First, it's not just nuclear, it's also Natural gas.
Second, lots of nations have incentives for "clean" energy. And now magically, all those incentives apply to nuclear and gas.
It's a money grab from nuclear and gas manufacturers. It's not that the courts were involved for nothing.
Still, we should use more nuclear. If only it was less expensive to build...
In 2015, due mostly to fracking gas, the US was down to around 450g CO₂/kWh.
Germany, with its Energiewende, was at around 560g CO₂/kWh.
Because, of course, the Energiewende was not about climate change. It was about shutting down climate-friendly (CO₂ free) nuclear plants.
Both could have done better. France is currently at something like 32g CO₂/kWh and has been at roughly that level for decades.
Removing what would be nasty targets in a war perhaps in the current light not so much.
That's about as idiotic as you can get.
And simply by not destroying this already existing infrastructure you wouldn't even have needed north-south links.
At its peak (in 1999), nuclear power produced only 31% of Germany's electricity, itself less than 25% of the energy consumed (even considering primary energy, it only provided 12.7%), and by 2011 (Fukushima...), it was producing less than 18% of the electricity.
Moreover, in the East, coal-fired power plants have long produced high-pressure steam for district heating (industry and heating many premises), which a remote reactor cannot provide.
To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason (after Fukushima...) or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".
Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency since it would have replaced part of the huge coal industry, which is very difficult to get rid of.
Precisely.
> but only to a limited extent because the bulk of the coal (especially lignite, a high CO2 emitter) is burned to generate electricity in the former East German regions,
Huh? Not shutting down the existing nuclear plants is a pure positive and does not prevent you from doing other things. Such as building out renewables and/or nuclear plants in the east.
For the money we wasted on intermittent renewables so far, we could have built at least 50 reactors even at the inflated cost of the EPR prototype at Olkiluoto 3. Or 100 inflation-adjusted Konvois. So way more than enough.
Nuclear power is well-suited for district heating and industrial heat applications, unlike solar and wind.
> To claim that Germany shut down its reactors for no reason
Nobody claimed that. Germany shut down its reactors for idiotic reasons:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiophobia
All West German reactors would have survived the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami perfectly fine had they been at the site of Fukushima. And we don't have Tsunamis in Germany. How does shutting down those plants make sense again? When answering, consider that Japan is reactivating its nuclear plants.
It's time for Germany to admit its mistake on nuclear energy
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/commentary/2024/12/26/world/ger...
> or that only a minority of environmentalists decided to do so is misleading as,
Again, such a good thing that that claim wasn't made in this thread. Or are you misleadingly claiming that it was?
> misleading as, in Germany, all political parties close reactors, and most reactors were not closed by "Greens".
Who "closed" reactors, now that actually is misleading for a change. The law that required nuclear reactors to be closed was passed by the Red/Green coalition in 2002. Germany happens to be a country with the rule of law, so successor governments can't just act on whim, they are bound by the law of the land. Oh, and it was the Greens who made the Atomausstieg the primary condition for their coalition with the SPD.
So while it is correct that all parties are somewhat to blame, to claim that they are equally to blame is ahistorical nonsense and quite misleading.
> Furthermore, this nuclear potential would result in higher costs and dependency
That is also not true.
It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany. And the same holds true of pretty much every other location that tried it.
And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions, massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin, cemented our fossil fuel dependence for reliable base load, entrenched our dependence on China.
On the whole, "wasted" is putting it kindly.
Yes, the prices of the generating equipment have come down from truly astronomical to only "not competitive without massive subsidies".
Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants, we would have long been done with the decarbonization of our electricity sector, and probably well into the electrification and ensuing decarbonization of the other sectors as well.
Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors. At the price of the first three Konvois, around 100, adjusted for inflation and some increases. But when you build 50-100 reactors of the same kind (that's important: don't make every new one different like we used to do), the cost does go down.
France is increasing its fission fleet again, after repealing a law that made such expansion illegal beyond the then existing generating capacity 63.2 GW.
The goal of a reduction of the nuclear share to below 50% was also repealed. I do believe that the share of nuclear in France will decrease somewhat, because intermittent renewables can let the nuclear plants run at higher efficiencies by taking up some of the variability that is currently handled by the nuclear plants.
