with climate change without lowering living standards.
Yo don't get it. France civilian nuclear industry emerged (as in USA, UK, Soviet Union and China) to reduce the cost of making nuclear weapons, as the breeding facilities required were the same, and nukes are EXTREMELY expensive to built and maintain. So they built dozens of reactors in a very short time. At the time, renewables were a young technology, unable to compete, and nuclear power plants were subsidized. But when the nuke bonanza started to fade (with arsenal reductions in the 70s and 80s) the Goverments started to cut the support to nuclear. The oversized body of engineers and facilities needed to run the business became a problem, and the industry in those countries tried to expand abroad.
Then Three Mile Island halt the construction of newe American ractors, and increased the operative cost of the ones in use, due higher safety demands. Then Chernobyl did the same in Europe. At the end of the century, operating nuclear power plants was more expensive than ever, and renewables started to be more and more competitive. Even worse, retiring a nuclear plant is very expensive, and France had so many built that when the end of their projected lifespasn they would have to face the dismantling of dozens of reactors, whitout money enough to do it (and much less to build new ones). Then Fukushima happened, and a year later the third largest Frech nuclear operator entered in bankrupcy. In 2017 Areva (secon largest one), on the verge of bankrupcy, was bought by EDF, which in 2019 had a estimated mid term debt ~70.000 million €. Last year that debt was estimeted already over 100.000 million €, and it only will be worse, because the facilities will be more expensive to run as they age. The attempts of expansions abroad as Okiliuto and Hinkley Point C has been as bad as Flamanville: large delays and x3-x4 the initial budgets.
The thing is that nuclear energy was never really profitable, and just a mean to socialize the cost of a nuclear arsenal. UK is building Hinkley C due "needs" nek weapons, since the Polaris progran is a total failure. But today no nuclear facility can competre in cost, time and management vs renewables. Is over. Macron tried to ensure nuclear as "green energy" as a desperate move to get founds from the EU to refloat his nuclear industry, but instead of making new reactors they should try to move to renbewables ASAP, as is doing Germany and Spain. In 2000 nuclear represented the 10% of the commercially available electricity, now is under the 10%. In les that 20 years will fade almost entirely. Is not due safety or public opinion, is just due is not profitable.
brilliant video as always... but a word of advice starch the collar on your shirt, it keeps it looking freshly ironed for longer
Hope this help video production. Something with the lighting and maybe the clothes makes you look weird. You can notice the shadows from the fabric on the clothes.
Could be a subjective thing as well. Hope it helps.
Maybe because the back light is stronger than the key light.
I’m glad Macron and his administration is making productive decision to get the ball rolling again , France will build itself back up🇫🇷
Macron closed Feissenheim...
French universities are producing gender specialists and critical race theorists, but country needs engineers and economists.
The decline of the nuclear industry is only a part of larger problem.
Nuclear energy is one of the best types of energy to produce right now we in Europe should all go Nuclear until renewable energy becomes better which will take a lot of time (atleast 40 years)
Is Flamanville 3 going to be even more delayed than Olkiluoto 3?
Almost certainly. Olkiluoto was going to be fully up and running by this winter before hitting another hiccup. Flamenville 3 is not even slated to fuel load until mid 2023.
@Angelica Oung But Flamanville 3 began construction over 2 year later than Olkiluoto 3 and you need to account for that.
Today, 85% of installed nuclear power capacity in the world is owned or contracted by Russia and China. By 2030, China will have the largest nuclear fleet in the world and also it will have developed an industrial size MSR. In my opinion, France will find it difficult to compete, but it should as a minimum focus on fourth gen nuclear reactors and either partner with Russia or China and replace its aging reactors. The US is faced with the same problems. Solar and wind won't cut it for huge baseload demands. Fourth gen nuclear reactors are becoming reality and third gen reactors are today's production technology. In the meantime, gas is the best one can do as a interim energy source. Make pragmatic bread with Russia and resume Russian gas and oil. To destroy one's country's industrial sector and deny its people with heat and electricity is a failure of its government.
I don’t think it really makes much sense to cooperate with Russia or China as they are not geopolitically friendly. France can make it’s own way back to nuclear. Gen 4 reactors…not truly necessary for now. Gen 3 will work just fine we just need to get the supply chain up and running gain.
But we can't resule russian gas and oil, the gasduct was sabotaged, 🤷 guess we'll buy american liquefied gas
France only achieves great things with close official oversight, it can never thrive in the free competition orthodoxy the EU swears by. Eventually French will realise they're better off doing things their way than abiding by European rules.
C'est De Gaulle qui a voulu a l'origine que la France soit une puissance indépendante autant des USA que de l'URSS.
C'est lui qui a dirigé la France dans la direction nucléaire.
Bien avant Tchernobil, il y a eu le mouvement hippie venant des pays anglo-saxon qui était anti nucléaire, je disais doux rêveurs. 1968 à été une cassure.
I will never understand anti-nuclear stuff. Not like many nations have a better option.
There is solar. The sun is always shining lol
@Chaz Bertino Europe is so far north. And it's so cloudy many parts of the year in many areas. And if you look at light intensity naps it doesn't have many areas either. I assume solar could get more efficient but you can't deny what the climate is.
