| > dont really see what's your point here... How can that be? The whole discussion is not that long and you picked up this specific argument I was supporting with sources. Yes other sources were after 2019 and I can give you even more from before. This supports my argument but you don't even know what that was?? > no, our electric mix was Says "no" continues to agree with what I said...man... > however there is not much more places to have new hydros Why did you chose hydro? I mean...what? I didn't even mention it and the most obvious things are solar AND wind. Hydro is our battery in the Nordics and alps. > and has already cost us more than 50billions€ (governement subvention) which is nearly two time our current non running EPR cost That is half of what EPR needs to invest to keep your ageing fleet from falling apart... > nuclear cost is mostly capitalistic (start investment for 60years in the case of an EPR) while wind turbine cost must be evaluated over their full lifetime including market fluctuations Yeah but only because you just accepted to ignore all the costs generations will have to come up with just to cover nuclear waste processing and storage. You just hide it while you complain about transparent costs on renewables. This is hilarious. > what's your point here again ? It's not my point. It's your point. You said that safety costs too much and we should look to China...a country known for terrible safety. > actually this is your statement, your making a straw man here. It's not my point. It's your point. You said that safety costs too much and we should look to China...a country known for terrible safety. > what let you think that an old study with probably outdated constrains and knowledges would be more serious than actual studies from recognized sources The fact that while nuclear only gets more expensive, renewables not only got cheaper but also better and there are now other studies which look much better than what you suggest. Why don't you link your study? You've obviously found it now. > actually i'm french and in france That makes it even worse. You must know about the energy shortages caused by either broken or not running nuclear reactors. It's known all over Europe and you still chose to lie about it? Why? |
none of thoses sources is contradictory of what i explained on the history of our shortages.
> Why did you chose hydro?
because you talk about mix, today its fr secondary electricity production, and hydro plants are older than fr nuclear plants/projects.
>That is half of what EPR needs to invest to keep your ageing fleet from falling apart...
i'm not sure of what your talking about again, that's probably half or even less of what we must invest to keep our ageing (not EPR) nuclear fleet yes, which provide 75% of our production, in other words: 8% production for 50billions imported external products + exploitation cost on 20years vs 75% for 50billions local supply one shot to add 20 years to the current fleet, the choice is easy technicaly speaking (not politicaly). our ageing fleet is not linked to EPR at all which may be considered as a prototype for an eventual next fleet, we will see, and as already explained, the cost of our first EPR is not the cost of an EPR in a future fleet. side note: most of our ageing fleet have been build in only 10 years after 20 years of research and "prototypes".
> you just accepted to ignore all the costs generations will have to come up with just to cover nuclear waste
we started a project in 2000 for longterm deep storage which will provide waste stockage for more than 100years of our current dangerous waste production ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratoire_de_Bure ), for less dangerous product we are already treating not only our waste but most of the EU nuclear waste.
> You said that safety costs too much and we should look to China...
no i said our safety changes extended cost and delay, while china without changes respected cost and delay. which imply that our acquired expertise _with_ safety changes will probably respect and reduce cost like delay if we produce more EPR. this does'nt mean and i never said that we must do like china, that's your straw man.
> The fact that while nuclear only gets more expensive
source ? for the same type of product nuclear does'nt get more expensive, what get more expensive is more efficient, more secured, better and new/first try nuclear plants
> renewables not only got cheaper
renewable cost is a market cost not a local/production cost, like lithium for batteries, china got a mostly exclusive (quantitavely speaking) market on solar and parts of wind turbines (and for a time lithium) not by lowering cost but to acquire the market. we will talk about renewables production cost when they will be produced with renewables energy sources and not charcoal, gaz, gas and nuclear sources. yes nuclear actually rely on the same energy sources with one big diffence: it does'nt rely on it all it's lifetime.
> Why don't you link your study
because you have'nt link your "contradictory old study" and like i already said, to compare them they must apply to the same subject. but if you really want sources on this topic and a lot more about the same subject, there is the 20 hours videos of courses of the "ecole des mines", one of the two or three most recognized schools in fr (largely better than any master or ph.d) :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgy0rW0oaFI&list=PLMDQXkItOZ...
you may find the site of the professor in the link which will provide a lot more ressources on nuclear and climate data and expertise, and probably some sources in english.
> You must know about the energy shortages
yes and you seem to not realize that those energy shortages are only on our own production, most of them where usually compensated by introducing/buying energy from others EU country with some minor exceptions like lowering the max available power on smalls customer populations and in rare case short cuts; no critical supply was ever stoped, no home get total shot down for more than a few hours, if those happens that was for small sets, nothing comparable to (for example, even if not linked to production i think) what happened in texas last winter, even occasional energy cut for technical problems which happen to all electry energy supply in all countries are worse than those "production shortages".
> you still chose to lie about it ? why ?
i'm not lying, you just seem to simply not knowing what you'r talking about, building some sort of fantasy disaster looking everywhere on google to confirm your bias (which will always be a success whatever may be the topic of your fantasy).