[roenxi]

The negative learning rate is a strong signal of interference by the regulators. More than anything else it shows how excessive safety regulations are strangled the industry.

1970s nuclear safety standards, despite it all, were still better than the energy strategy the world adopted from 1970-2020. Killing off nuclear in search of a perfect power system was a stupid strategy, and failed. The only unfortunate point of karmic justice is that Europe ended up reliant on Russian gas and in an energy crisis as a reward for their stubbornness against making the technically obvious choice.

Well done Finland for even managing to get a reactor built in the face of all that.

[epistasis]

What did France change about their regulations that increases cost?

Maybe you have some actual knowledge, but I have never found somebody who says that regulations are the problem but has any concrete suggestions for changing regulations. It's just a vague gut feeling. And in the case of France I doubt it applies at all.

Construction is not like manufacturing, it does not see continual productivity improvements like manufacturing does:

https://www.nist.gov/publications/measuring-and-improving-us...

As an energy source whose costs are primarily construction related, we would not expect to see it falling in cost over time. We would expect that energy sources whose costs are dominated by manufacturing to outcompete nuclear as time passes.

[Gwypaas]

And Fukushima would never happened if you were smart about it. Regulations are written in blog.

[ciphol]

Fukushima has killed only a handful of people. Fossil fuels kill hundreds of thousands of people every year.

[Gwypaas]

That is why we should immediately replace fossil fuels with renewables right?

[roenxi]

Ironically, the evidence to date is that'd probably get more people killed due to energy security issues. The last group who tried to apply that logic in defiance of market forces - the Germans - are currently staring at each other wondering what to do about their reliance on Russian gas.

If they'd acted rationally, acknowledged Fukushima and moved on with trying to make their nuclear power cheaper instead letting ideology determine that part of their energy policy then they wouldn't be in the mess they are in. Instead they pushed ahead with renewables, ignored technical problems like reliability and have ended up looking like fools while literally paying a high price for the privilege. France continues to quietly plod away as a reliable European energy success story.

[natmaka]

In France the 'nuclear success story' led to a state law (2015-992, from 2015, the "loi relative à la transition énergétique pour la croissance verte") stating that the part of nuke-produced electricity must fall to less than 50% in 2025, from 72% then, and that renewable sources must replace it.

In France nuke-power is backed by gas (which produced 7.5% of the gridpower in 2020).

The sole reactor currently planned (Flamanville-3) is a complete disaster, more than 12 years behind schedule, it will cost at least 19.4 billion € (initial budget: 3.7 billion €).