France defends nuclear power and rejects EU renewable targets

24 comments

1. Nuclear is not counted as renewables?

2. By the time uranium deposits are anywhere near close to running out the CO2 in our atmosphere is projected to be *well* above 800PPM.

   Discussing whether it’s ‘renewable’ or not is semantics. It’s the only way to achieve near 0 emission electricity that can supply the need before we change the climate so much it becomes inhospitable to human life.

   Germany keeps raving about their share of renewable power while their electricity is about 8x more carbon intensive than Frances.

3. Once a pro-EU centrist like Macron leaves in 2027 and let’s say there is some sort of Left leaning (or Right leaning) government in France, I see this topic potentially getting more polarised in the EU, as I don’t think France is going to give up on nuclear energy ambitions and if the EU starts getting more strict about renewable targets (and not counting nuclear as renewable), there will have to be a compromise which pushes those 2030 renewable targets by a few years.

4. What’s wrong with nuclear power anyway? I always hear about the risk of some sort of fallout scenario or perhaps Chernobyl, and yet far more tens of thousands of people (as well as humans) die every year from fossil-fuel related pollution than they do from nuclear power (how many people died or will die from illness because British Petroleum polluted the ocean so badly a few years ago?)

5. Current targets are pretty unfair indeed, hope we won’t back down from this fight. We’ll see if the “nuclear alliance” that managed to add nuclear to the european investments schemes will come through on this topic as well.

6. Good that they stand up to this. Well done. The important is the result, and the French nuclear fleet has been delivering the cleanest electricity in Europe since the 1980s.
   It should be an example to follow, not something to sanction.

7. Nuclear only has a future for people who haven’t understood how renewable energy already is bankrupting the whole nuclear sector. And the economic problems of the French government will only grow larger exactly because of this betting on a dead horse aka nuclear power.

8. I am also for the Sun not being covered under “renewable” as well because in 3 billion years it becomes a degenerate matter white dwarf.

9. Based France ☢️🇪🇺

10. Why not both?

11. Once I belived in renewabkes. Then I found out about all their problems and now i think we xshould use 95% nuclear power

12. I with France on this one, Nuclear power is not the enemy, especially considering the advancements made in nuclear energy technology.

13. Green dogma is utterly idiotic on nuclear power.

14. Nuclear is the way

15. Nuclear power is fascinating and has the potential to remain an important part of the future electricity generation capacity as a buffer to ensure base-load. At the same time it is expensive and takes forever to get online – well over a decade, often approaching two decades from planning to completion – by that time you can have half the North Sea and most roofs in Central and Southern Europe plastered with wind turbines and solar power.

    We also need to remember that Europe is after climate friendly energy *and* energy independence, and while everyone and their grandma have been chiding Germany for being too dependent on Russian gas (never mentioning Poland, Austria, the Netherlands etc.), people don’t seem to realise that some of the world’s biggest Uranium producers are quite volatile as well.

    Almost half of production falls on Kazakhstan, a country that could be invaded by Russia at any time, then we have Namibia, Canada, Australia and Uzbekistan, which thankfully are pretty dependable, followed by Russia (ugh), Niger (extremism, coups, turned anti-Western recently) and China (ugh). Everyone after that contributes about a percent or less. Adding it all up about 60% of the world’s Uranium production cannot be taken for granted from a European perspective.

    France, in fact, gets almost 60% of its Uranium from Kazakhstan and Niger alone. That’s … not great.

16. France is right. The point of renewable energy is not renewable energy itself, but that it replaces fossil fuels, just as nuclear energy does. EU should have clean energy targets, not renewable energy targets. When it comes to CO2 emissions, air pollution etc. nuclear energy is very clean. There is no reason why France, a country that has more or less flawlessly and cleanly run on nuclear power for decades, should have to phase out the technology just because of the nuclear energy phobia of some EU member states. We already saw the idiocy of phasing out nuclear energy prematurely in Germany.

    When nuclear energy goes against renewable energy (+ storage), the winner should be based simply on which one can compete better. If nuclear energy turns out to be not a good idea, for example due to being more expensive than renewable energy, then France and French companies will pay for that mistake, simple as that.

17. EU energy policies are not serious. Never was, since Putin had a hand crafting them. All thanks to useful idiots.

18. Nuclear for the win.

    It’s all about emissions, not “renewability”. The carbon in the atmosphere is the problem, not whether you think an energy source is “green enough” *for you*.

19. Is nuclear not the cleanest technically?

20. Greens fighting with nuclear power. Please take me out of this timeline already.

21. France was always right in approach to energy.
    Nuclear generation is stable without fluctuations no need to cover the periods of low generation with fossil energy or expensive grid that transmit excess energy over half continent.

    Fascination with wind and solar made dependance on natural gas firm. After war started, Europe paid huge price for its dependence on gas.

22. France’s commitment to nuclear power is a bold stance in today’s energy debate.

23. I completely agree with the french.

    This is just Germany being petty because they bet on the wrong horse.

24. rare French win