Skip the waitlist and invest in blue-chip art for the very first time by signing up for Masterworks: masterworks.art/intoeurope Purchase shares in great masterpieces from artists like Pablo Picasso, Banksy, Andy Warhol, and more. 🎨 See important Masterworks disclosures: masterworks.io/cd
Dispatchable nuclear with relatively easy thermal storage in sand or bricks and multiple steam turbine generators could do base load and peak power generation. Next generation must be designed with this capability to be competitive.
As a French citizen, it still amazes me to see how our politics turned to dung what was before one of our best industries and what allowed us to have pretty cheap energy. Everytime I think they've reach some kind of bottom in their silliness, they manage to dig even deeper.
France's nuclear energy was an incredible achievement in this world. Its not only a technical and environmental achievement, but a marvel of national financial accounting. Look how Japan's trade balance went to hell the moment they turned off all their nuclear plants, for example--energy imports are often the top import item in a nation's current account. Nuclear energy in that way pays dividends. Plus, look at asthma rates in France vs Germany. France has half the per capita pollution as Germany simply because of its nuclear energy. France should invest the money to replace and upgrade its nuclear power stations. The investment will pay for itself environmentally and through the balance of trade too. I hope this can be done.
Privatisation shouldn't occur unless there is a firm commitment to sustained investment and development and a willingness to adapt to meet the changing needs of the nation. Failure to meet any of the expectations should result in tax penalties for these energy companies to the point that they become worthless to shareholders.
He also said the government milking big unsustainable dividends (for tax revenues puroposes) was part of the problem. That's typical of state-owned enterprises
Well, at least they have real reactors and plans going forward. Europe as a whole is far behind with their silly ideas and ineffective solutions. France picked the right tech.
@@MTobias I know. But France relies on the Russian Uranium exclusively, for now! If it would have been otherwise , we would have banned Russian Uranium in the EU! The world marked is saturated with long running contracts on Uranium. Other producers have nothing left to replace Russian Uranium in France. And without it France would be in trouble...more than it allready is... It has lengthened the live times of a lot of it's nuclear powerplants that should have been powered down allready and whose frequency of new defects found are allready uneconomically high. We all need to find a solution for France! Maybe opening old Uranium mines in East Germany or watching for a corrupt country in Africa that has Uranium whos government could get bought.
It is highly taxfunded and will still cost billions in the future. Even reactors finished in the last 20 years were far more expensive to build and to operate then other typs of power generation in europe. Reactors that are about to get started will be costing about 5 times as much to build and 3 times as much to operate then other power generation.
Interesting to see that the privatization of the electricity market had dire consequences in France as well. In Lithuania this year the government decided to go forward with the liberalization of our electricity market which spiked the prices to one of if not the highest in the entire union, as well as a collapse of one of the non - government "providers" of electricity, leaving many people screwed.
It's a shitshow everywhere. The wanted to liberalise it in order to create a european wide network instead of the domestic networks we used to have. And it did succeed in that. But it created a whole new list of problems in the process. What they should have done is turn it all into one big european company with every eu country being shareholder and run by the eu. Same thing is going to happen with the railroads, they made the exact same mistakes there.
@@hagalathekido these industries are probably the most subsedised in europe. A government entity can simply keep selling their reserves for the price they bought it for and by the time prices come down fill their reserves back up again. Insulating them from market instability. Private companies simply charge the market rate since they are just middle men buying it at the same time they sell it to the public forcing market rates onto the public.
@@lucaj8131 UE made it mandatory to open the market in France to competition. As a result, EDF, the company in charge of producing the electricity, has to sell the last one to the competition (competition that doesn't produce it btw, they're only distributors.)
I wouldnt blame the EU it was the neoliberal wave of stupidity that infected evereyone, it created the oligarchy in Russia, it opresses workers rights in America. I think we agree that EU is better than those examples.
Don‘t listen to the sponsoring. When bond markets are up - which they currently are - all alternative modes of investment usually devalue. Also, by investing in Masterworks you do not hold parts of the artwork, but a derivative denominating your share in the value of the art piece. These derivatives are currently the focus of new regulation by many lawmakers due to the rise in fraudulent behaviour on those markets resulting from underregulation. Worst case: Platform goes down, you lose all your money invested, 2nd worst case: Government decides the contracts are illegal and reimburse owners with the initial amount invested -> no protection from inflation, nothing gained It is sad to see how many channels - even if they have good content - do not screen their sponsors.
