71–80 of 450 posts
Macron wants to show he is being pragmatic. Nuclear energy allows to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing the economy. It's particularly smart in this moment of tension with Russia, as Europe depends a lot on Russian energy.
But whether this happens or not remains to be seen.
I keep hearing from people who think nuclear's a bad idea that "France is ramping down its reliance on nuclear power, so what does that tell you?" I wonder whether any will change their minds based on this news.
France is the only country I know that's managed to make nuclear power work. Unfortunately, they haven't been able to export that expertise. Nuclear power plants are vast construction project. The construction and large-engineering industries combined are vastly corrupt in the US (look at the 3 billion dollars planning costs of the unbuilt high speed rail project in California, look at the Big Dig in Boston, etc). In…
When the United States built nuclear plants at scale, in serial production, plant costs were also much lower.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the high voltage lines that would bring the power into San…
> Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days? The problem is - the average "environmentalist" is not trying to maximize for anything. It's a broad bucket that almost everyone is falling into and there's almost zero common ground, no organization, etc. Of course there are going to be people that oppose almost everything that label them…
It's far too easy to blame "environmentalists" for everything.
This will provide a nice data-point for those who argue nuclear makes more financial sense over wind/solar/battery, but some anti-nuclear cabal is stopping their construction. Maybe they are right and France will make lots of money selling energy to its neighbors, or they are wrong, and France will be stuck with some of the highest energy prices in the euro region.
Or some group will stop their construction... I think nuclear doesn't make sense nowadays, but it's hard to disagree that there are many groups working hard to stop it. How you decided it's a conspiracy cabal somewhere eludes me, they are very visible and very loud.
I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power, and crisis with Russia makes gas less accessible. France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power. They may pull this off. 2035 is a really long time to wait for new power to the grid though.
France just had to turn off 3 of their rotting reactors[0] and they lowered their estimates for this year to 295-315 TWh[1]. They're desperate, it's election year and they failed to come up with a diversified energy plan for the future. Luckily the recent taxonomy decision may help to avoid sharp tax rises to finance this backward and hilariously expensive[2] strategy but those EU funds won't run forever. Expensive t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. When I was in high school near San Diego about 15 years ago, there was a huge amount of opposition to a solar power project. From environmentalists. There was a solar power plant out in Imperial County and the environmentalists were protesting the high voltage lines that would bring the power into San…
Isn't environmentalists' argument that we should reduce our power consumption, rather than destroying the environment to keep providing so much power? That's not as crazy a position as you make it out to be is it?
Edit: surprise, I'm also getting silent downvotes, as if I needed further proof.
Is this that surprising given that the largest Nuclear power company (Areva) is based in France and was owned by the state?
Yes. It's not surprising that the largest nuclear power company is based in France because France has the largest share of power from nuclear of any country (>70%). However, like most Western countries, France's nuclear reactor building has largely stalled and they have been coasting on past accomplishments. If they succeed at building more reactors, it will be unusual (and imo good).
That said, it's still the only non-intermittent clean energy source that isn't geographically dependent like hydro and geothermal. Plans to decarbonize civilization invariably involve either nuclear power, or a magnificent yet-to-be-invented breakthrough in energy storage.
I am skeptical to current nuclear power, would have liked Molten Salt Reactors instead. However I see leaders having to do something. Environmentalists are blocking construction of more wind power, and crisis with Russia makes gas less accessible. France has a relatively good track record on nuclear power. They may pull this off. 2035 is a really long time to wait for new power to the grid though.
France just had to turn off 3 of their rotting reactors[0] and they lowered their estimates for this year to 295-315 TWh[1]. They're desperate, it's election year and they failed to come up with a diversified energy plan for the future. Luckily the recent taxonomy decision may help to avoid sharp tax rises to finance this backward and hilariously expensive[2] strategy but those EU funds won't run forever. Expensive t…
But til then, blow more money into insurable and as much green as coal and gas power plants :(
(And that calculations done by real experts didn't even include all the other uneconomic issues from getting that stuff from somewhere til storing the waste - but yeah I know, all these waste will be taken by those new shiny molten reactors that have no problem at all on paper and will eat all the waste - both things just so far from reality in practice, which almost does not exist even).
The common stance and knowledge here at HN about all this is consternating :(
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people think it's worth redefining society to protect the environment. I wouldn't agree with that absolutely either, but it's a logical and defensible position. It's not incoherent.
"The position is coherent" is a devastatingly low bar for the table stakes or redefining society that radically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Environmentalists really are their own worst enemies. Doesn't almost everyone see themselves as an environmentalist these days? The problem is - the average "environmentalist" is not trying to maximize for anything. It's a broad bucket that almost everyone is falling into and there's almost zero common ground, no organization, etc. Of course there are going to be people that oppose almost everything that label them…
Additionally any twitter bot or "crisis actor" paid by an oil company can claim to belong to the category. It's far too easy to blame "environmentalists" for everything.