> It massively increased the price of electricity in Germany.
We all have to consider the total cost on the long term. I analyzed it for France. I wrote it in French, sorry, but AFAIK software does not distort it: https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....
> And it did remarkably little for CO₂ emissions
Nope: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...
> massively increased our dependence on cheap Russian Gas thus emboldening Putin
True, sadly, however consider that nuclear didn't save France which is even more dependent (while less industrialized). French ahead: https://sites.google.com/view/avenirdunucleraire/transition-...
> Had we spend the same money on nuclear power plants
France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed.
> Except we would have found it difficult to spend that much on nuclear power plants, because even at the price of the messed up EPR prototypes, the same money would have bought us over 50 reactors.
Once more: source? The most serious allegations published state about official investments previsions until 2050, and not only for renewables (grid maintenance is a)
> don't make every new one different like we used to do
... therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all. No more juice, yay! It nearly happened in France recently, and the shock was alleviated by the fact that the fleet is NOT made of identical reactors, and therefore a fair part could produce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France#Crisis...
> France is increasing its fission fleet again
Not really. The last project (Flamanville-3) started in 2004, work on the field started in 2007, the reactor was to be delivered in 2012 for 3.3 billion € and only started a few months ago (it did not yet reach full power) for at least 23.7 billion €. https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/01/14/epr-de-fl...
Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure.
There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.
> We all have to consider the total cost on the long term.
Yes, we do. When you consider long term, it gets even worse for intermittent renewables. Nuclear, on the other hand is a license to print money when you consider the long term.
> I analyzed it for France.
With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion.
> Nope [to having little effect on CO₂ emissions]
The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable. France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh. Have been for decades, at a fraction of the cost.
> France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed.
Again, the opposite is true. Those projects did not "fail". They all produce reliable power, which intermittent renewables cannot do, at better prices than intermittent renewables.
Of course, compared to other nuclear projects, they were massive failures, but not when compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different.
And your reasoning is also wrong: those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built. They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds, and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years.
FOAK builds are slow and expensive (and slow is extra expensive, as most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments). NOAK builds tend to go much quicker and be a lot cheaper. As an example, China builds much faster and cheaper. People incorrectly claim this is because they skimp on safety, labor, tech etc.
Not true. Their first AP-1000 took 9 years, almost as long as Vogtles, especially when you take into account the COVID years. They are now building their version in 5 years. Essentially the same reactor, certainly the same country. Half the time.
FOAK vs. NOAK is the ticket.
> .. therefore if a potentially dangerous defect is discovered you will have to shut them down all.
France's primary problem was lack of maintenance due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years and deferred maintenance during COVID.
And you don't build just one kind. Build 2-3 kinds and 10-20 of each.
Oh, and don't build them too quick. These things last for 100 years, so to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers.
> Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure.
No it didn't. Relative to the standards of nuclear power plants it was horrific. But even under fairly negative assumptions for the price of electricity it will have "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects.
And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project.
> There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.
That is false. The current plan is to build 6 EPR2 and later on to build 8 more. Sites have been selected for the first 6, and engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded to the tune of several billion €.
If that's "nothing", then can I have just a bit of that "nothing" from you? Can send you my bank details.
Non-backed-up nonsense.
> With all due respects to your "analysis", the French auditors came to a different conclusion.
Once again: source? The reality is that the French Cour of Audit officially declared 5 years ago that there could be no more nuclear project without a financial direct public guarantee. Proof: https://www.challenges.fr/top-news/nucleaire-la-cour-des-com...
Its last report on nuclear, published last January, is TITLED: "DES RISQUES PERSISTANTS" (persistent risks). Proof: https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2025-01/20250114...
> The graph you linked to proves my point: the reduction is laughable
Nope, 538 geqCO2/KWh (2013) to 344 (2024) with a huge coal industry which cannot be quickly phased out and while shutting down all nuclear reactors is very good.
> France's specific CO₂ emissions are less than 1/10th of Germany's per kWh.
The reasons are well-known (France, during the 1960's, had no other option): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/messmer-pl...
> at a fraction of the cost.
Nope (TCO), as already exposed (along with sources): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....