Yes. I acknowledge that youtubers have to take on some dodgy sponsors if they want to make money, but this art scammery is a next level rip-off. The art market is a scam even before you add all the shit you describe, mostly there to launder money.
@@ErikBramsen Almost every ad on RU-vid is crap. Meanwhile, they censor the users and prevent them from expressing themselves and calling out liars as they should be called out, with curse words and insults
We should do what France did in the 80's again on a EU wide level, we develop and standardize a new more flexible reactor type for current and future grid service. We go on a building spree to replace all base-load electricity production by nuclear energy this we must do in combination with renewebles. The costs will be the lowest and we will create a new industry that can competitively produce green molecules to replace oil and gas for the chemical industry and ofcourse those profits stay in Europe. We can't do it without nuclear if we try Europe will become obsolete.
Yeah no. Europe is way to filled with people for a large amount of reactors. at least the west. 1 nuclear reactor going Chernobyl. ( yeah now repeat the bot response of " but its so rare to happen" Yeah, it only needs to happen once tho.) could cause half a country to be evacuated. 1 nuclear reactor in the Netherlands or Belgium breaking down mean you now have 5 million refugees in a single day. good luck with that.Europe does not need nuclear. Or at the very least. not at a much higher extent than we already have.
@@RK-cj4oc Comparing soviet-designed Chernobyl (RBMK) reactors, with defective safety systems and NO containement structure vs. western-designed PWRs with advanced safety features AND a containement structure is beyond moronic.
Bro i have a degree in business and energy and delt with the costs of energy a lot. Nuclear is not cheap at all. If we did what you suggested, firstly we'd need decades to do it and don't have the capacity to do it, secondly it would be extremely expensive and cost more than any alternative except for the underdeveloped wave power. Thirdly it would increase demand for uranium so the costs and emissions for mining uranium would grow much faster than they already do. That's right with every passing year uranium gets harder and harder to mine and more and more polluting and energy intensive. By the mid of a new nuclear plants lifespan, if we built one today, starting its operation in 15 years (realistic construction time) and then 15 more years.. and voila at that point even with current demand for uranium, it would consume so much energy that the energy needed in the entire nuclear plant supply chain and construction and dismantling would bring the life cycle emissions of nuclear power ABOVE gas power plants. Not to mention the costs. If it was possible I'd be all for it but its not feasible, we don't have easily accessible uranium anymore. It would be so simple so easy if nuclear was an option. Would solve all the problems. but it can't. it's impossible. it is a finite ressource and unless there's some significant nuclear power breakthrough we won't have much nuclear power left in the world by the end of this century.
5:00 Small precision. EDF was forced to sell electricity *at a loss* to competitors , allowing these actors to artificially compete... In an ironic move, the French government completely undermined its own energy sector, giving in to the pressure of other European countries which could reasonably not compete on the energy sector, having dismantled their own reactors.
As a spaniard, we've also been benefiting by French nuclear energy policies during decades, also lowering our energy prices thanks to french energy sales trought our northern electrical interconection (same with Portugal). Nuclear power is one of the best tools we have to gain energy independance as a union, and to allow us to grow our renewable energy park
Building nuclear reactors takes a lot of time and is really expensive (not a cheap energy source). The french reactors have a lot of issues. How come that you think it is a good way to get to renewable energy?
@@noah-ni3ee A nuclear power plant is really expensive as you say, but it also produces huge amount of energy 24/7 for more than 40 years, so the levelized cost of energy (€/MWh) is one of the lowest in the market. Also, as nuclear plants provide an stable power of 1 GW per reactor, they are one of the best resources to keep the grid stable with the integration of intermittent power generation plants such as renewables
@@jaimemozas2452 everything i have read has it among the most expensive forms of energy. Almost no county is building new ones and those in France and Finland are much more expensive than planned. Sadly renewables and nuclear aren't great together. You can't really control them. For nuclear to be economical it has run on full power and renewables are dependent on weather. I am not saying one or the other is the solution. If we take france and Germany i think both are making huge mistakes. A mix of diverse sources of energy is probably the best until we have good options to store the energy from renewables
The Masterworks ad is hilarious. They claim to have a huge waiting list but also pay for ads promoting links to "jump the waiting list". You have to be an idiot to invest there.
