France’s Nuclear Energy is Over Three Times Faster and Cheaper than Germany’s Solar and Wind

France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion (€290 billion). The complete buildout of the 58 reactors was less €400 billion. Germany would need 50% more nuclear energy than France to completely replace all other power generation. This would cost €600 billion if Germany could match France’s build from the 1980s. Costs and safety regulations have increased even though France’s nuclear power has operated without incident for over 30 years. 80 nuclear reactors would now cost €1600 billion euros for Germany. This would still be cheaper than the estimated costs for the solar and wind buildout that is underway.

France builts its nuclear power in less than 15 years.

Germany’s feed in tariff support of renewables started by 1991. The Germany Energiewende (German for energy transition) started in 2010.

In 2013, Germany’s economy and energy minister, Peter Altmaier, said building up the solar and wind power in Germany would cost one trillion euros by the end of the 2030s. Feed in tariffs alone would cost a total of 680 billion euros by 2022.

Estimates of the total amount of Germany’s annual investment vary from 15 to 40 billion euros. Consumers in Germany pay about 25 billion euros per year in higher energy bills.

A BDI study (by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the consultancy Prognos) says that cutting emissions by 80 percent by 2050 (the lower end of Germany’s climate targets) – would require cumulative total investment of 1.5 trillion euros. Reducing emissions by 95 percent (the high end of Germany’s 2050 climate targets) would require total investment of about 2.3 trillion euros.

A study conducted by the Energy Systems of the Future (ESYS) at the National Academy of Science and Engineering (Acatech) shows comparable results, arguing that a successful energy transition, including the decarbonisation of transport and heating, will require annual investment of between 30 and 60 billion euros over the next 3 decades.

Germany’s investment in the power sector alone would amount to 520 billion euros by 2025, with the renewables surcharge being the largest driver of costs by far.

Germany is 2% of the world carbon dioxide emissions.

183 thoughts on “France’s Nuclear Energy is Over Three Times Faster and Cheaper than Germany’s Solar and Wind”

  1. Can anyone tell me if those estimated costs of € 1.6 trillion for building those 80 nuclear plants in Germany reflect the situation that the construction of today’s generation nuclear plants is generally more cost intensive due to new standards and a higher complexity in order to meet them?
    And does that estimated sum also reflect the fact that many of the actually constructed nuclear plants around the world exceed their estimated production costs by at least two times?
    And what about the decommissioning costs of those nuclear plants – both of the plants themselves and their radioactive fuel?
    Actually there are already estimated costs of at least € 64.9 billion for decommissioning the existing nuclear plants and storing the radioactive waste and experts assume that this probably won’t be enough.
    Actually there also seem to be quite some troubles to even find adequate final deposits for all that radioactive waste all around the world. In Germany the Asse II depot will have to be abandoned and the waste stored there will have to be moved to the new final deposit. Actually there doesn’t even exist the required technology for extracting the waste from Asse II. Moving that waste is estimated to cost another € 5 billion at least.
    The following article is from 2016, but the information’s provided there sound quite alarming…
    https://e360.yale.edu/features/soaring_cost_german_nuclear_shutdown

    Reply
  2. This is simply not reasonable. There are a few shallow sources that say Walney Extension is £1 billion, but that’s bad reporting, as it’s mentioning only the half that the company didn’t divest beforehand. The total cost is £2 billion. For instance, you can read this here: https://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1449022/orsted-sells-half-659mw-walney-extension Also, please note that Walney has an expected life of 25 years, whereas Flamanville is at 60 years, for an advantage of 2.4x. As for CF, the stated CF for Walney is 45% and modern reactors like the EPR should with care reach 90%, so there’s another 2x advantage. These things add up. The Flamanville EPR will have a construction cost per lifetime kWh of $12.75B/(1.6 GW * 90% CF * 24h * 365 days * 60 years) = 1.7 cents/kWh. For the Walney Extension, the cost is $2.63B / (693 MW * 45% CF * 24h * 365 days * 25 years) = 3.9 cents/kWh. So a disastrous nuclear first-of-a-kind project still has half the resource use and cost of a slim and efficient series-production offshore wind project. With EPR series production, the nuclear advantage will widen considerably.

    Reply
  3. This is simply not reasonable. There are a few shallow sources that say Walney Extension is £1 billion but that’s bad reporting as it’s mentioning only the half that the company didn’t divest beforehand. The total cost is £2 billion. For instance you can read this here: https://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1449022/orsted-sells-half-659mw-walney-extensionAlso please note that Walney has an expected life of 25 years whereas Flamanville is at 60 years for an advantage of 2.4x.As for CF the stated CF for Walney is 45{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and modern reactors like the EPR should with care reach 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} so there’s another 2x advantage.These things add up. The Flamanville EPR will have a construction cost per lifetime kWh of $12.75B/(1.6 GW * 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} CF * 24h * 365 days * 60 years) = 1.7 cents/kWh. For the Walney Extension the cost is $2.63B / (693 MW * 45{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} CF * 24h * 365 days * 25 years) = 3.9 cents/kWh.So a disastrous nuclear first-of-a-kind project still has half the resource use and cost of a slim and efficient series-production offshore wind project. With EPR series production the nuclear advantage will widen considerably.”

    Reply
  4. The UK is investing heavily in nuclear…the most in Europe right now. They intend to phase out their remaining natural gas. Something that renewables, like wind, has to rely on completely. All of French nuclear (which totally got rid of their reliance on oil generation) is never at a high capacity factor because, on PURPOSE, their plants are configured to follow load. CF is irrelevant here. They are *available* around 95% of the time.

    Reply
  5. The UK is investing heavily in nuclear…the most in Europe right now. They intend to phase out their remaining natural gas. Something that renewables like wind has to rely on completely.All of French nuclear (which totally got rid of their reliance on oil generation) is never at a high capacity factor because on PURPOSE their plants are configured to follow load. CF is irrelevant here. They are *available* around 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the time.

    Reply
  6. > The UK is investing heavily in nuclearTwo reactors? That’s heavily”” in your books?Yikes”””” faint praise indeed.”””

    Reply
  7. > The UK is investing heavily in nuclear Two reactors? That’s “heavily” in your books? Yikes, faint praise indeed.

    Reply
  8. > The UK is investing heavily in nuclearTwo reactors? That’s heavily”” in your books?Yikes”””” faint praise indeed.”””

    Reply
  9. The UK is investing heavily in nuclear…the most in Europe right now. They intend to phase out their remaining natural gas. Something that renewables, like wind, has to rely on completely. All of French nuclear (which totally got rid of their reliance on oil generation) is never at a high capacity factor because, on PURPOSE, their plants are configured to follow load. CF is irrelevant here. They are *available* around 95% of the time.

    Reply
  10. The UK is investing heavily in nuclear…the most in Europe right now. They intend to phase out their remaining natural gas. Something that renewables like wind has to rely on completely.All of French nuclear (which totally got rid of their reliance on oil generation) is never at a high capacity factor because on PURPOSE their plants are configured to follow load. CF is irrelevant here. They are *available* around 95{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of the time.

    Reply
  11. The UK is investing heavily in nuclear…the most in Europe right now. They intend to phase out their remaining natural gas. Something that renewables, like wind, has to rely on completely.