>> France ("Flamanville-3" reactor) and the US (Vogtle, VS Summer) did so, and it failed.
> Again, the opposite is true
OMG. According to you they are successes, and even official reports conclude that they failed.
> compared to intermittent renewables. The standards are just so different.
That's patently not the trend: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
> those projects "failed" (relative to other nuclear projects) precisely because far too little was being built.
Nope, this appeal to some strong and persistent benefit induced by batching projects is void, and the industry knows it for quite a while: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03014...
> They are all First of a Kind (FOAK) builds
The EPR is explicitly and officially very similar to existing reactors, it only is an evolution of existing designs and not a new concept. Proof: https://recherche-expertise.asnr.fr/savoir-comprendre/surete...
> and built in countries that built little to no new nuclear in the last 20-40 years.
The projects started 15 to 25 years ago, just a few years after the last reactor built before them. Moreover those nations have active reactors fleets and massive public nuclear R&D budgets, therefore the fable "no-one worked on all this" is ridiculous.
> most of the cost is financing, i.e. interest payments
True, but only because the projects were extremely late.
> China builds
Renewables. Facts (sourced! just try to do so): https://sites.google.com/view/nuclaireenchine/accueil
> They are now building
Very few reactors. Their EPR were officially late and overbudget.
> France's primary problem was lack of maintenance
Source? Not at all. The nuclear authority is very, very picky here.
> due to the de-emphasis of nuclear during the Mitterand years
Nope. Mitterrand heavily helped nuclear, and this is now a well-known fact. M. Boiteux, EDF boss at the time, also did reckon it. French ahead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rvP1zstk68
> and deferred maintenance during COVID.
Source? Not at all, in practice, as many 'Grand Carénage' subprojects were completed in due time while respecting budgets (this is very rare in this industry and was touted). https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_car%C3%A9nage
> to achieve steady state you can't build out your entire fleet in 10-20 years, because then you industry has nothing to build for the next 80-90 years and withers.
In France the solution was to try to sell reactors to various nations, and
>> Even the official report about it states explicitly that this building project was a failure.
> No it didn't.
Wrong, once more. Proof: "La construction de l’EPR de Flamanville aura accumulé tant de surcoûts et de délais qu’elle ne peut être considérée que comme un échec pour EDF". Source: conclusion of the official report analyzing the EPR at Flamanville, page 31
https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/media/organes-parleme...
> "modest" profitability. Which, once again, is better than the best intermittent renewables projects.
Source?
> And FV3 is not "the nuclear industry". It is that particular project.
Granted. Which project succeeded since year 2000?
>> There are claimed intentions to build at least 2 new reactors since 2022, nothing else.
> The current plan is to build 6 EPR2
Yes: it only is a plan. Nothing more. And "6" is "at least 2". Right now we only know where 2 of them can theoretically be built (at the existing plant at Penly).
> Sites have been selected for the first 6
Which ones? Sources?
> engineering contracts for the first 2 have been awarded
Yes, for preparatory work. There is a long route ahead...
> If that's "nothing"
Compared to renewables? Nothin' indeed! https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbeJIwF1pVY
"Jetzt müssen RWE und Co. die ausgedienten Gelddruckmaschinen sicher abwickeln."
But that was the well-known pro nuclear lobby group...greenpeace.
https://www.greenpeace.de/klimaschutz/energiewende/atomausst...
"Atomkraftwerke sind Gelddruckmaschinen."
But that was the well-known pro nuclear lobbyist...Jürgen Trittin
https://www.presseportal.de/pm/57706/1010574
Anyway, you are just regurgitating the same old counter-factual nonsense as before, and the irrelevant "but China is also building renewables".
Once again: nuclear and renewables are only a contradiction in the minds of anti-nuclear advocates. Industrial nations do both.
> Plan to build 6 then 8 more EPR2 → "only a plan"
That is incorrect. As stated before, the approvals are being sought, 3 sites have been selected and multi-billion € contracts have been awarded.
> Sites have been selected for the first 6
https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/bugey-chosen-to-host...
> [engineering contracts] → long road ahead
Newsflash: yes, nuclear power plants are big.