I like sponsorships because they pay the bills of my favourite youtubers, but I imidiatly know that the product is shity. And sometimes I try to ignore the product completly, specially those for VPNs, wich tend to have a lot of missinformation, and make me sad
All you nuclear fanboys out there... There is a limited supply of fissile material out there. Building more reactors will only deplete the supply faster. Building nuclear reactors is not a solution, as the available supply of materials will not last very long. Plus, we still have no idea on what to do with the waste. Where would that go? Not to mention the inherent risk of incidents going up with more facilities being operated. Even if modern reactors are much safer than older generations, run enough of them and incidents will occur - it's just the law of large numbers at play. No, nuclear energy is not a solution, not even close. (Not to mention that nuclear only looks cheap; if you combine all the costs associated with it, it's not. Really not cheap at all.)
And please don't tell them that Russia is worlds #1 supplier of nuclear fuel and that energy independence of Russia with nuclear is a pipe dream from the current standpoint.
A big thing to take away is economic liberalism is not always the solution. Especially not the golden boy everyone thought it was after the collapse of the USSR.
Now, we can talk about stupid moves like giving away dividends to shareholders for no good reason. But simply saying that forcing a monopoly is the solution is frankly brain-dead.
@@da_revo5747 Public services should be owned and regulated by the government. Profit motive should be second especially in something as basic as electricity.
It rarely is. Longterm and sustainable anything just doesn't go together with libralism. It is great for quick and dirty consumer goods and stuff. Anything important it will eat itself from the inside out and when it all collapses in on itself the public can have it back. It happens over and over again and still people keep saying it is the way forward.
@@maxkaufmann833 Fixing prices is a great way to burn money. I don't even need to make this argument anymore. People will just mine Bitcoin and pocket the difference.
We now have a european grid. Which is what was the original point of the privatisation. But it created many new problems. We need one big european utility now. With renewables we need the ability to diversify and deploy resources where they make sense all over europe. It makes the conversion to renewables so much easier and cheap. It is the obvious thing to do.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Good for German industry, terrible for the French public (and many others). That ARHEN scheme is the fakest artífice to simulate competition. Away with this charade.
@@joaomramalho1 but nationalizing it on the country level would be stupid. There now is an integrated european grid, lets use it in the most efficient way. That way spain where it is sunny can provide most the energy during the day for europe. And norway can supply spain at night with hydro, and netherlands can supply bulgaria with their excess wind capacity etc. Going full renewables on an individual level is near impossible, on a continent wide level it becomes orders of magnitude easier and cheaper. And otherwise you get disparity where some country with little access to good resources to use for renewables need to import energy from other countries who are along the north sea for example and can exploit wind in a massive way. Then it would again bennefit the northwestern countries a lot more and make the eastern countries dependends again. Forcing them to go nuclear which are massive pits that absorb massive amounts of public money.
Speak for yourself. God, I dont want to return to the time where there only was a regulated market, with prices set politically, and subsidized by our own taxes. If we had all consumers in a regulated market we would have terrible shortages rigth now or, if there was no shortages, we would be puting up huge amounts of public debt, and with the dificulty of borrowing in southern europe and the raising in interest rates in northern europe we would have huge interest payments every year, wich means, of course, raising taxes in corporations and industries (because a goverment that wants nationalization of the energy market is likelly to also want that) meaning that we would turn the european products even less competitive and chronically crpile our economies even further than they alerady are. Oh god, and imagine states setting the energy mix with their populism... We wouldnt even have nuclear energy rigth now
@@Duck-wc9de this was never the case when utilities where national industries. Not even trough the 70s and all the oil embargos. Non of that happened and there is no reason things would be different now. They are all theorethic doom scenarios that have no relation to reality at all. All the same theorethical doom scenarios can be made for any market structure. It's just a bunch of nonsense.
Isn't a French company that provides electricity to London? I once heard it from a video 'joking' about the higher prices of electricity in London and how French was taking advantage of the free energy market in UK...
I think EDF opeates a few projects in the UK and our nuclear power plant in particular. If you check on the power generation of the grid, when the wind blows we have been exporting power to them while we would normally be buying so I pray the wind keeps blowing all through this winter
I'd definitely welcome a European plant design, but they need to come up with something more reasonably priced and perhaps modular as well. Oh yeah, and they need to do it fast. Where are MSRs? Not long ago yt was full of it as the new saviour of nuclear.
@@Tealice1 Nonsense, China just started an MSR, the most difficult type a thorium LFTR, it took them 3yrs to build. The IMSR 200MWe by Terrestrial Energy is just finishing its 2nd stage CNSC approval in Canada. Has already bid on a new Darlington build.
It's great to see the industry getting investment again, France has been a beacon of European energy independence for many years, and the decline of its nuclear industry seemed worrying.