    All of French nuclear (which totally got rid of their reliance on oil generation) is never at a high capacity factor because, on PURPOSE, their plants are configured to follow load. CF is irrelevant here. They are *available* around 95% of the time.

    Reply
  12. This is simply not reasonable. There are a few shallow sources that say Walney Extension is £1 billion, but that’s bad reporting, as it’s mentioning only the half that the company didn’t divest beforehand. The total cost is £2 billion. For instance, you can read this here: https://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1449022/orsted-sells-half-659mw-walney-extension Also, please note that Walney has an expected life of 25 years, whereas Flamanville is at 60 years, for an advantage of 2.4x. As for CF, the stated CF for Walney is 45% and modern reactors like the EPR should with care reach 90%, so there’s another 2x advantage. These things add up. The Flamanville EPR will have a construction cost per lifetime kWh of $12.75B/(1.6 GW * 90% CF * 24h * 365 days * 60 years) = 1.7 cents/kWh. For the Walney Extension, the cost is $2.63B / (693 MW * 45% CF * 24h * 365 days * 25 years) = 3.9 cents/kWh. So a disastrous nuclear first-of-a-kind project still has half the resource use and cost of a slim and efficient series-production offshore wind project. With EPR series production, the nuclear advantage will widen considerably.

    Reply
  13. This is simply not reasonable. There are a few shallow sources that say Walney Extension is £1 billion but that’s bad reporting as it’s mentioning only the half that the company didn’t divest beforehand. The total cost is £2 billion. For instance you can read this here: https://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1449022/orsted-sells-half-659mw-walney-extensionAlso please note that Walney has an expected life of 25 years whereas Flamanville is at 60 years for an advantage of 2.4x.As for CF the stated CF for Walney is 45{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} and modern reactors like the EPR should with care reach 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} so there’s another 2x advantage.These things add up. The Flamanville EPR will have a construction cost per lifetime kWh of $12.75B/(1.6 GW * 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} CF * 24h * 365 days * 60 years) = 1.7 cents/kWh. For the Walney Extension the cost is $2.63B / (693 MW * 45{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} CF * 24h * 365 days * 25 years) = 3.9 cents/kWh.So a disastrous nuclear first-of-a-kind project still has half the resource use and cost of a slim and efficient series-production offshore wind project. With EPR series production the nuclear advantage will widen considerably.”

    Reply
  14. This is simply not reasonable. There are a few shallow sources that say Walney Extension is £1 billion, but that’s bad reporting, as it’s mentioning only the half that the company didn’t divest beforehand. The total cost is £2 billion. For instance, you can read this here:
    https://www.windpoweroffshore.com/article/1449022/orsted-sells-half-659mw-walney-extension

    Also, please note that Walney has an expected life of 25 years, whereas Flamanville is at 60 years, for an advantage of 2.4x.

    As for CF, the stated CF for Walney is 45% and modern reactors like the EPR should with care reach 90%, so there’s another 2x advantage.

    These things add up. The Flamanville EPR will have a construction cost per lifetime kWh of $12.75B/(1.6 GW * 90% CF * 24h * 365 days * 60 years) = 1.7 cents/kWh.

    For the Walney Extension, the cost is $2.63B / (693 MW * 45% CF * 24h * 365 days * 25 years) = 3.9 cents/kWh.

    So a disastrous nuclear first-of-a-kind project still has half the resource use and cost of a slim and efficient series-production offshore wind project. With EPR series production, the nuclear advantage will widen considerably.

    Reply
  15. This is a lie. I would not even dignify it with calling it an error as a list of reactors returned to greenfield status can be found on wikipedia.

    Reply
  16. This is a lie. I would not even dignify it with calling it an error as a list of reactors returned to greenfield status can be found on wikipedia.

    Reply
  17. This is a lie. I would not even dignify it with calling it an error as a list of reactors returned to greenfield status can be found on wikipedia.

    Reply
  18. This is a lie. I would not even dignify it with calling it an error as a list of reactors returned to greenfield status can be found on wikipedia.

    Reply
  19. The supposed French clean energy isn’t….. just because no nuclear plant has ever been dismantle and until that day nuclear energy cannot been said clean. The first French plant should have been dismantle long ago, but they push the can further, nobody has a safe technology/methodology to do that ! But is nuclear said clean because there is less CO² emmission ? Well, you see Co² emmission is a scam ! It plays no role at all on warming and it is vitally important. Dioxine emmission and other stuff are the real pollutions. Nuclear isn’t a pollution, it’s a danger !

    Reply
  20. The supposed French clean energy isn’t….. just because no nuclear plant has ever been dismantle and until that day nuclear energy cannot been said clean.The first French plant should have been dismantle long ago but they push the can further nobody has a safe technology/methodology to do that !But is nuclear said clean because there is less CO² emmission ? Well you see Co² emmission is a scam ! It plays no role at all on warming and it is vitally important. Dioxine emmission and other stuff are the real pollutions. Nuclear isn’t a pollution it’s a danger !”

    Reply
  21. The supposed French clean energy isn’t….. just because no nuclear plant has ever been dismantle and until that day nuclear energy cannot been said clean. The first French plant should have been dismantle long ago, but they push the can further, nobody has a safe technology/methodology to do that ! But is nuclear said clean because there is less CO² emmission ? Well, you see Co² emmission is a scam ! It plays no role at all on warming and it is vitally important. Dioxine emmission and other stuff are the real pollutions. Nuclear isn’t a pollution, it’s a danger !

    Reply
  22. The supposed French clean energy isn’t….. just because no nuclear plant has ever been dismantle and until that day nuclear energy cannot been said clean.The first French plant should have been dismantle long ago but they push the can further nobody has a safe technology/methodology to do that !But is nuclear said clean because there is less CO² emmission ? Well you see Co² emmission is a scam ! It plays no role at all on warming and it is vitally important. Dioxine emmission and other stuff are the real pollutions. Nuclear isn’t a pollution it’s a danger !”

    Reply
  23. Nuclear waste in the USA could either be stored deep underground in a carefully chosen geological structure in Nevada (it’s on federal land so ignore whining Nevada state politicians) or it could be reprocessed into new fuel in the same way that it’s long been done in western Europe. One relevant principle that many people seem unaware of is that the longer the half-life of a particular nuclear waste, the weaker the radioactivity emitted from that waste. In other words, a given substance takes forever to decay because it only releases tiny amounts of radioactivity at any one time, get it? Some of the longer lasting substances are not much more dangerous than natural uranium ore, something that was here on earth to begin with. It’s entirely safe to touch, just don’t make a habit of eating it. There is a safer nuclear reactor technology available, known as a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. Such reactors cannot “melt-down”. During all processing, the key materials are in molten (liquid) form to start with. And they can operate at normal atmospheric pressures (nothing is ever “…about to blow!”). Another feature is that such reactors can actually use the remaining radioactive potential in most forms of nuclear waste as fuel to produce new energy. Most radioactive waste can simply be added to the existing molten material used by such reactors, consisting of Thorium-232, which can accept a neutron to become Uranium-233, plus small amounts of Uranium-235 and other neutron producers which can be used as a “starter” to get things going with the Thorium, which is itself a non-fissionable metal that is 4 times more plentiful in the Earth’s crust than Uranium. And unlike Uranium, Thorium is not currently mined or used to any significant extent.