Once again: if multi-billion contracts are "nothing", please give some of that "nothing". I will send you my bank details.
Apologies about pointing at Mitterand, that was incorrect. I meant Hollande.
https://www.ewmagazine.nl/kennis/achtergrond/2022/10/bernard...
Translation: 'Green cabal paralyzes the nuclear industry’
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ePZUamAzNA4IzdR1dlkE2wtl...
> the irrelevant "but China is also building renewables".
No, I state the fact: China is building WAY, WAY MORE renewables than nuclear.
> nuclear and renewables are only a contradiction in the minds of anti-nuclear advocates. Industrial nations do both.
They try to do nuclear (with meager effects) just like many of them do coal: inertia, political pressure...
>> Plan to build 6 then 8 more EPR2 → "only a plan"
> That is incorrect. As stated before, the approvals are being sought, 3 sites have been selected and multi-billion € contracts have been awarded.
Here, also, only acts prove anything. Everything started in 2022 and, 3 years later, only one site preparation project has begun.
>> Sites have been selected for the first 6
> https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/bugey-chosen-to-host...
"Selected" is far from "nuclear-specific work is in order"!
> Apologies about pointing at Mitterand, that was incorrect. I meant Hollande.
Which action of F. Hollande did hurt the nuclear sector? Not a single one! No, not Fessenheim (French ahead, AFAIK a software translator does the job): https://sites.google.com/view/electricitedefrance/accueil#h....
> Translation: 'Green cabal paralyzes the nuclear industry’
The interviewee, Bernard Accoyer, does not make any specific accusations; it is a conspiracy theory. He is well-known for this in France.
China is also currently seeing the bottom drop out of their renewables industry, with over a third of the workforce laid off and massive drops in installs and production due to a reduction in subsidies.
The EPR2 projects could not even have started in 2022, because he law that prohibits increasing nuclear capacity beyond the currently installed 63.2GW was only repealed in March 2023. And yes, reversing course so massively takes a little while, particularly when they still have to deal with a lot of the fallout of the failed "soft exit" policy.
As to site selection: you disputed, I showed. Then you change the subject.
The interviewee was the president of the French parliament, and he is quite specific.
And he is not the only source, this is really well known...unless you bury your head in the sand.
Here's a long look:
No: nuclear and renewables are electricity-generating equipment types, and all the debate is about the proportion of renewables and nuclear in the final system. Seeing them as disconnected (in different universes) is not even funny. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg
> unless you don't understand the irrelevance of nameplate capacity with intermittent renewables.
This perspective dates back a time when transporting electricity was expensive (lines, losses...), storing it also was expensive ( ), fossil fuels and nuclear were the only way to obtain gridpower... all this is obsolete. Explanations: https://cleantechnica.com/2022/07/25/will-renewable-energy-d...
> China is also currently seeing the bottom drop out of their renewables industry
Source? (I lived in China from mid-2017 to mid-2025) The renewables industry there is, as in nearly every nation, in much better state than nearly any other one.
> The EPR2 projects could not even have started in 2022, because he law that prohibits increasing nuclear capacity beyond the currently installed 63.2GW was only repealed in March 2023
Nope. This law stated about active production capacity, and never forbade any reactor-building project. The very first EPR (Flamanville-3) project was running while this law was instated (2015) and did not stop. It simply forbade it to start without other reactor with at least a total equivalent powerplate value to be shutdown.
Recent news: https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/pas-d-epr2-en-service-...
> they still have to deal with a lot of the fallout of the failed "soft exit" policy.
No such thing as a "fallout": France was waiting for its first EPR since work started on the field (2007), it was due to launch a series, after being delivered in 2012, and albeit the project is a huge failure (12 years late, 23.7+ billion € spent with a budget of 3.3) it was not canceled. Moreover the huge 'Grand Carénage' project was not reduced. No reduction either on R&D budgets either (https://www.ecologie.gouv.fr/politiques-publiques/energie-re... ) .
No "fallout", simply a massive failure (EPR Flamanville-3).
I already asked: who did hurt the nuclear industry, when, by doing (or not doing) what, what were the effects?
> Here's a long look: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isgu-VrD0oM
Which part (a few minutes only, please) of this unsubstantiated rant seems the most convincing to you?