Here in the UK, the media often bemaons the fact that France manages to keep the energy cost down without mentioning there's a price at the back end We have been exporting power to France through the interconnector while we would normally be importing from them. Norways hyrdo power isnt doign so well due the decreased waterfall from drought and I really hope we sort it out soon as we are all in this together in the European Grid.
Hello norwegian here. Our power companies always says that there has been little rain and thats why electricity is expensive meanwhile rainfall is as much as its ever been and we produce way more energy than we need..
Having said that, the EPR design really seems troubled. France should clean house and focus on building successfully domestically and in the UK with the Hinkley C and Sizewell C plants before it can be trusted with more export orders.
@@AngelicaAtomic Polish are Europhobic, they like to use EU money to buy out of EU, let them deal with obsolescent US reactors, or Korean (which are the same) will see the delays lol
The big lie in all these discussions that of the cheap energy. Yes the electricity is sold cheap, but the price is dictated still today by the French state. And it is obviously so low, that it does not leave any margins to pay for all the repair, maintenance, let alone the humungous cost of building new reactors (22B$ and still counting). Last year the French state pumped 2.1Billion$ into EDF and not ending. If the selling price is so low that it puts EDF into deep red debt, then this "cheap nuclear energy" is an illusion, a dream that still most French still are dreaming, while the gap to reality gets bigger and bigger.
France only achieves great things with close official oversight, it can never thrive in the free competition orthodoxy the EU swears by. Eventually French will realise they're better off doing things their way than abiding by European rules.
Meneer Hugo, I don't think it's a "disaster" it's a tightrope, a margin that the French government hopes to reach in the event of difficult winter conditions. The margin for winter was supposed to be between 45 and 50 gigawatts according to the CEO of EDF, it is now close to 45. It could be a disaster for Germany if France is not able to provide electricity to their country. The reactors are old but if you look inside these reactors, almost everything is new. We have the same kind of problems in Belgium. A few years ago, certain political groups complained about our reactors and made a big deal of MICRO-cracks inside the concrete of equipment that was part of a multilayer of security; we no longer hear them. But again, French citizens can bring down their own country with their ultra-individualistic mindset, go on strike at the most inopportune moment and then blame their government...
Marco and Scholz agree that France will help Germany with gas (if needed) while Germany will help France (if needed) with electricity this winter ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-5X6Xpa5VNfA.html
But it’s the fault of the government, they joined the EU electricity market. Which is the main reason why price are so high the production cost in France is at around 60€ mWh (normally it’s at 40€) but we paid it 100€ to 200€, because like he says EDF is force to sell its electricity at loss to « reduced an unfair monopoly » as Brussels bureaucrats say. And since price are high people who had a contract with alternative providers prefer to turn back to EDF but EDF doesn’t have that electricity because it’s obligated to sell it’s energy at production cost (production cost which since then have rise by a quarter) so EDF as to buy it’s own electricity from it’s concurrent at market price. So it’s not our fault if this is happening and if we don’t show displeasure the government will do nothing about it and even worsen the situation Macron wanted dismantle half of nuclear powers plants but then he saw all the manifestation and he backdown And we are not ultra individualistic we want the best for our country and our people
The fact that is kept top secret is who is paying all these anti-nuclear protesters? Where does Greenpeace get its 400Meuros per yr from? Why do they refuse to release that important information.
There is a more fundamental problem! Nuclear is 10x more expensive than renewables and 5x more expensive than oil or gas. So while the reactors should be run as long as they are safe, it is cheaper to build solar links to north Africa and deep geothermal as a baseboard.
This is a great video summarizing the history of Nuclear in France. One thing that could be more explored would be the EU's influence on it. ## Germany and Austria are big voices in the EU, and are proudly active against any type of nuclear. Austria went as far as to request the EU for "less penaltys" in case a country fails to reach net-zero by not using nuclear, as "it is a harder path, yet the right one to make". Ideology > Facts and Planet. This reflects even the latest EU Taxonomy - which is decades overdue - only considers certain nuclear technologies as "green", and labeled it TOGETHER with Natural gas, a rising fossil fuel. It doesn't really show a will to develop the industry. Meanwhile, many Asian countries that have steady support, and kept the industry going show very good track records: literally half the time AND half the cost. Both Asia and African countries can rely on their technologies, and so do some countries in Eastern Europe. EU is on a track to becoming even more dependent on external expertise. There's a huge ideology that NetZero can be achieved only with renewables by Germany and Austria. Everything is being left in the in-debt EDF, which does not currently have enough expertise for their own operations in France and in the UK, much less for the whole continent. This will be made worst in 2040, with many reactors decommissioning. And yet, any nuclear future is put solely on their shoulders. If the EU does not offer it, countries that truly need nuclear will look elsewhere to get the projects going. This is already seen in Eastern European countries, with Slovakia close to commission a Russian reactor, and plans to build another one soon, Poland having deals with both USA and South Korea, Czech Republic and Estonia with all the above, and RollsRoyce UK, ....
