France has been into nuclear for a long time but hasn't actually built a single new reactor in over 2 decades. The newest reactor running at the moment they have went online in 2002.

(Yes I know they have the fancy new EPR reactor under construction in Flamanville but that is not ready yet)

If France had kept the rate up of getting a new reactor up and running every 1 to 3 years like they did during the peak I don't think they would have this issue now. Also both France and Germany are at this moment heavily being propped up by Swedish nuclear power (and hydro).

> France has been into nuclear for a long time but hasn't actually built a single new reactor in over 2 decades. The newest reactor running at the moment they have went online in 2002.

> (Yes I know they have the fancy new EPR reactor under construction in Flamanville but that is not ready yet)

Wikipedia says: In December 2007, construction of the unit itself began. This was expected to last 54 months, with commissioning planned for 2012

They've been building that specific reactor for nearly 2 decades, so it's not for lack of trying and rather puts a different spin on their lack of nuclear at the moment.

France used to build like 2 or 3 reactors at the same time which helps with managing risks like these.

If they were instead building some known/built before reactor at the same time the risk would not be so great. As with solar or wind you don't just build one single wind mill or panel but instead multiple (and hopefully at multiple different sites/projects) to minimize the risk of one of the projects going bad. (this is pretty basic risk management stuff)

Basically it all boils down to the "France is not really building much nuclear anymore" category. If you are only going to get one reactor to build every decade or two you want to make sure it is the biggest most advanced one you can get a permit for to maximize production but at the same time you maximize the risks.

Yeah, but they looked at the cost and decided not to do that. Just like germany looked at the cost of maintaining/building plants and also thought "well f**k this it isnt worth it".

Even now France are spending a fortune on new reactors and it still will not be enough to make up for the ones that will age out.

They're officially hoping wind and solar will make up the difference.

Im pretty sure the green lobby in Germany is due an apology from the nuke fans. This all-in on nuclear approach wouldnt have worked any better for Germany than it did for France it would just have soaked up cash.

In France the nuclear is state owned (EDF owns all nuclear plants and the government owns 85% of it) and how it is actually priced is just weird/can not really be compared directly. For actual costs what you should look at are actual commercial operations like what Sweden or Finland has.

> They're officially hoping wind and solar will make up the difference.

You better if you don't build anything else. If I was only building X I for sure would hope that would be the solution. Hoping that the solution would be Y would be kind of self defeating.

edit: Looking into this more looks like most Swedish nuclear plants are also owned by the state (though Vattenfall). Is Finland the only country with actual privately owned nuclear power plants in EU?

Finland has two plants. One is Soviet in origin and one is financially struggling.

Nuclear power simply cant exist without lavish subsidies.

> one is financially struggling.

Which one? Even Olkiluoto (OL3 with its decade+ delays included) is doing just fine financially.

> Nuclear power simply cant exist without lavish subsidies.

Point me to these subsidies in Finland.

It is the wind and solar that is getting lavish subsidies here (well used to they are now finally going away slowly bringing actual market economy back into the picutre)

edit:

> One is Soviet in origin

How does this matter? VVER-440 is actually a solid design and has been in use for decades without any issues in Finland (and many other countries). These days all the parts and upgrades are sourced from the west. Also a western standard safety vessel and all other safety features were upgraded when it was built as we Finns did not really trust Soviet safety design (as in it was never turned on with standard Soviet safety systems installed as is)

>Which one? Even Olkiluoto (OL3 with its decade+ delays included) is doing just fine financially.

Areva (the French state) took a 5.5 billion euro loss building Olkiluotu.

>How does this matter?

Pretty much all nuclear power is an offshoot of the military, but the Soviet Union's civilian nuclear power industry was a little more obviously an offshoot of its military.

With Vattenfall the same is true but is less obvious. Sweden essentially took out an option on having nuclear weapons while still adhering to the terms of the NPT.

> Areva (the French state) took a 5.5 billion euro loss building Olkiluotu.

That is Arevas problem not the buyer/operator of the reactor (TVO). If you sell something at fixed cost then you sell something at fixed cost. Sometimes contracts go bad (and TVO has come to the help of Areva to the tune of extra ~2.5 billion euros)

It was Areva who bid really low to win the contract. So low that Atomstroyexport, Siemens, Westinghouse, Framatome and GE never bothered to put their final bid in (Areva was the only one to put a bid on in the final round). If you intentionally underbid then be ready to eat some losses. And TVO made sure during the bidding process that there were enough insurances to ensure that the project would be finished even if it went overbudged/got delayed. Basically TVO made a really good deal.