    Reply
  24. Nuclear waste in the USA could either be stored deep underground in a carefully chosen geological structure in Nevada (it’s on federal land so ignore whining Nevada state politicians) or it could be reprocessed into new fuel in the same way that it’s long been done in western Europe. One relevant principle that many people seem unaware of is that the longer the half-life of a particular nuclear waste the weaker the radioactivity emitted from that waste. In other words a given substance takes forever to decay because it only releases tiny amounts of radioactivity at any one time get it? Some of the longer lasting substances are not much more dangerous than natural uranium ore something that was here on earth to begin with. It’s entirely safe to touch just don’t make a habit of eating it.There is a safer nuclear reactor technology available known as a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. Such reactors cannot melt-down””. During all processing”””” the key materials are in molten (liquid) form to start with. And they can operate at normal atmospheric pressures (nothing is ever “”””…about to blow!””””). Another feature is that such reactors can actually use the remaining radioactive potential in most forms of nuclear waste as fuel to produce new energy. Most radioactive waste can simply be added to the existing molten material used by such reactors”” consisting of Thorium-232 which can accept a neutron to become Uranium-233″” plus small amounts of Uranium-235 and other neutron producers which can be used as a “”””starter”””” to get things going with the Thorium”” which is itself a non-fissionable metal that is 4 times more plentiful in the Earth’s crust than Uranium. And unlike Uranium”” Thorium is not currently mined or used to any significant extent.”””

    Reply
  25. Nuclear waste in the USA could either be stored deep underground in a carefully chosen geological structure in Nevada (it’s on federal land so ignore whining Nevada state politicians) or it could be reprocessed into new fuel in the same way that it’s long been done in western Europe. One relevant principle that many people seem unaware of is that the longer the half-life of a particular nuclear waste, the weaker the radioactivity emitted from that waste. In other words, a given substance takes forever to decay because it only releases tiny amounts of radioactivity at any one time, get it? Some of the longer lasting substances are not much more dangerous than natural uranium ore, something that was here on earth to begin with. It’s entirely safe to touch, just don’t make a habit of eating it. There is a safer nuclear reactor technology available, known as a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. Such reactors cannot “melt-down”. During all processing, the key materials are in molten (liquid) form to start with. And they can operate at normal atmospheric pressures (nothing is ever “…about to blow!”). Another feature is that such reactors can actually use the remaining radioactive potential in most forms of nuclear waste as fuel to produce new energy. Most radioactive waste can simply be added to the existing molten material used by such reactors, consisting of Thorium-232, which can accept a neutron to become Uranium-233, plus small amounts of Uranium-235 and other neutron producers which can be used as a “starter” to get things going with the Thorium, which is itself a non-fissionable metal that is 4 times more plentiful in the Earth’s crust than Uranium. And unlike Uranium, Thorium is not currently mined or used to any significant extent.

    Reply
  26. Nuclear waste in the USA could either be stored deep underground in a carefully chosen geological structure in Nevada (it’s on federal land so ignore whining Nevada state politicians) or it could be reprocessed into new fuel in the same way that it’s long been done in western Europe. One relevant principle that many people seem unaware of is that the longer the half-life of a particular nuclear waste the weaker the radioactivity emitted from that waste. In other words a given substance takes forever to decay because it only releases tiny amounts of radioactivity at any one time get it? Some of the longer lasting substances are not much more dangerous than natural uranium ore something that was here on earth to begin with. It’s entirely safe to touch just don’t make a habit of eating it.There is a safer nuclear reactor technology available known as a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. Such reactors cannot melt-down””. During all processing”””” the key materials are in molten (liquid) form to start with. And they can operate at normal atmospheric pressures (nothing is ever “”””…about to blow!””””). Another feature is that such reactors can actually use the remaining radioactive potential in most forms of nuclear waste as fuel to produce new energy. Most radioactive waste can simply be added to the existing molten material used by such reactors”” consisting of Thorium-232 which can accept a neutron to become Uranium-233″” plus small amounts of Uranium-235 and other neutron producers which can be used as a “”””starter”””” to get things going with the Thorium”” which is itself a non-fissionable metal that is 4 times more plentiful in the Earth’s crust than Uranium. And unlike Uranium”” Thorium is not currently mined or used to any significant extent.”””

    Reply
  27. The supposed French clean energy isn’t….. just because no nuclear plant has ever been dismantle and until that day nuclear energy cannot been said clean.
    The first French plant should have been dismantle long ago, but they push the can further, nobody has a safe technology/methodology to do that !
    But is nuclear said clean because there is less CO² emmission ? Well, you see Co² emmission is a scam ! It plays no role at all on warming and it is vitally important. Dioxine emmission and other stuff are the real pollutions. Nuclear isn’t a pollution, it’s a danger !

    Reply
  28. Nuclear waste in the USA could either be stored deep underground in a carefully chosen geological structure in Nevada (it’s on federal land so ignore whining Nevada state politicians) or it could be reprocessed into new fuel in the same way that it’s long been done in western Europe.

    One relevant principle that many people seem unaware of is that the longer the half-life of a particular nuclear waste, the weaker the radioactivity emitted from that waste. In other words, a given substance takes forever to decay because it only releases tiny amounts of radioactivity at any one time, get it? Some of the longer lasting substances are not much more dangerous than natural uranium ore, something that was here on earth to begin with. It’s entirely safe to touch, just don’t make a habit of eating it.

    There is a safer nuclear reactor technology available, known as a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor. Such reactors cannot “melt-down”. During all processing, the key materials are in molten (liquid) form to start with. And they can operate at normal atmospheric pressures (nothing is ever “…about to blow!”). Another feature is that such reactors can actually use the remaining radioactive potential in most forms of nuclear waste as fuel to produce new energy. Most radioactive waste can simply be added to the existing molten material used by such reactors, consisting of Thorium-232, which can accept a neutron to become Uranium-233, plus small amounts of Uranium-235 and other neutron producers which can be used as a “starter” to get things going with the Thorium, which is itself a non-fissionable metal that is 4 times more plentiful in the Earth’s crust than Uranium. And unlike Uranium, Thorium is not currently mined or used to any significant extent.

    Reply
  29. I could not find most of the documents you referred to, including the specific reference to a NYT article about “the Tricastin incident.”. The list of “Nuclear power accidents in France” in the Wikipedia article features a number of minor events, or even not so minor, that have nothing to do with nuclear power – and the explanation even says so, yet they are still on that list. Also, the millions of dollars these events purportedly cost make sense to me only if they refer to the lost income from a shutdown nuclear power plant. Because the plants are such important producers, shutting them down even one day (depending on the season) costs a bundle. But it’s indirect, not direct, cost. Unfortunately the media, even big prestigious publications, often get things wrong. But they are seen as infallible (except on things you know something about), and the fake news becomes real over time. Believe me. I am a journalist. I happen to know a lot about nuclear energy, at least enough to know which “incidents” were important and which were not.