Depending on how cold this winter actually becomes, we'll see if they keep true to their word. Renewables go a long way, but supplemented with nuclear the EU could be netzero in like 2-3 decades if they put their backs into it.
The issue is that the privatised company cut back on maintainence so that 1/2 are not certified If all were online france would export current to germany belgium and italy
As a Frenchman, I do agree with most of your analysis. We are now at the lowest point of our nuclear energy industry. Due to excess confidence, pride, and monopolistic abuses, EDF, Framatome, and AREVA are today in a sort of meltdown. However, you fail to mention the great potential still ahead and already taking shape, we have small and medium mostly private Companies eager to enter the fray of a completely nuclear new era. I am thinking about the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor undertakings that will bring in decentralized abundant and cheap energy, in every corner of the country and abroad. Thank you for your presentation
@@Walterwaltraud go solar? In france?? Oh I get it. Just install solar and the electrons will get so excited they will blow the power grid. Like, like you know, like yeah … going to Davis this year?
@@Walterwaltraud "need a solution now. Go Solar" sorry im to busy laughing my a** off considering Solar is only worth it when the location is PERFECT because we dont truly master this source of energy itll take decades until we do, itll take just as long to build enough Solar panel just to ease the problem of helping 65million French during the day as fixing the Nuclear problem which really is only a big problem because maintenance wasnt done properly and because in Summer the old nuclear plants dont have enough water during the hottest period. Solar and renewable are NOT the easy fix or whatever miraculous solution to our problems, they simply arent fit to feed an entire country worth of population for now, which is why Nuclear IS the best source of energy currently until we find a proper solution that could truly get rid of fossil energy, weither by develloping the renewable to a point where they can be worth it in more terrain, produces far more for less land covered in them, or by finding an alternative thats pretty clean while producing far more than even Nuclear or really anything
@@Freedmoon44 We fully master it, roll it out in masses (check out how many GW globally per year for starters...), it sheds the load at the highest peak of needs, especially in France (I have lived in Lyons for years - have you?), and it's plain and simply physics and economics. LCOE with the solar radiation is perfect to cover all summer droughts, installing it in a decentralized way over all parking lots and commercial sites at the edge of towns eases the load locally immediately etc. Whatever France wants to do it will do, but the facts are blatantly obvious: According to the Cour des Comptes the new EPR at Flamanville will end up at 19 billion €, how many GW could France have installed for that? With such a huge ressource all in one basket, they set themselves up for failure when a certain type of reactors develops cracks and they all have to be checked simultaneously. I don't mind NPP, I lived 2 km from one for 2 years and dragged every visitor I had into the visitor center there, but the cost is just prohibitive, they are not flexible enough for our needs, having too many of them right now is a major contributor, one of two to be exact, of the European electricity crisis we see right now, in short: It just makes perfect sense to roll out PV at warp speed right now. And probably some peaker gas plants for the worst days in January, since it's impossible to install 10 - 20 million heat pumps in poorly insulated French homes that heat directly with electricity. Sorry fanboy, those are the hard facts.
Personally I’m a big fan of the potential of MSRs .. but I think thorium is hugely over hyped. That said I’m still very excited for the possibilities of advanced nuclear going forward.
Waarom zouden we dat niet doen, het is enkel positief, want we gaan in 2050 echt nog niet genoeg groene energie kunnen opslaan en opwekken, vooral in de winter niet
Tuurlijk niet. Dr moeten 50 of 60 jaar gigantische subsidies in anders wil niemand die electriciteit kopen. Als overdag the strike price 3 of 4 cent is en zo'n centrale een vaste operationele prijs heeft van 30 cent moet er voor iedere kwh die die produceert over t hele leven van de centrale 25 cent belasting geld bij. En elektra van renewables word ieder jaar alleen maar goedkoper. Dus moet er ieder jaar meer bij. T is een idioot idee.
The huge dependence on oil and the oil shock is a great perspective on the current gas crisis. While Europe seems to have forgotten some of the lessons learned, the dependance on gas is still les severe than back then.