If I made solar panels and sold a project to build a solar park at 100 million and it ended up costing 200 million to build due to MY (the builder/contractor) fuck ups how actually is it the fault of the buyer? You eat the loss as the builder and try to learn something from it.

> Pretty much all nuclear power is an offshoot of the military, but the Soviet Union's civilian nuclear power industry was a little more obviously an offshoot of its military.

And microchips are an offshoot of military weapon projects (getting small/light enough computers to fit fighter planes). Just because something started with military use/funding/backing does not mean we should not use it.

no we did not. and it wasnt because of cost but just wokeness being something that gets you elected. macron in 2017 pushed for "Declunearization" and asked EDF to remove nuclear centrals following merkel in its wokeness. He changed his mind this year but never took the blame as a good french modern politician. In japan he would have to resign for such a mistake.

before macron and europe (and the european electricity market) our policies made us a nuclear powerhouse. we re not anymore

“Except in France where they went all in on nuclear and ended up exactly as screwed as they are in Germany.”

Can someone translate this narrative into actual numbers? It sounds like a political soundbite but to those not following the problem there’s gotta be more to “exactly”

France has lot more electricity demand in winter than in summer (due to electric heating and not a lot of AC). They traditionally stop their plants in summer to maintain and refuel them.

So it is easy to look in the middle of summer and say "Look, half of France's reactors are offline! It is obviously not working out! They should have been green like us and use lignite and Russian gas!!!"

France also messed up when they decided to postpone some maintenance due to COVID (not sure how that was a valid reason) and they have a lot to do this time, so it is taking longer than usual.

France and Germany's natural gas use for electricity production is about the same, 9% vs 12%.

France has nuclear and hydro, while Germany as is much discussed, has coal and renewables.

Coal is of course bad (they even imported some from Russia), but renewables seem to have been the smart choice and what everyone, France included, will be moving to.

(Germany probably uses more gas for manufacturing things too)

24% coal, 12% nuclear for Germany.

Hardly a smart choice and one that has been generating huge emissions, especially compared to France.

France built its nuclear power stations in the 1970s decades before anybody was interested in global warming and for completely different reasons.

Germany really only kicked off Energiewende in the early 2000s.

I think some people obstinately refuse to acknowledge that Germany has had a disastrous energy policy. Be it, putting the brakes on nuclear, continued and extensive use of coal, and reliance on Russia.

Germany is still a massive emitter because of this, in addition to being cornered because of its reliance on Russia and decision to cut it off without alternative in place.

> for completely different reasons.

Main reason being strategic energy independence. Something Germany is suddenly being reminded is important. Low emissions have come as an added benefit.

Choices were made...

>I think some people obstinately refuse to acknowledge that Germany has had a disastrous energy policy.

Because it's a lie and it's always been a lie. The nuclear power stations that were turned off contributed a relatively small amount compared to solar and wind added to the mix. And they cost more.

It's just that turning them off made certain groups (Vattenfall, American government) furious. This was nothing to do with environmentalism or energy independence but led to a lot of propaganda about both.

The supposed environmentalists who spat venom at the German greens for "not turning off coal plants fast enough" were not in the slightest bit bothered by Poland next door not turning off their coal plants at all.

>Main reason being strategic energy independence. Something Germany is suddenly being reminded is important.

And because France was unwilling to shoulder the eye watering costs of maintaining and replacing their aging nuclear plants they're in exactly the same position. Instead of $3 billion wind farms with a 65% load factor theyve got $15 billion nuclear plants with a 75% load factor. What a win for nuclear power.

The only people who this hasnt dawned on yet is the people who lapped up the anti german nuclear propaganda. The hole currently filled with natural gas that France has dug for itself because of nuclear power's insane cost is something that they simply dont think about. Nuclear propaganda always avoids mentioning cost.

Had Germany had another 6-7 years to prepare theyd be in a better position to withstand the gas being cut off then France instead of roughly the same. Their dependence was going down, France's up.

> Because it's a lie and it's always been a lie.

Germany still uses a lot of coal and gas and has high emissions as a consequence. It prefers to use oil rather than keeping nuclear plants open. Its reliance on Russia and then decision to cut it off without alternative is hurting hard. I believe these are all facts, not lies.

That all sounds rather disastrous to me.

This is not Germany-bashing, either. I live in the UK so I know what a really disastrous energy policy looks like.