This is super good. Again, the point is not Europe in and of itself, but also India and China.
The demand for power in India and China is outstripping everyone else. And it is still stuck using coal power. India and China do NOT have land (for renewables) commensurate with the population or energy demand. Also one of the biggest sources of renewable hydro power is a geopolitical flashpoint for India vs China (https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/china-proposed...). Almost a hundred soldiers died in an India vs China battle recently around this area.
Both India and China have unilaterally rejected COP26 restrictive measures from developed nations... simply because it is not possible to reduce the power demand coming from populations (the size of Europe) being lifted up from poverty.
The only answer for the next 50 years is nuclear tech. And France is literally the only game in town right now. So let us pray, this happens sooner than later. You do NOT want coal from 2 BILLION people in the atmosphere.
Macron said "We are going, for the first time in decades, to relaunch the construction of nuclear reactors in our country". This is a blatant lie, as France launched a project and never ceased trying to build. However it failed flat.
The last delivered reactor was Civaux-2 (generation II), in 1999. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civaux_Nuclear_Power_Plant
Then in 2002 the project Flamanville-3 was launched (a generation III reactor, the "EPR", first one of its kind), and the building phase started in 2007. It is a major failure, not delivered, at least 11 years behind schedule, and will cost at least 19.1 billion euros (initial budget: 3.4 billions €). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...
As happy as I am that nuclear is back, I really don't trust Macron on this. For the record, here is what he did in his current term regarding nuclear:
- shut down the Fessenheim plant, one of the most reliable one. Yes it was the oldest, but not by far, and reports from the nuclear authority are pretty clear that this plant was in a much better shape than others built just a few years afterwards (Bugey, one year later which is now older than Fessenheim was when shut down, and Blayais started 4 years later).
- promised to reduce the share of nuclear in the electricty mix to 50% by 2025.
- shut down Astrid, the French research project for 4th generation nuclear (which is the only long term viable path for nuclear, since there will never be a shortage of fertile material (U238 or Thorium) whereas fissile one is pretty limited. Breeding reactors also solve the very-long lived nuclear waste issue).
He did all of this when he was trying to seduce electors from the green party. Now he don't seem to care about them, but who knows for how long…
Vogtle nuclear delayed again due to shoddy work that needs redoing, raising cost to >$27.8 billion.
New timeline means 16 to 17 years between planning and operation, thus 16-17 years of CO2 and pollution before a single kWh
https://www.wabe.org/new-delay-for-georgia-nuclear-reactors-...
we are running out of time! the transition to WWS is faster and cheaper.
see: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-...
If this is combined with a move away from fossiel fuel for heating and logistics - and a significant investment in renewable - then it is an excellent move for France.
I would sign up today for nuclear power in 2025 if it replaced all natural gas and diesel/petrol vehicles on the roads.
The construction of the only new nuclear reactor in France started fourteen years ago (2007), and is not due before two more years.
It was expected to cost 3.3B€, but in the end will probably cost around 19B€.
Jean Marc Jancovici is one of the most vocal of we can call "Nuclear ecologist" around in France, the content is amazing and he definitely have a point if you want to follow [0].
He is a realist, but in this field we need to go beyond and to open big money for the research into small and decentralized nuclear power.
Every citizen have to know the pros and the cons, and be educated to the risks. Energy provide good living standards, but we have to know the drawbacks and we have to account for externalities in every business model.
This will be the only way to keep our standards of living and keep an habitable home.
Bonjour.
In France there are reactors, now they are OLD.
OLD is a cost, and also a risk.
France already has gaz (cost is hight), or hydrolic (water daws are all in use at its max in France), but it seems France doesnt want to go the german way and switch on the coal power plants.
The press article mention green peace, while most of people think gren peace are communicant people who doesnt get aware about science news and will applause germany for leaving nuclear (but going COAL) and blame france for keeping nuclear (but having low CO2 energy ratio) like if wastes are worst than CO2 while CO2 is nowday issue.
Government tryed to open the energy market in France, but since it has done that, the consumer prices are only getting highter and highter while the historic company EDF is making profit, and not the new comers who are often at the edge to termination plan. Also, Having a company not being EDF (governement has 80% part of it) to own a reactor is a risk, because profit always come first for a company.
Having new reactor will give more low-CO2 emission energy and give more time to have more decent work (r&d) on renewable energy and stockage (not daws since we already use them all here) probably.
There are risk to have reactor, and also wastes, but the CO2 costs look the best until there is something else.
PS: I'm not a macron side voter; I think many french people think like this; I'm not backing anything with source, because it's just what it is on people minds i guess and i agree a bit to that; so I'm just sharing this here for the discussion
Mr Burns was the most environmentally responsible Simpson's character and likely a real scientific expert. Big shame they selected him for the villan.
Reddit has a few subreddits dedicated to uranium investing. I caught wind of this a few months ago, and my investments are doing well.
Some in the community seem to think that the market will 10-20x due to the world waking up to the immediate, pressing need for nuclear. (Insufficient wind/solar capacity, storage, transmission, etc.)
There are also some interesting behaviors going on in the uranium market, where certain players are buying up all of the supply. It's short-squeezeish in nature.
China announcement, French announcement. US uranium exploration. Lots going on.
France already has one 3rd gen nuclear plant under construction, Flamanville 3, and it's 10 years behind schedule. That's discouraging. France did so well at nuclear plant construction in the 1980s.
Not mentioned there that
>France derives about 70% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. Government policy is to reduce this to 50% by 2035. [1]
according to the target set in the "Energy transition for green growth" bill.