That's a good point. I wonder if there's a neat article somewhere laying out all the similarities and differences between how the oil crisis affected Euorpe and how the gas crisis affects them now.
as an Austrian i am annoyed at my own government and the green party in it (which i voted for mind you) because atomic energy is still better for the environment then fossil energy. It would be better if our energy minister would focus on more important issues!
The complaint is that both nuclear AND gas are considered green, though. The reasoning is that while nuclear is better than fossil, subsidize them is also the wrong signal as the focus should still go to renewables. From this perspective it makes sense.
yes, austrian government is a pain in the ass for eu , and now with this war, austria try more to be fiend with putin insted of keeping close with europe
@@mal_dun This is a good point, but the way Austria is making it is misleading. In this context, the main problem of nuclear fission is that it relies on non-renewable fuel, not that it isn't green. Including it as a green alternative should, therefore, not be a problem. Especially considering how ungreen sun and wind can be in comparison. The responsibles are showing that they care more about ideology than facts, which is very dangerous for the future. "Green" and "renewable" should not be held as synonyms.
we already begun to save electricity power in our factory in slovenia ,but truth be told,if that is saving,couple of lights turned off helps? than i dont know why such paranoia ...
Let's be real: We actually waste so much energy for unnecessary luxury. Why do businesses keep all their lights on in the night is a mystery to me. "Light pollution" is a thing and we should start assessing which energy is really needed. E.g. why do all electric devices not automatically fully power off? We waste tons of megawatts every year with standby alone.
It is not only about French nuclear energy, it is about European nuclear energy. We Slovenians also have problem with Austria objecting against building new nuclear reactor.
Britain's nuclear power industry was instantly destroyed the moment it was privatised, investment ended, new build ended, support and supply industries died, eg, Parsons gone, English Electric gone, Reyroll, GE gone in its previous form, pluse many more UK C&I supply industries.
You can make fun of Brexit all you want, but I think we can all agree that the EU has zero flippin clue as to how to handle energy... *Let's privatize the energy sector...why the prices so high?* *Let's move away from nuclear energy... what's climate change?* *Let's buy loads of cheap gas from Russia... WHAT DID HE DO?*
“Half offline… struggling… to its knees” Strange, IAEA right now shows all online. Yes apparently many reactors were down for some maintenance months ago, and .. now they’re not. Still, with the adjectives, and “age counter”, how dramatic. Can we get one on every 30 year old road bridge building, also made of concrete and steel? All in all, very dramatic.
@@chazbertino6102 Europe is so far north. And it's so cloudy many parts of the year in many areas. And if you look at light intensity naps it doesn't have many areas either. I assume solar could get more efficient but you can't deny what the climate is.
There are some industries (energy, rail, healthcare) that need huge state oversight and tough hand for social benefit, not profits. EU should learn this otherwise we will end up like the US ... all divided and consolidated just in private hands with some oligopoly multinationals
Imagine denying having other countries building its own Nuclear power plants but then complaining about having to carry all europe with YOUR nuclear power plants... Interesting scam.
A Windturbine produces 40.000 kWh a DAY. France needs more Windturbines. Almost non existent in France. A kWh cost one euro. A Windturbine makes 40.000 euro per DAY. Cheap and Easy profits with Clean Energy.
@@fredbcf1255 Wind is Clean and Makes a lot of money Everyday. Uniper is Fossil and Gas. No Windparks no SolarParks and Lost 40 Billion Euro. Saved by Government Tax Money. I have Rooftop Solar, in the Netherlands, production 11.000 kWh a year. No Gas. A kWh is 1 euro per kWh. My Profit 11.000 euro a year. Simple. How many Panels do you have and what is your profit?
@@willeisinga2089 Yeah, you go off grid and see what your solar costs. Last calc I did for Kansas(avg US location) was 82 cents/kwh and you still need >20% diesel.You are being massively subsidized for a low grade mostly useless form of energy. Ridiculous, the poor have to subsidize you, pay 1 euro/kwh for your low grade electricity whereas high grade nuclear gets 5 cents/kwh. And if your electricity rate is 1 Euro/kwh then your wind/solar is a total ripoff, you went for wind/solar buffered by Russian gas, 80% gas/20% wind+solar, so now you are paying 10X what US customers pay. Brilliant.
China is leading the way with Thorium nuclear reactor. No radioactive waste! Europe had best partner with Chinese for innovations toward a less toxic world.
I support France's move to go all-in on nuclear. If anything, France should go much, much further. They should work with Spain, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Poland, Slovenia, and Croatia to boost nuclear around Europe, not just France. This past year, I learned that with climate change wreaking havoc on rainfall levels, we can't rely on rivers to always be there when we need them. All of the countries I listed have coastlines. Access to abundant cooling will be important for energy security. France should lobby that the entire nuclear industry be government-owned, not private.