    Reply
  30. I could not find most of the documents you referred to including the specific reference to a NYT article about the Tricastin incident.””. The list of “”””Nuclear power accidents in France”””” in the Wikipedia article features a number of minor events”” or even not so minor that have nothing to do with nuclear power – and the explanation even says so yet they are still on that list. Also the millions of dollars these events purportedly cost make sense to me only if they refer to the lost income from a shutdown nuclear power plant. Because the plants are such important producers shutting them down even one day (depending on the season) costs a bundle. But it’s indirect not direct cost.Unfortunately the media even big prestigious publications often get things wrong. But they are seen as infallible (except on things you know something about) and the fake news becomes real over time.Believe me. I am a journalist. I happen to know a lot about nuclear energy”” at least enough to know which “”””incidents”””” were important and which were not.”””

    Reply
  31. France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion” Since then they haven’t done so well. Flamanville 3 started construction in 2006 and still isn’t complete. It’s current price estimate is $12.75 billion. The company has gone out of business twice (?) now as a result, and is being repeatedly bailed out by the French taxpayer. Meanwhile, the UK started construction on a 693 MW offshore wind farm in 2017 and it went fully operational yesterday. The cost was under 1 billion pounds, so roughly 1/5th the cost per watt. And before you say it, the capacity factor of Walney 2 is over 51%, which compares rather well to Flamanville’s 2017 numbers of about 60%. So 20% less power for 80% less cash… not too much more to say.

    Reply
  32. France completed construction on 76{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion””Since then they haven’t done so well. Flamanville 3 started construction in 2006 and still isn’t complete. It’s current price estimate is $12.75 billion. The company has gone out of business twice (?) now as a result”” and is being repeatedly bailed out by the French taxpayer.Meanwhile the UK started construction on a 693 MW offshore wind farm in 2017 and it went fully operational yesterday. The cost was under 1 billion pounds so roughly 1/5th the cost per watt.And before you say it the capacity factor of Walney 2 is over 51{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}”” which compares rather well to Flamanville’s 2017 numbers of about 60{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. So 20{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} less power for 80{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} less cash… not too much more to say.”””

    Reply
  33. I could not find most of the documents you referred to, including the specific reference to a NYT article about “the Tricastin incident.”. The list of “Nuclear power accidents in France” in the Wikipedia article features a number of minor events, or even not so minor, that have nothing to do with nuclear power – and the explanation even says so, yet they are still on that list.
    Also, the millions of dollars these events purportedly cost make sense to me only if they refer to the lost income from a shutdown nuclear power plant. Because the plants are such important producers, shutting them down even one day (depending on the season) costs a bundle. But it’s indirect, not direct, cost.
    Unfortunately the media, even big prestigious publications, often get things wrong. But they are seen as infallible (except on things you know something about), and the fake news becomes real over time.
    Believe me. I am a journalist. I happen to know a lot about nuclear energy, at least enough to know which “incidents” were important and which were not.

    Reply
  34. Apologies, Who is interested in the references can search in Wikipedia “Nuclear Power in France” A reference to the Tricastin incident is in the NYT archive and can be found searching “Two Accidents raising questions about France’s nuclear program” I apologize if the reactor is not a fast breeder, it is referred as such in the first reference.

    Reply
  35. ApologiesWho is interested in the references can search in Wikipedia Nuclear Power in France””A reference to the Tricastin incident is in the NYT archive and can be found searching “”””Two Accidents raising questions about France’s nuclear program””””I apologize if the reactor is not a fast breeder”””” it is referred as such in the first reference.”””

    Reply
  36. Fukushima was built a – on a fault line b – next to the coast where tsunamis are frequent. This shouldn’t be a nuclear issue – no-one died that I know of. Millions die from coal. I work for a fire fighting service and I am amazed at how deadly it is to have photovoltaic on your roof.

    Reply
  37. Fukushima was builta – on a fault lineb – next to the coast where tsunamis are frequent.This shouldn’t be a nuclear issue – no-one died that I know of.Millions die from coal. I work for a fire fighting service and I am amazed at how deadlyit is to have photovoltaic on your roof.

    Reply
  38. If you trip over a broom in a nuclear power station it makes headlines. A million dead due to pollution from coal (inc radiation) makes no headlines.

    Reply
  39. If you trip over a broom in a nuclear power station it makes headlines.A million dead due to pollution from coal (inc radiation) makes no headlines.

    Reply
  40. “France completed construction on 76% of its current 58 reactors at an inflation-adjusted cost of $330 billion”

    Since then they haven’t done so well. Flamanville 3 started construction in 2006 and still isn’t complete. It’s current price estimate is $12.75 billion. The company has gone out of business twice (?) now as a result, and is being repeatedly bailed out by the French taxpayer.

    Meanwhile, the UK started construction on a 693 MW offshore wind farm in 2017 and it went fully operational yesterday. The cost was under 1 billion pounds, so roughly 1/5th the cost per watt.

    And before you say it, the capacity factor of Walney 2 is over 51%, which compares rather well to Flamanville’s 2017 numbers of about 60%. So 20% less power for 80% less cash… not too much more to say.

    Reply
  41. Good point on the “without incident” claim. One issue with NBF is the way Brian just repeats claims made by others without critical thinking. I mean, given the level of control freak rules in the nuclear industry, an “incident” is probably classified as “someone did something without filling the correct paperwork out properly”, and as such it would be impossible to operate for decades “without incident.” (I know this is true in the medical device industry.)

    Reply
  42. Good point on the without incident”” claim. One issue with NBF is the way Brian just repeats claims made by others without critical thinking.I mean”” given the level of control freak rules in the nuclear industry”” an “”””incident”””” is probably classified as “”””someone did something without filling the correct paperwork out properly”””””””” and as such it would be impossible to operate for decades “”””without incident.”””” (I know this is true in the medical device industry.)”””

    Reply
  43. No good giving links on this website. Proof and evidence is against the rules. If you want to link to something, work out google search terms that will take someone right there and post that instead.

    Reply
  44. No good giving links on this website. Proof and evidence is against the rules.If you want to link to something work out google search terms that will take someone right there and post that instead.

    Reply
  45. Dude, France’s best effort in football is only making the finals three times (1987, 1999, 2011), losing and finishing second in the tournament each time. You may be thinking of soccer.

    Reply
  46. Dude France’s best effort in football is only making the finals three times (1987 1999 2011) losing and finishing second in the tournament each time.You may be thinking of soccer.

    Reply
  47. Actually, the Egyptian pyramids were all robbed within a century or so of the king being entombed, and the treasures spread throughout the world. Not actually a good example of secure storage. Much better to point to things like sunken ships. Dunk a treasure on the bottom of the sea and only advanced people, ie. people with enough technology to understand what they’ve just found, are even able to get to it.

    Reply
  48. Actually the Egyptian pyramids were all robbed within a century or so of the king being entombed and the treasures spread throughout the world.Not actually a good example of secure storage.Much better to point to things like sunken ships. Dunk a treasure on the bottom of the sea and only advanced people ie. people with enough technology to understand what they’ve just found are even able to get to it.

    Reply
  49. 85% France Government/Public ownership makes all the difference. It matters little if nuclear or renewable if not owned privately. Private ownership implies corrupt non-distributed monopolistic goals in opposition to societies needs.The free market does not work with massive private ownership regardless of pretend regulation. Period.