@Baron Von Jo I was being sarcastic lol
Germany has a lot of cheek to be so anti-nuclear, considering it was its actions in WW2 that gave birth to the USSR being such a strong enemy and being protected from them with said nukes that the US/NATO had over there during the cold war.
Why does masterworks need to advertise if they’re so in demand there’s a waiting list?
Please please please
make your animations smoother.
This is an English speaking video smearing the French nuclear industry. One young guy, possibly never saw the interior of a nuclear power plant before, suddenly become more expert than world's second biggest nuclear generator trashing everything France has done in the past.
UK is building its only new nuclear power plant in Hinkley Point C and everything is supplied by EDF.
France is the only country that is not seriously affected by the US-led suicidal banning of the Russian gas resulting the majority of the EU electrical power generators, who depend on gas for power generation, having difficulties to survive the coming winter. France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear so even US can't match that.
France energy prices are among the highest, so who cares?
@Richard Not according to the 2021 electricity tariff publication. Relative to China the average electricity tariff of France, UK and Germany were 2.05, 2.97 and 3.82 times of China. That suggests France has one of the lowest electricity tariff. The other confirmatory fact is France has interconnectors to link UK grid with France. UK has been importing more and more energy from France in recently years.
@Gun Sum Wong I'm not talking about the price passed on to customers. But the total price. Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized in France, more than any other energy source, because nuclear power is the most expensive energy source. There are also secondary costs, such as maintenance or storage of the irradiated nuclear waste.
@Richard I am a retired professional engineer working all my life in the power industry. I could tell you the cost of nuclear energy depends on how a government plays it for its own purpose. In UK when nuclear energy was unpopular the decommissioning cost was suggested to be 10 times the cost to build it just overnight! All energy is subsidised in both UK, France and the rest of Europe. They are controlled by environmental regulations that government could change at any time.
The heart of the matter is that France doesn't like UK, Norway or US has large oil and gas reserves but has a big population to support so where can you get electrical power from? The whole Europe burnt coal initially to generate electricity but the government tightened the pollution act resulting coal fired generation uneconomical or impossible, without fitting additional and expensive pollutant abatement equipment, so most countries including UK switched to gas. I witness this trend in my career as progressively gas turbine in open cycle and then combined cycle were installed all over the place by shutting down the coal fired plants. France has been steadfastly developing its nuclear power and is among the most independent.
It is true in recent years there have been minor cracks in French design reactors resulting a significant number of plants taken out of service for safety check/repair. This spoils a power generation industry heretofore has been outstanding by all standard.
China has a slightly different problem of short of oil and gas reserves so China main power generation is by coal. China has also innovated with boiler fluidised bed technology to cut down emission of pollutants while at the same time developing its hydro, solar and wind to be the world's biggest in each of them. China used to build nuclear plant using French technology but in recent years China has its own indigenous nuclear reactors. Last year China overtook France to became the world second biggest nuclear generator after the US.
My point is don't politicise everything but look at what your country has and can do with generating power. Be practical and pragmatic.
@Gun Sum Wong I agree with you
The Masterworks ad is hilarious. They claim to have a huge waiting list but also pay for ads promoting links to "jump the waiting list". You have to be an idiot to invest there.
I like sponsorships because they pay the bills of my favourite youtubers, but I imidiatly know that the product is shity.
And sometimes I try to ignore the product completly, specially those for VPNs, wich tend to have a lot of missinformation, and make me sad
Every nuclear power plant is a safety risk for the general public. This is an important aspect, especially in densely populated Europe. And stochastically speaking: the larger the number of nuclear power plants worldwide, the higher the probability that there will be an accident somewhere next month. And the nuclear waste problem isn't solved either. Almost no country using nuclear power has a solution to this.
If the Romans had used atomic energy at the time of Julius Caesar, we would have to keep their old garbage safe for another tens of thousands of years. But probably within these 2000 years between then and now one of the many Goth tribes invading Rome would have abused the rubbish as a weapon against enemies and irradiated the corresponding area.
If the Holy Roman Empire had used nuclear power in the Middle Ages, a Central European waste disposal facility would probably not have survived the tumultuous times of the 30-year war. Central Europe would still be uninhabitable today. Had Hitler's Germany used nuclear power, it would never have been bombed. We see the military effect of the technology today in the fragile nuclear power plants in war-torn Ukraine and in the debate about dirty bombs.
Ironically, France is one of the European countries with huge potential for wind and solar energy, especially wind, both on land and at sea. But the French don't use it. They could make a lot of money with wind and solar energy but are not interested. France's eastern and northern neighbors would be only too happy to buy clean electricity than use their own weaker potential regarding wind and sun.
Yet French has the clearness record on nuclear power.
@Pimp Poppy that makes it much safer
@Seb. S. Because it is
@Pimp Poppy of course. like the japanese were safe. until fukushima. safety of nuclear power plants is a religion.
@Seb. S. Yet, only one people die and that is still safer then wind power and coal power that cause more death. The new 4th generational reactor if built today are much safer. There have been zero death in French because they have the best safety record.