@@baronvonlimbourgh1716 Why is Hydro Quebec such a massive money maker for Quebec? Why is Saudi Aramco such a money maker for Saudi Arabia? Why is Equinor a massive success story for Norway? If anything, Norway should revert back to the 60s, and mandate 100% government ownership over Equinor, and 50% of all oil production licenses in the country.
@@firefox39693 why are they profitable? Because they don't use freaking nukes. Quebec is mostly hydro and figured out in the 70s already that nuclear was a dead end and decided to never build one again.. Normay is also mostly hydro and not nuclear.. And saudi arabia probably is mostly fossil fuels and not nuclear i imagine. The trend here is they do not use nuclear. Nuclear needs insane amounts of public money to keep them afloat. It is extremely expensive.
Spain still plans to shut down their whole fleet and nuclear is downright illegal in denmark. I guess France and others have already done their part by lobbying hard to get nuclear included into the so-called "green taxonomy". But french nuclear industry is already way to busy trying to fix/extend the service life of its fleet (+ a few EPR in the UK). The rest of EUrope will probably have to get contracts with Korea and the US for their future reactors.
French universities are producing gender specialists and critical race theorists, but country needs engineers and economists. The decline of the nuclear industry is only a part of larger problem.
Moving away from nuclear power was possibly the most stupid decision ever made, not just in france, but in all western nations. We are paying the price now.
The problems, the infighting, won't go away by making political decisions with national pride in mind. Today there is much more competition for nuclear fuel than 40 years ago, but in turn the U238 concentration in the ore is declining. France is doomed to fail. When by 2035 the first new reactor needs filled, the price for the fuel will no longer be neglectable and renewables are cheaper already today.
it seem to me that the EU is starting to centralize the political power in order to stabilize the big hole the Russian left in the Energy industry. In my opinion i am glade they are going for more renewables energy since the Climate Change is getting worst and worst every year.
We need a single european wide utility. That can deploy resources all over europe where they make sense and it being one large network. It is the way forward.
Nuclear power is the future if we want it to be. Personally ALL forms of carbon-free power are wanted and needed. Renewables + Storage, baseload large-scale nuclear and SMR's... Geothermal and hydro too!
The biggest problem with a renewable nuclear energy mix. It's that there's a lag time between the moment when renewable energy produces less or more and the reaction of the reactors. If we want such an energy mix, we need to automate the electricity networks from production to consumption, and that's very complicated.
well... you carefully avoided talking about the elephant in the room... 2 times, in the late 90's early 2000's and from 2012 to 2017, there were left coalitions including the "greens" governing France... both time, there was a deal to make the green work together within the coalition: slow down, stop projects or close nuclear power plants ... if you're looking for the reason why the industry lost its competency, well, that's a pretty good point to start from...
inutilement sensationnaliste !!! je vois pas en quoi le nucléaire en France est un échec, 40ans de stabilité énergétique avec une production d'électricité très faible en émission carbone (seul les pays avec beaucoup de nucléaire ou d'gydro-électricité font pareil que nous). Aucun accidents majeur. 1er fournisseur électricité vers les autres pays européen pendant plusieurs année consécutive. Nos politique en France se sont beaucoup laissé influencé par les idéologue et les politiques allemande qui pour différentes raison n'avait aucun intérêt a soutenir le nucléaire (parano lié au nucléaire, industrie non majeur en Allemagne, soucis environnementale, mais ça c'est de l'hypocrisie de la part des allemands). le manque d’investissement de ces 30 dernières années est du a de la suffisance de la part du gouvernement français, une mauvaise planification de long terme et a un blocage moral et idéologique du a la monté de la réflexion environnemental. le problème c'est qu'il a fallut 30ans pour que le grand public ( et les politiques) comprennent que le nucléaire n'est pas responsable du changement climatique. Le nucléaire a plein de problème comme toutes les moyen de production d’énergie. mais le débat a été mal ficelé et on a perdu des décennies a parler d'un truc hors sujet. Le problème du nucléaire est essentiellement un problème national, si le nucléaire s’effondre totalement en France, l'économie française se cassera la gueule, l'économie de quelque autres pays aussi, l’Europe prendra un coup dans l'ensemble mais se relèvera. les allemands ont fait un pari encore plus risqué, si leur approvisionnement en gaz s’arrête c'est l économie allemande qui s’arrête, donc le moteur économique de l’Europe ce qui met pour le coup tous le monde vraiment dans la galère. l’Allemagne a poursuivie sont plan de toujours plus de gaz russe alors que plusieurs pays européen était contre, les USA eux-mêmes se sont opposé a ce projet (pour leur propre raisons mais quand même). je trouve ça facile de taper sur la France lorsque ça commence a aller mal en oubliant que ces 30 dernières année la majorité des pays européen était très content d'obtenir l’électricité bas carbone et peu chère française.... Pourquoi presque aucun pays n'a lancer de projet pour se nucléarisé, alors que le modèle français a été un succès pendant 30ans ??? je sais c'est mieux si les investissement couteux sont fait par les voisins, mais c'est quand même sympas d'avoir les dividendes du succès des autres...