[1] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pr...
The recent gas shortage must have shaken everybody awake.
There's been a lot of talk about nuclear (both fusion and fission) recently, and it's great news!
I get the fascination with base load and the incredible amount of energy compared to chemical based alternatives. But: 1. What will the net online time be? (Lots of these plants go in maintenance for long stretches of time) 2. Spent fuel? 3. Proliferation risk? 4. Accident mitigation?
Are there any existing reactor types, blueprints or built, that are engineered toward utilizing spent fuel first and foremost?
If not, I hope France seriously considers using breeder reactors to reduce leftover radioactive material.
Otherwise, I think this is fantastic news. In fact even if they build light water reactors I think it is the ideal base load solution to bridge the gap from oil and coal.
Nuclear energy is THE power source of NIMBY-ism, relatively clean, ecological, always available but just so long as it's next door to somebody else. The Germany plans to do away with this power source with come back to bite them badly in the next thirty years.
Who's going to invest though, when an accident in an entirely different country caused by issues your reactor might not even be susceptible to can easily get your project shut down by the fleeting winds of public opinion?
This new French energy supplier also advertises 100% nuclear-based energy: https://www.isotope.energy
Excuse my ignorance but I'm wondering how difficult/feasible would it be to have all CO2 captured from burning coal etc and thus making them zero emission.
For me, what emerges from this story is the lack of anticipation on the part of the French government. For years, nuclear power was discredited because it was not environmentally friendly, so we shut down power plants, and now we have to refabricate them? All this makes no sense. Moreover, the production of a nuclear power plant is very long, how are we going to do it in the meantime?
At the current consumption, uranium will only last 80 years, with the new surge for nuclear plants, will not even last 25
thorium won't last much more, and it's not even viable at this point, this seems like a desperate attempt to maintain the power consumption per capita for some more years before the inevitable collapse.
Will this be EPR 2 style design?
Flamanville has been super disappointing however in France.
Well, somebody has to help Germany accomplish its "Energiewende"
I really like the promise of green energy source. I do see the huge advancements made in terms of safety.
I have a question around waste management though: Do we know if there are big improvements here? IOW - https://apnews.com/article/washington-business-nuclear-waste... bothers me.
Macron says things a year before the next presidential election.
Assuming they really set this project in motion, there's plenty of time for the next government to cancel it.
Am I reading correctly that the EPR only has enough water for 24 hours of passive cooling?
https://www.google.com/search?q=epr+emergency+feedwater+syst...
I guess they have to build with the tech they have, but it would be nice if they'd spent the last few decades researching better designs.
Hopefully not one of those: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattenom_Nuclear_Power_Plant
The only way nuclear will come back is serious practical next generation reactors. We could have built these since the 70s and didn't. Rather waste money on fusion and renewables.
Based on first principles, nuclear is the cheapest. Its historical path dependency that it isn't.
Fission breeder reactors have the potential to use the least amount of land, be the safest form of energy, have the lowest cost of fuel (essentially free)and use the least amount of total resources (steel, concrete and so on).
These could be used for all kinds of applications, including creating of medical isotopes, nuclear batteries, industrial heat and power.
Non if this is new, these insights are from the 70s and in 50-100 years people will look back and ask 'why were these people don't doing it? They had all the technology, it makes no sense'.
> Macron says France will build new nuclear energy reactors (reuters.com)
France were about to build new nuclear energy reactors anyways. They had a 5-8 new plants in planning for this decade.
As Europe's dependence on polluting coal and Russian gas increases, France is making the right move. I hope other major European countries will follow suit.
It would be more important if Macron would announce a solution for the nuclear waste problem in France. But I guess it won‘t be stored in his garden.
Makes me wonder if this is not push back from the U.S. submarine deal with Australia.
With the sell of Alstom to the US, is France still able to build nuclear reactor ?
I appreciate you, nuclear energy. Just don't have meltdowns.
This is great news for the Chinese subcontractors who'll get to do the parts we forgot about.
At least we'll have a debate topic during next year election cycle that is not immigration or Islam - that will be a change.
The job of the nuclear security agency will be tricky next year : they'll have to double their effort ("The President does not want an accident making the news") but also stay quieter than usual ("The President does not want any kind of small incident making the news".)
They're independant in theory, of course, and they want to do their job well, but they have biases and bosses who have bosses, etc... I doubt they'll let anything big slip just for électoral purpose, but the scrutiny on their job (especially from the left wing press) will be interesting to see...
Smart man. I can't believe I'm saying this about _Macron_. We _have to_ figure out a way to build reactors cheaply and safely, and you can't do that without the political will, unfortunately. If you could, electricity would be "too cheap to meter" by now already.
Was the full article title, "President Macron: France to build new nuclear energy reactors", too long? It's much more accurate.
Good, though i really have to wonder how much is this Macron's own idea and how much is France's elite (which is very influential towards the state compared to other european nations).
Greenpeace is shooting itself in the feed. No more coal. Okay.. Then build more nuclear. Nohoooo
What a moron.
They oughta give up on the EPR and build AP1000s.
The Chinese have committed to building over 150 new nuclear reactors. The British government will subsidize Rolls Royce. Japan will reactivate over 30 nuclear reactors.
It seems this is the biggest energy story of the year. The comeback of nuclear energy.
https://smallcaps.com.au/china-supercharge-uranium-race-150-...
The HN discussion on the China story:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29151741
Japan reactivating nuclear reactors:
https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20210501/p2a/00m/0op/00...
UK. Rolls-Royce gets funding to develop mini nuclear reactors:
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-59212983