“Half offline… struggling… to its knees”
Strange, IAEA right now shows all online. Yes apparently many reactors were down for some maintenance months ago, and .. now they’re not. Still, with the adjectives, and “age counter”, how dramatic. Can we get one on every 30 year old road bridge building, also made of concrete and steel?
All in all, very dramatic.
You can make fun of Brexit all you want, but I think we can all agree that the EU has zero flippin clue as to how to handle energy...
*Let's privatize the energy sector...why the prices so high?*
*Let's move away from nuclear energy... what's climate change?*
*Let's buy loads of cheap gas from Russia... WHAT DID HE DO?*
The problem is NIMBYS
I recently went to a local film where the local French celebrated stopping a reactor being built.
In an all electric world central electric power generation is economically stupid.
Electricity is generally only 20% of society energy use.
It is extremely expensive to transport.
A little was a necessity.
An extreme expense in a small way is OK.
Like a gold filling, but a life sized solid gold statue is stupidly expensive.
The expansion of a central national grid 5 times is economically stupid.
EV big batteries can save the existing national grid. With a few cheap solar panels on every roof.
How about nickel and rare earth that should be mine in developing world such as Indonesia, ecuador.
To make ev batteries
@Ignatius Yanuar did you say that we should keep burning fossil fuels ?
Did you say Djakarta was flooding ?
Climate destabilisation is not real ?
We indeed see flooding in jakarta because we experience itself. But we already see mass ecology disaster in bangka belitung, Sulawesi, Borneo, and papua where nickel and other material for ev mined. Well, our president Jokowi already said he will stop export raw material such as nickel that only benefit multinational company in europe and asia. Instead he try to established ev battery factory Indonesia with help of South Korea and China.
At least we got fairer price since we will produce itself from our country. We already had bad experience with mineral exploitation in papua where multinational mined copper and gold but we, Indonesian only got 10 percent during Suharto era and until 2021 when government finally got 50% stake at multinational companies Freeport
Not yet, and short term do what works but the world needs to switch to nuclear + renewable over the next 20 years
The cost of nuclear energy is infinite when you add in tens of thousands of years storing waste longer than humanity has existed...
The waste from nuclear energy are absolutelly trivial compared to the waste of other energy form.
honestly though, even though I'm a progressive and am skeptical of the "cost" argument, at this point in time it is shown in multiple countries over the world, nuclear is just too expensive to build.
rather than France going all in on solar and wind, they for some reason think that building LESS of these thing's and instead rebuilding a costly and toxic alternative will lead them to somehow being wealthier. 😵🥴
even from a centrist capitalist perspective, solar and wind are the clear winner, and clear winner's go all in on solar and wind. to say "let's rebuild nuclear" isn't only a losing argument, it's an argument for losers.
But nuclear powerplants give a stable supply of electricity independent of weather, you can't fully substitute a stable source of electricity by wind and solar power. If you go all in on solar and wind you will have to expect power shortages at some points, which I am not sure anyone really wants.
@Daniel Moštěk it's called batteries.
@Tony de Veyra Not sure creating massive battery storage would be very viable, especially considering that there is already a high enough demand for bateries anyway. And they also aren’t perfect.
@Daniel Moštěk there's a clear path for batteries getting cheaper they're already on the s- curve. There's no sign of nuclear approaching any cost curves the opposite has been happening. also There's hundreds of kinds of batteries. What's used for cars may not be best for stationary. We're already seeing a split with LFP. Sodium is just around the corner and so is flow.
France is always the problem, never the solution. Countries looking to invest in nuclear should probably look at South Korea.
As we can see, liberalism is a bad theory. I hope France will leave the Eu or ban forced concurrency and free market at least
EDF is building nuclear power station in Finland 20 years sorry its a little bit long 😂
The Chernobyl nucler disaster happened in 1986 not in 1984.
Politicians are so dumb. Why do we allow them to make decisions about topics they don't even understand?
The thing is they have advisors and many of them properly also know what they were doing, but at the end of the day, they were just in for the money.
It's not so undersightedness, as underprivatisation that is the culprit for the crisis
we already begun to save electricity power in our factory in slovenia ,but truth be told,if that is saving,couple of lights turned off helps? than i dont know why such paranoia ...
Let's be real: We actually waste so much energy for unnecessary luxury. Why do businesses keep all their lights on in the night is a mystery to me. "Light pollution" is a thing and we should start assessing which energy is really needed. E.g. why do all electric devices not automatically fully power off? We waste tons of megawatts every year with standby alone.
Chernobyl happened in 1986, not 1984.
The big lie in all these discussions that of the cheap energy. Yes the electricity is sold cheap, but the price is dictated still today by the French state. And it is obviously so low, that it does not leave any margins to pay for all the repair, maintenance, let alone the humungous cost of building new reactors (22B$ and still counting). Last year the French state pumped 2.1Billion$ into EDF and not ending. If the selling price is so low that it puts EDF into deep red debt, then this "cheap nuclear energy" is an illusion, a dream that still most French still are dreaming, while the gap to reality gets bigger and bigger.