    Reply
  50. 85{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} France Government/Public ownership makes all the difference. It matters little if nuclear or renewable if not owned privately. Private ownership implies corrupt non-distributed monopolistic goals in opposition to societies needs.The free market does not work with massive private ownership regardless of pretend regulation. Period.

    Reply
  51. Apologies,

    Who is interested in the references can search in Wikipedia “Nuclear Power in France”

    A reference to the Tricastin incident is in the NYT archive and can be found searching “Two Accidents raising questions about France’s nuclear program”

    I apologize if the reactor is not a fast breeder, it is referred as such in the first reference.

    Reply
  52. Nuclear energy the ultimate stalinist dream ! Solar and wind unreliable ? Not plannable ? And so what , didn’t have you heard of market economy ?

    Reply
  53. Nuclear energy the ultimate stalinist dream ! Solar and wind unreliable ? Not plannable ? And so what didn’t have you heard of market economy ?

    Reply
  54. It can easily be stored for thousands of years in an engineered depository. Farfetched? Look at the Egyptian pyramids technology from 3000+ yrs ago. Any nuclear waste put in there would still be there and none of it would of leaked out. With today’s technology storing is simple and safe. Time is not on our side we must reduce fossil fuel use urgently and if it needs Nuclear to do it..then so be it

    Reply
  55. It can easily be stored for thousands of years in an engineered depository. Farfetched? Look at the Egyptian pyramids technology from 3000+ yrs ago. Any nuclear waste put in there would still be there and none of it would of leaked out. With today’s technology storing is simple and safe. Time is not on our side we must reduce fossil fuel use urgently and if it needs Nuclear to do it..then so be it

    Reply
  56. www{dot}electricitymap(dot)org See this & check where the *consistently* green regions get their electricty. Spoiler: mostly nuclear & hydro.

    Reply
  57. www{dot}electricitymap(dot)orgSee this & check where the *consistently* green regions get their electricty.Spoiler: mostly nuclear & hydro.

    Reply
  58. Hi regarding the costs in millions of US dollars please see the table in the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Accidents_and_incidents.You also find the list of the accidents there You can find reference to the Tricastin accident here:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuklearanlage_Tricastinand here:https://books.google.se/books?id=3xo8DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=12+Avril+1987+Tricastin&source=bl&ots=Y3Oz9SgNPW&sig=0lAQrxLV8GCeAXoUdh_EvlXNwUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjkv4zP7qbdAhVIkCwKHRFtAxcQ6AEwBHoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}20Avril{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}201987{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}20Tricastin{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}2C&f=false

    Reply
  59. Fukushima was built
    a – on a fault line
    b – next to the coast where tsunamis are frequent.

    This shouldn’t be a nuclear issue – no-one died that I know of.
    Millions die from coal.
    I work for a fire fighting service and I am amazed at how deadly
    it is to have photovoltaic on your roof.

    Reply
  60. We have much more chemical”” waste that remaines poisonous FOREVER”””” but that does not seem to traumatise you.”””

    Reply
  61. Andrea Panza Your choice of “incidents” on French nuclear facilities is puzzling – totally apples and oranges, and it’s not clear where you get the idea that they cost “millions of dollars”. But in any case, the listing of a leak at the “Tricastin fast breeder reactor” in 1987 blows your credibility, at least the credibility of whatever Wikipedia article you got this from. There is no fast breeder reactor at Tricastin, period. Wikipedia can be a great source of information, but it has a lot of garbage (like that CEA study – tell me more! I’m sure the conclusion was more subtle than that platitude you quoted). And of course a single Fukushima-level accident could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Potentially more. The question is how societies and governments integrate the risk of that accident – risk being danger x probability – into policies to provide energy for development while preventing disastrous climate change that would cost much, much more.

    Reply
  62. Andrea Panza Your choice of incidents”” on French nuclear facilities is puzzling – totally apples and oranges”””” and it’s not clear where you get the idea that they cost “”””millions of dollars””””. But in any case”””” the listing of a leak at the “”””Tricastin fast breeder reactor”””” in 1987 blows your credibility”” at least the credibility of whatever Wikipedia article you got this from. There is no fast breeder reactor at Tricastin period. Wikipedia can be a great source of information but it has a lot of garbage (like that CEA study – tell me more! I’m sure the conclusion was more subtle than that platitude you quoted).And of course a single Fukushima-level accident could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Potentially more. The question is how societies and governments integrate the risk of that accident – risk being danger x probability – into policies to provide energy for development while preventing disastrous climate change that would cost much”” much more.”””

    Reply
  63. Good point on the “without incident” claim. One issue with NBF is the way Brian just repeats claims made by others without critical thinking.

    I mean, given the level of control freak rules in the nuclear industry, an “incident” is probably classified as “someone did something without filling the correct paperwork out properly”, and as such it would be impossible to operate for decades “without incident.” (I know this is true in the medical device industry.)

    Reply
  64. No good giving links on this website. Proof and evidence is against the rules.

    If you want to link to something, work out google search terms that will take someone right there and post that instead.

    Reply
  65. Dude, France’s best effort in football is only making the finals three times (1987, 1999, 2011), losing and finishing second in the tournament each time.

    You may be thinking of soccer.

    Reply
  66. Actually, the Egyptian pyramids were all robbed within a century or so of the king being entombed, and the treasures spread throughout the world.
    Not actually a good example of secure storage.

    Much better to point to things like sunken ships. Dunk a treasure on the bottom of the sea and only advanced people, ie. people with enough technology to understand what they’ve just found, are even able to get to it.

    Reply
  67. US and China molten salt reactor plans include the production of hydrogen – using a thermal process that will be more efficient than making electricity and using the electricity to make hydrogen. The hydrogen can be used to make zero carbon synthetic fuels. Definitely cleaner and possibly cheaper than oil. Search for “Terrestrial Energy Southern Company Hydrogen” https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2018/09/terrestrial-energy-usa-partners-with-leading-energy-company-national-labs-to-produce-economical-clean-hydrogen-with-generation-iv-nuclear-energy/ Wind and solar can also be used to make hydrogen for synthetic fuels, but the business model and technology are harder because of their highly variable output. You have to use a more flexible, but less efficient proton exchange membrane instead of a less flexible and more efficient solid oxide electrolysis cell.

    Reply
  68. US and China molten salt reactor plans include the production of hydrogen – using a thermal process that will be more efficient than making electricity and using the electricity to make hydrogen. The hydrogen can be used to make zero carbon synthetic fuels. Definitely cleaner and possibly cheaper than oil.Search for Terrestrial Energy Southern Company Hydrogen””https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2018/09/terrestrial-energy-usa-partners-with-leading-energy-company-national-labs-to-produce-economical-clean-hydrogen-with-generation-iv-nuclear-energy/ Wind and solar can also be used to make hydrogen for synthetic fuels”” but the business model and technology are harder because of their highly variable output. You have to use a more flexible”” but less efficient proton exchange membrane instead of a less flexible and more efficient solid oxide electrolysis cell.”””

    Reply
  69. All industrial processes expose workers to hazards. Mining coal, uranium or rare earths for solar panels involve serious risk of injury or death to those working at the site. How significant were these incidents to public safety? Not very. The risk of human error is not the question. The question is what are the consequences of error? New reactor designs significantly reduce the risk to the public if an accident does occur. Using the phrase “without incident” was unfortunate. Without endangering the public would have been more accurate.

