[natmaka]

You quote assertions. It doesn't proves anything about the nuclear industry. An indictment must specify who did what, when, and with what effect.

> 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.

[mpweiher]

I never disputed that it's a fact that China currently builds more renewables than nuclear. I said it is irrelevant. Those are different things. It's also not "way" more...unless you don't understand the irrelevance of nameplate capacity with intermittent renewables.

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in 2022, because he law that prohibits increasing nuclear capacity beyond the currently installed 63.2GW was only repealed in March 2023.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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isgu-VrD0oM

[natmaka]

> China currently builds more renewables than nuclear. I said it is irrelevant. Those are different things

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?