Exchange electricity prices in France go through the roof

Thanks to nuclear, France is decades ahead of us in Germany

We barely average 50% green electricity today, at 4x carbon cost of France - and that is before we try to transition heating and transport (cars) to electricity

The good thing is that there is an independent Authority which decides if it is safe or not to extend the lives. For once, it is truly acting as supposed, forcing the nuclear operator to make the current maintenance.

I really think that ANRS takes no risk. Almost all pieces of the oldest nuclear plants have been replaced. The pieces that can't are crucial but don't deteriorate fast by nature ; it is quite well monitored.

I'm saying that despite being 100% against the idea of building new nuclear plants.

1/ The nuclear energy has always rising costs when solar costs are plunging incredibly fast.

2/ 5 conventional missiles on each of our 56 nuclear plants and France surrenders. The risk exists but is limited of a Chernobyl-like incidents. But in all cases, the production will be stopped. So France is out of the game in half an hour. => France might launch 1 nuclear missile to an unpopulated zone in Russia (for example) as a final warning but there is no point of starting a mutual destruction. The nuclear-bomb deterrence doesn't work in such a scenario. :-/ => Our nuclear plants are both easy targets and points of systemic failure of our whole Defense.

3/ There are huge hidden costs: nobody knows how much it will cost to dismantle these plants. Recent studies by pronuclear studies say 275 billions € ; the French public operator has only 90 billions in reserve for it. In truth, nobody knows, we have never done it.

4/ They want to stock the nuclear waste deep underground. Why not, I trust Science - but the process is not reversible and that waste is dangerous for 100,000 years. In case of an unexpected issue, no way to get it out. That's not serious.

5/ Batteries are a field of constant improvement. Very recently, one type has been invented that stores the energy without almost any loss for 12 weeks (it's far from industrialization to the scale where the batteries could compensate for the irregular production of renewables). The hundred of billions needed for new nuclear plants would be a far better use if directed to the huge technological progress needed by renewables energies, hydrogen and batteries. => France has rather safe practices on nuclear matters but most countries are not even near to meet this level of safety. => Finding solutions that work everywhere without risk is the only way to avoid the global climate dereliction. => The pronuclear fanatics in France forget that even if it were the best solution for France, it is certainly not for the world. => The very same fanatics yell that we are anti-science ; no, I am pro-science and an ecologist: I have no doubt that we will make the breakthroughs needed to produce all the energy we need and to avoid unnecessary consumption.

Iran has shown that the path from a civilian use of nuclear fission to an atomic bomb is quite fast. Iran has now bomb-grade uranium concentrated at 20% ; they'll have a bomb within 5 years. And Saudi Arabia has bought a nuclear plant to France, as if they didn't have enough petroleum, natural gas and ... a giganormeous potential of solar energy. They will have the bomb as well. Great!

Putin's atrocious and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has shown that peace is not guaranteed for ever in West Europe. Nuclear plants must be be dismantled asap.

The possibility of war closes the debate about nuclear as the best strategical choice for France: it is not.

That being said, I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the decision has already been taken, e.g. going full nuclear. This is just a matter where democracy doesn't apply in France.

No conspiracy theory here. It's not the result of lobbying, it's a matter of "raison d'Etat". The French "deep state" has its own sovereignty grounded on the centralization of electric production and the knowledge and technologies required for nuclear bombs (the bombs + the intercontinental missiles). Hence Arianespace for keeping up on the field of ballistic rockets.

Honest question, do you know a serious source I can read about how this rollout is being executed? I am only familiar with European energy policy, and grid storage currently is a pipe dream, more efficient construction is very slowly being rolled out and so far doesn't make a dent in the problem, and the renewable mix being expanded is inevitably intermittent (mostly solar and wind, with the rest being negligible), as hydro is a very small component of the mix so far and in the medium term future. The only question about our ability to build nuclear is cost-efficiency and regulations.

Most (if not all) nuclear scientists and radiation experts I've seen tslking about this say this is a wrong assumption. Cheryl Rofer, former nuclear scientist, made a napkin calculation and suggested it would need about 57 years of camping in the hottest (= most irradiated) parts of the red forest to acquire ARS (acute radiation syndrome). Even if the digging and kicking up dust there elevated the radioactivity levels, it would take a hell of a lot to get from 57 years to one month. Keep in mind that the most radioactive snd thus dangerous elements also decay the quickest, because of course both properties stem from the same thing, redioactive decay. The more dangerous the quicker it's gone.

To put some numbers on the table, in 2018 (I could not find more recent data) the values of CO2 emissions in metric tons per capita were as follows:[1]

  France 5.0 
  Germany 9.1  

For comparison:

  India 1.9
  EU 8.6
  China 8.0
  Japan 9.4
  Russia 12.1
  United States 16.1 
  Canada 16.1 
  Australia 16.8 
  

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...

> In France the new nuclear reactors have been plagued by hardware issue, delays

That's odd, can you show me some evidence of that?

Your stories notwithstanding, every renewable deployment in history has failed to reach zero carbon.

 

> The question isn't "is a disaster possible?" but "when, and of which magnitude?".

Yeah. And solar out-kills nuclear by a factor of nearly 20.

Your problem is that you're trying to consider nuclear in isolation, with no null hypothesis.

Every single replacement causes more death and more radioactive waste, no exceptions, even when you fold in the worst nuclear disasters in history.

.

> Fukushima is by many criteria a "lucky" case

This is an absurd and incorrect viewpoint. Please do not hold yourself forwards as knowledgeable in these matters.

The Fukushima design was well known to be flawed, and the United States had been suing Japan to shut it down for ten years before this happened.

The seawall did not meet Japan's national standards.

You might as well call Union Carbide lucky. Go be an apologist on someone else's time.

> Every nuclear disaster is unique

No nuclear disaster in history has added up to a bad single bus accident.

.

> and to absolutely refuse to shoulder the costs of anything going wrong. \n This is what the nuclear industry does

This is, of course, the exact opposite of true. Nuclear power is the only kind of power expected to carry full disaster insurance (not even dams, which have death counts in the six digits.)