    Reply
  70. All industrial processes expose workers to hazards. Mining coal uranium or rare earths for solar panels involve serious risk of injury or death to those working at the site. How significant were these incidents to public safety? Not very. The risk of human error is not the question. The question is what are the consequences of error? New reactor designs significantly reduce the risk to the public if an accident does occur. Using the phrase without incident”” was unfortunate. Without endangering the public would have been more accurate.”””

    Reply
  71. We’ll give you that credit, but stop mentioning the curie family. Marie spent way too much time trying to assemble a gram of radium… the baton was quickly passed to the Jews and other Europeans and they all came to USA and made it work. And yes, no detracting from french nuclear practice – very professional and to be admired.

    Reply
  72. We’ll give you that credit but stop mentioning the curie family. Marie spent way too much time trying to assemble a gram of radium… the baton was quickly passed to the Jews and other Europeans and they all came to USA and made it work. And yes no detracting from french nuclear practice – very professional and to be admired.

    Reply
  73. The cost is known and is not huge because an European Program forestall the difficulty of nuclear wastes and study the cristallization by particle accelerator and the retreatment of the plutonium by the factory of the HAGUE to nuclear reactor

    Reply
  74. The cost is known and is not huge because an European Program forestall the difficulty of nuclear wastes and study the cristallization by particle accelerator and the retreatment of the plutonium by the factory of the HAGUE to nuclear reactor

    Reply
  75. I’m interested in the stratosolar concept. http://www.stratosolar.com The group has done some serious work and simulation as well as talking with FAA etc and seems feasible. Their estimates (which could no doubt be very optimistic) put the cost of a stratosolar plant at the same as a ground pv for the same panel area. Yet it gives huge advantage: no clouds means extremely reliable. If its day time they get power full stop. This means for all daytime power no expensive storage is needed to give reliability. This can double output in places like Europe and north america Up there you get 3x the energy per m3 so at the same installation costs you could get 1/3 energy cost. Cold up there keeps thermal under control. Once you get huge offshore systems you can create extremely cheap energy storage through gravity by simply winching up and down large weights. Would allow base load sources like nuclear to stay at full capacity without wasting power. So if it works out something like nuclear could do nighttime load and stratosolar could cover entire difference between night and day. Gets best of nuclear (can stay at 100% power all the time) and best of solar (300% power all day).

    Reply
  76. I’m interested in the stratosolar concept. http://www.stratosolar.com The group has done some serious work and simulation as well as talking with FAA etc and seems feasible. Their estimates (which could no doubt be very optimistic) put the cost of a stratosolar plant at the same as a ground pv for the same panel area.Yet it gives huge advantage:no clouds means extremely reliable. If its day time they get power full stop. This means for all daytime power no expensive storage is needed to give reliability. This can double output in places like Europe and north americaUp there you get 3x the energy per m3 so at the same installation costs you could get 1/3 energy cost. Cold up there keeps thermal under control.Once you get huge offshore systems you can create extremely cheap energy storage through gravity by simply winching up and down large weights. Would allow base load sources like nuclear to stay at full capacity without wasting power.So if it works out something like nuclear could do nighttime load and stratosolar could cover entire difference between night and day.Gets best of nuclear (can stay at 100{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} power all the time) and best of solar (300{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} power all day).

    Reply
  77. This article is right and the incident are not accident because they did not breed any thousands of wounds because of the safety. In comparison the explosion of Total factory in Toulouse with gas caused 200 victims. French reactor are safer than Japanese or Russian even American. France never knew Three miles Islands and Tchernobyl caused more victims of cancer unlike french Atom reactors. Chinese reactors like EPR use French technology. Nuclear was discovered by Joliot CURY and The use of Atom reactor began in 1950 with the first Nuclear battery . So France deserves the title of world champion like in Football. Cea is MPBAPE of soccer

    Reply
  78. This article is right and the incident are not accident because they did not breed any thousands of wounds because of the safety. In comparison the explosion of Total factory in Toulouse with gas caused 200 victims. French reactor are safer than Japanese or Russian even American. France never knew Three miles Islands and Tchernobyl caused more victims of cancer unlike french Atom reactors. Chinese reactors like EPR use French technology. Nuclear was discovered by Joliot CURY and The use of Atom reactor began in 1950 with the first Nuclear battery . So France deserves the title of world champion like in Football. Cea is MPBAPE of soccer

    Reply
  79. I was surprised by the statement that France operated without incident for over 30 years, 5 minutes search on the web told me that is simply not true: 22 May 1986: A reprocessing plant at La Hague malfunctions and exposes workers to unsafe levels of radiation and forces five to be hospitalised 12 April 1987 Tricastin fast breeder reactor leaks coolant, sodium and uranium hexachloride, injuring seven workers and contaminating water supplies 27 December 1999 Blayais, a storm floods the Blayais Nuclear Power Plant, forcing an emergency shutdown after injection pumps and containment safety systems fail from water damage 21 January 2002 Manche, Control systems and safety valves fail after improper installation of condensers, forcing a two-month shutdown 16 May 2005 Lorraine, Sub-standard electrical cables at the Cattenom-2 nuclear reactor cause a fire in an electricity tunnel, damaging safety systems 13 July 2008 Tricastin, 75 kg of natural uranium, in thousands of litres of solution, accidentally spilled on the ground and run off into a nearby river 12 August 2009 Gravelines, Assembly system fails to properly eject spent fuel rods from the Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant, causing the fuel rods to jam and the reactor to shut down [Source Wikipedia] I am not saying that these are catastrophic incidents, but, they happened, costed millions of dollars and is not honest to ignore them as they portrait the system safer (and cheaper) than what actually is. And an article making clearly false claims on a part that can quickly be verified, is not very honest and makes me wonder how I can trust other parts or data in such article. I would like finally to point out that the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation [Source Wikipedia] and this simply means that accidents and extra costs (as the article focus is convenience) are always behind the corner and a single

    Reply
  80. I was surprised by the statement that France operated without incident for over 30 years 5 minutes search on the web told me that is simply not true:22 May 1986: A reprocessing plant at La Hague malfunctions and exposes workers to unsafe levels of radiation and forces five to be hospitalised12 April 1987 Tricastin fast breeder reactor leaks coolant sodium and uranium hexachloride injuring seven workers and contaminating water supplies27 December 1999 Blayais a storm floods the Blayais Nuclear Power Plant forcing an emergency shutdown after injection pumps and containment safety systems fail from water damage21 January 2002 Manche Control systems and safety valves fail after improper installation of condensers forcing a two-month shutdown16 May 2005 Lorraine Sub-standard electrical cables at the Cattenom-2 nuclear reactor cause a fire in an electricity tunnel damaging safety systems13 July 2008 Tricastin 75 kg of natural uranium in thousands of litres of solution accidentally spilled on the ground and run off into a nearby river12 August 2009 Gravelines Assembly system fails to properly eject spent fuel rods from the Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant causing the fuel rods to jam and the reactor to shut down [Source Wikipedia]I am not saying that these are catastrophic incidents but they happened costed millions of dollars and is not honest to ignore them as they portrait the system safer (and cheaper) than what actually is.And an article making clearly false claims on a part that can quickly be verified is not very honest and makes me wonder how I can trust other parts or data in such article.I would like finally to point out that the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation [Source Wikipedia] and this simply means that accidents and extra costs (as the article focus is convenience) are always behind the corner and a s

    Reply
  81. 85% France Government/Public ownership makes all the difference. It matters little if nuclear or renewable if not owned privately. Private ownership implies corrupt non-distributed monopolistic goals in opposition to societies needs.The free market does not work with massive private ownership regardless of pretend regulation. Period.

