zlacker

>>Capsta+(OP)
What I never understood was how France gets 70-75% of their electricity from Nuclear, yet their energy prices aren't "too cheap to meter", and while cheaper than their neighbors, don't really raise any eyebrows. Wouldn't this be a major example of why Nuclear is NOT the future?

>>Ecomme+1f
> Wouldn't this be a major example of why Nuclear is NOT the future?

Not at all. Nobody has really put forth "too cheap to meter" as a rationale for nuclear for 50 years or more.

The issue is that nuclear is currently the only reliable base load generation technology that doesn't produce carbon (except perhaps hydro for reasonable definitions of "reliable"). The other top technologies either produce carbon (natural gas and coal) or are unreliable (solar and wind).

I actually don't believe nuclear is "the future" because I think renewables + battery storage will be more economical going forward and less politically dicey. But France is currently the envy of the world for their energy generation save for some countries with unique environments that allow for a lot of carbon-free generation (e.g. Norway with hydro and Iceland with geothermal).

>>hn_thr+9h
Isn't it a bit whishful thinking to think that storage will come down in price and nuclear won't?

Beyond that, leaving out storage costs, what are the technologies that can cover the world's storage? And in what quantities?

Because if I think of lithium, wouldn't it be an environmental disaster to extract and recycle all the materials involved?

In general, I don't understand why basically nuclear is to be replaced.