    Reply
  82. ‘..the temp of the water at the nuclear plant is not counted and it is huge.’ No, it’s minuscule. Aficionados of solar power are fond of saying that the earth gets more energy input in an hour from solar than mankind uses in a year, i.e. roughly nine thousand times as much. It follows that all the heat released by human activities, nuclear included, has less effect, by an order of magnitude, than an extra 2 watts per square metre retained in the earth system, of the 1368 watts of solar power hitting the top of the atmosphere. So if German solar has a 14% capacity factor, and for most of the time gas or coal is used instead, that will be heating the whole country, compared to a reactor working all the time, with no greenhouse gas emissions, and heating a short stretch of river.

    Reply
  83. ‘..the temp of the water at the nuclear plant is not counted and it is huge.’ No it’s minuscule. Aficionados of solar power are fond of saying that the earth gets more energy input in an hour from solar than mankind uses in a year i.e. roughly nine thousand times as much. It follows that all the heat released by human activities nuclear included has less effect by an order of magnitude than an extra 2 watts per square metre retained in the earth system of the 1368 watts of solar power hitting the top of the atmosphere. So if German solar has a 14{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} capacity factor and for most of the time gas or coal is used instead that will be heating the whole country compared to a reactor working all the time with no greenhouse gas emissions and heating a short stretch of river.

    Reply
  84. It can easily be stored for thousands of years in an engineered depository. Farfetched? Look at the Egyptian pyramids technology from 3000+ yrs ago. Any nuclear waste put in there would still be there and none of it would of leaked out. With today’s technology storing is simple and safe. Time is not on our side we must reduce fossil fuel use urgently and if it needs Nuclear to do it..then so be it

    Reply
  85. I mostly agree with what you say, but I still wonder about the reliability of solar during night time and winter times. you would need a reliable and cheap energy storage device and they may not come as cheap As far sa i know, cost of solar is declining and has been declining fast for years now, what about energy storage?

    Reply
  86. I mostly agree with what you say but I still wonder about the reliability of solar during night time and winter times. you would need a reliable and cheap energy storage device and they may not come as cheap As far sa i know cost of solar is declining and has been declining fast for years now what about energy storage?

    Reply
  87. No mention of the substantial costs in decommissioning a nuclear plant, let alone the devastating costs of even a single Fukushima scale accident. Also, no mention of the rapidly declining costs of solar, wind and energy storage. Hard to imagine nuclear matching that pace, without taking risky design shortcuts. Look at current energy investment trends. They speak volumes.

    Reply
  88. No mention of the substantial costs in decommissioning a nuclear plant let alone the devastating costs of even a single Fukushima scale accident. Also no mention of the rapidly declining costs of solar wind and energy storage. Hard to imagine nuclear matching that pace without taking risky design shortcuts. Look at current energy investment trends. They speak volumes.

    Reply
  89. Sooner or later.. yes maybe in 10 years maybe in 100 please consider that once you switch the damage may be already done people are vttery stvpid The madness of politicians promoting coal is getting more obvious? Seriously? Who is the President of the USA? Dude, I do it by my way, you can keep reaming..

    Reply
  90. Sooner or later.. yes maybe in 10 years maybe in 100 please consider that once you switch the damage may be already done people are vttery stvpid The madness of politicians promoting coal is getting more obvious? Seriously? Who is the President of the USA? Dude I do it by my way you can keep reaming..

    Reply
  91. The German people will not accept nukes so the point is moot. As for cost, it is the total cost of building, maintenance, fuel, and insurance over an operating period of let us say fifty years. I am not sure that nuclear will be cheaper than wind and solar over that period of time.

    Reply
  92. The German people will not accept nukes so the point is moot. As for cost it is the total cost of building maintenance fuel and insurance over an operating period of let us say fifty years. I am not sure that nuclear will be cheaper than wind and solar over that period of time.

    Reply
  93. Andrea Panza Your choice of “incidents” on French nuclear facilities is puzzling – totally apples and oranges, and it’s not clear where you get the idea that they cost “millions of dollars”. But in any case, the listing of a leak at the “Tricastin fast breeder reactor” in 1987 blows your credibility, at least the credibility of whatever Wikipedia article you got this from. There is no fast breeder reactor at Tricastin, period. Wikipedia can be a great source of information, but it has a lot of garbage (like that CEA study – tell me more! I’m sure the conclusion was more subtle than that platitude you quoted).
    And of course a single Fukushima-level accident could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Potentially more. The question is how societies and governments integrate the risk of that accident – risk being danger x probability – into policies to provide energy for development while preventing disastrous climate change that would cost much, much more.

    Reply
  94. Well while I would agree that tribalism and industry lobbying are delaying action, sooner or later the tide will swing. As extreme weather breaks records year after year, causing deaths from heat and fire and crop failures due to drought or flooding more and more people will slowly get it. Here in Australia more and more farmers are now questioning the party they have traditionally voted for because this party ignores climate while they are deep in drought. The madness of politicians promoting coal is getting more obvious by the day. An interesting test will be Australia’s next national election. I foresee a big change happening. The USA may take a little longer….

    Reply
  95. Well while I would agree that tribalism and industry lobbying are delaying action sooner or later the tide will swing. As extreme weather breaks records year after year causing deaths from heat and fire and crop failures due to drought or flooding more and more people will slowly get it. Here in Australia more and more farmers are now questioning the party they have traditionally voted for because this party ignores climate while they are deep in drought. The madness of politicians promoting coal is getting more obvious by the day. An interesting test will be Australia’s next national election. I foresee a big change happening. The USA may take a little longer….

    Reply
  96. Yes, but only SUVs or cars parked in front of Mc Domnalds (I also leaave a paper saying why I did it, as otherwise you would be mistaken for a vandal) And I engage in other activity like promotion of veganism, anti-war march and so on I hope tis clarifies the issue

    Reply
  97. Yes but only SUVs or cars parked in front of Mc Domnalds (I also leaave a paper saying why I did it as otherwise you would be mistaken for a vandal) And I engage in other activity like promotion of veganism anti-war march and so on I hope tis clarifies the issue

    Reply
  98. but the temp of the water at the nuclear plant is not counted and it is huge. Carbon is only one pollutant and the heated water comes at a cost too

    Reply
  99. but the temp of the water at the nuclear plant is not counted and it is huge. Carbon is only one pollutant and the heated water comes at a cost too

    Reply
  100. US and China molten salt reactor plans include the production of hydrogen – using a thermal process that will be more efficient than making electricity and using the electricity to make hydrogen.

    The hydrogen can be used to make zero carbon synthetic fuels. Definitely cleaner and possibly cheaper than oil.

    Search for “Terrestrial Energy Southern Company Hydrogen”

    https://www.terrestrialenergy.com/2018/09/terrestrial-energy-usa-partners-with-leading-energy-company-national-labs-to-produce-economical-clean-hydrogen-with-generation-iv-nuclear-energy/

    Wind and solar can also be used to make hydrogen for synthetic fuels, but the business model and technology are harder because of their highly variable output. You have to use a more flexible, but less efficient proton exchange membrane instead of a less flexible and more efficient solid oxide electrolysis cell.

    Reply
  101. All industrial processes expose workers to hazards. Mining coal, uranium or rare earths for solar panels involve serious risk of injury or death to those working at the site. How significant were these incidents to public safety? Not very. The risk of human error is not the question. The question is what are the consequences of error? New reactor designs significantly reduce the risk to the public if an accident does occur. Using the phrase “without incident” was unfortunate. Without endangering the public would have been more accurate.

    Reply
  102. We’ll give you that credit, but stop mentioning the curie family. Marie spent way too much time trying to assemble a gram of radium… the baton was quickly passed to the Jews and other Europeans and they all came to USA and made it work. And yes, no detracting from french nuclear practice – very professional and to be admired.

    Reply
  103. The cost is known and is not huge because an European Program forestall the difficulty of nuclear wastes and study the cristallization by particle accelerator and the retreatment of the plutonium by the factory of the HAGUE to nuclear reactor

    Reply
  104. I’m interested in the stratosolar concept. http://www.stratosolar.com
    The group has done some serious work and simulation as well as talking with FAA etc and seems feasible. Their estimates (which could no doubt be very optimistic) put the cost of a stratosolar plant at the same as a ground pv for the same panel area.

    Yet it gives huge advantage:

    no clouds means extremely reliable. If its day time they get power full stop. This means for all daytime power no expensive storage is needed to give reliability. This can double output in places like Europe and north america

    Up there you get 3x the energy per m3 so at the same installation costs you could get 1/3 energy cost. Cold up there keeps thermal under control.

    Once you get huge offshore systems you can create extremely cheap energy storage through gravity by simply winching up and down large weights. Would allow base load sources like nuclear to stay at full capacity without wasting power.

    So if it works out something like nuclear could do nighttime load and stratosolar could cover entire difference between night and day.

    Gets best of nuclear (can stay at 100% power all the time) and best of solar (300% power all day).

    Reply
  105. This article is right and the incident are not accident because they did not breed any thousands of wounds because of the safety. In comparison the explosion of Total factory in Toulouse with gas caused 200 victims. French reactor are safer than Japanese or Russian even American. France never knew Three miles Islands and Tchernobyl caused more victims of cancer unlike french Atom reactors. Chinese reactors like EPR use French technology. Nuclear was discovered by Joliot CURY and The use of Atom reactor began in 1950 with the first Nuclear battery . So France deserves the title of world champion like in Football. Cea is MPBAPE of soccer

    Reply
  106. I was surprised by the statement that France operated without incident for over 30 years, 5 minutes search on the web told me that is simply not true:

    22 May 1986: A reprocessing plant at La Hague malfunctions and exposes workers to unsafe levels of radiation and forces five to be hospitalised

    12 April 1987 Tricastin fast breeder reactor leaks coolant, sodium and uranium hexachloride, injuring seven workers and contaminating water supplies

    27 December 1999 Blayais, a storm floods the Blayais Nuclear Power Plant, forcing an emergency shutdown after injection pumps and containment safety systems fail from water damage

    21 January 2002 Manche, Control systems and safety valves fail after improper installation of condensers, forcing a two-month shutdown

    16 May 2005 Lorraine, Sub-standard electrical cables at the Cattenom-2 nuclear reactor cause a fire in an electricity tunnel, damaging safety systems

    13 July 2008 Tricastin, 75 kg of natural uranium, in thousands of litres of solution, accidentally spilled on the ground and run off into a nearby river

    12 August 2009 Gravelines, Assembly system fails to properly eject spent fuel rods from the Gravelines Nuclear Power Plant, causing the fuel rods to jam and the reactor to shut down

    [Source Wikipedia]

    I am not saying that these are catastrophic incidents, but, they happened, costed millions of dollars and is not honest to ignore them as they portrait the system safer (and cheaper) than what actually is.

    And an article making clearly false claims on a part that can quickly be verified, is not very honest and makes me wonder how I can trust other parts or data in such article.

    I would like finally to point out that the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) has concluded that technical innovation cannot eliminate the risk of human errors in nuclear plant operation [Source Wikipedia] and this simply means that accidents and extra costs (as the article focus is convenience) are always behind the corner and a single Fukushima level accident could cost hundreds of billions of dollar.

    This can quickly tilt the balance of which kind of technology is actually cheaper

    Reply
  107. ‘..the temp of the water at the nuclear plant is not counted and it is huge.’ No, it’s minuscule. Aficionados of solar power are fond of saying that the earth gets more energy input in an hour from solar than mankind uses in a year, i.e. roughly nine thousand times as much. It follows that all the heat released by human activities, nuclear included, has less effect, by an order of magnitude, than an extra 2 watts per square metre retained in the earth system, of the 1368 watts of solar power hitting the top of the atmosphere. So if German solar has a 14% capacity factor, and for most of the time gas or coal is used instead, that will be heating the whole country, compared to a reactor working all the time, with no greenhouse gas emissions, and heating a short stretch of river.

    Reply
  108. I mostly agree with what you say, but I still wonder about the reliability of solar during night time and winter times. you would need a reliable and cheap energy storage device and they may not come as cheap
    As far sa i know, cost of solar is declining and has been declining fast for years now, what about energy storage?

    Reply
  109. No mention of the substantial costs in decommissioning a nuclear plant, let alone the devastating costs of even a single Fukushima scale accident. Also, no mention of the rapidly declining costs of solar, wind and energy storage. Hard to imagine nuclear matching that pace, without taking risky design shortcuts. Look at current energy investment trends. They speak volumes.

    Reply
  110. Sooner or later.. yes maybe in 10 years maybe in 100
    please consider that once you switch the damage may be already done
    people are vttery stvpid
    The madness of politicians promoting coal is getting more obvious? Seriously?
    Who is the President of the USA?
    Dude, I do it by my way, you can keep reaming..

    Reply
  111. The German people will not accept nukes so the point is moot. As for cost, it is the total cost of building, maintenance, fuel, and insurance over an operating period of let us say fifty years. I am not sure that nuclear will be cheaper than wind and solar over that period of time.

    Reply
  112. Well while I would agree that tribalism and industry lobbying are delaying action, sooner or later the tide will swing. As extreme weather breaks records year after year, causing deaths from heat and fire and crop failures due to drought or flooding more and more people will slowly get it. Here in Australia more and more farmers are now questioning the party they have traditionally voted for because this party ignores climate while they are deep in drought. The madness of politicians promoting coal is getting more obvious by the day. An interesting test will be Australia’s next national election. I foresee a big change happening. The USA may take a little longer….

    Reply
  113. Yes, but only SUVs or cars parked in front of Mc Domnalds (I also leaave a paper saying why I did it, as otherwise you would be mistaken for a vandal)
    And I engage in other activity like promotion of veganism, anti-war march and so on
    I hope tis clarifies the issue

    Reply

Leave a Comment