This is an English speaking video smearing the French nuclear industry. One young guy, possibly never saw the interior of a nuclear power plant before, suddenly become more expert than world's second biggest nuclear generator trashing everything France has done in the past. UK is building its only new nuclear power plant in Hinkley Point C and everything is supplied by EDF. France is the only country that is not seriously affected by the US-led suicidal banning of the Russian gas resulting the majority of the EU electrical power generators, who depend on gas for power generation, having difficulties to survive the coming winter. France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear so even US can't match that.
@@Ghreinos Not according to the 2021 electricity tariff publication. Relative to China the average electricity tariff of France, UK and Germany were 2.05, 2.97 and 3.82 times of China. That suggests France has one of the lowest electricity tariff. The other confirmatory fact is France has interconnectors to link UK grid with France. UK has been importing more and more energy from France in recently years.
@@gunsumwong3948 I'm not talking about the price passed on to customers. But the total price. Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized in France, more than any other energy source, because nuclear power is the most expensive energy source. There are also secondary costs, such as maintenance or storage of the irradiated nuclear waste.
@@Ghreinos I am a retired professional engineer working all my life in the power industry. I could tell you the cost of nuclear energy depends on how a government plays it for its own purpose. In UK when nuclear energy was unpopular the decommissioning cost was suggested to be 10 times the cost to build it just overnight! All energy is subsidised in both UK, France and the rest of Europe. They are controlled by environmental regulations that government could change at any time. The heart of the matter is that France doesn't like UK, Norway or US has large oil and gas reserves but has a big population to support so where can you get electrical power from? The whole Europe burnt coal initially to generate electricity but the government tightened the pollution act resulting coal fired generation uneconomical or impossible, without fitting additional and expensive pollutant abatement equipment, so most countries including UK switched to gas. I witness this trend in my career as progressively gas turbine in open cycle and then combined cycle were installed all over the place by shutting down the coal fired plants. France has been steadfastly developing its nuclear power and is among the most independent. It is true in recent years there have been minor cracks in French design reactors resulting a significant number of plants taken out of service for safety check/repair. This spoils a power generation industry heretofore has been outstanding by all standard. China has a slightly different problem of short of oil and gas reserves so China main power generation is by coal. China has also innovated with boiler fluidised bed technology to cut down emission of pollutants while at the same time developing its hydro, solar and wind to be the world's biggest in each of them. China used to build nuclear plant using French technology but in recent years China has its own indigenous nuclear reactors. Last year China overtook France to became the world second biggest nuclear generator after the US. My point is don't politicise everything but look at what your country has and can do with generating power. Be practical and pragmatic.
So we are ignoring GErmanys gas dependence, to harp on Frances nuclear. The problem with Frances nuclear was that Hollande wanted to cut the nuclear output to 50% and further and they also put an environmentalist as energy minister. So what ever was wrong, was the the fault of nuclear technology, but of the politicians.
La France est capable d'accomplir de grandes choses lorsqu'elle décide d'y aller à 100%, notamment dans les secteurs clefs des transports, du militaire ou de l'énergie. Les exemples de ces réussites sont nombreuses. Tant mieux si cette crise que le pays taverse permet au gouvernement et aux français de prendre conscience des erreurs des dernières années et de les corriger
Doing the math always helps. Check the cost to construct a nukular power plant: 1:56 cost to build from 5 Francs to 12 Francs per kW. 12 Francs is about 1 Euros, same price as home solar. This is before the EPR cost explosion and before considering costs of waste treatment and storage.
well waste storage is easy enough, just dump it in an abandonned deep mine, line the walls with concrete if you're paranoid plus there are some promising avenues for actually making something useful out of it solar is pretty nice, but not sufficiently scalable (outside of deserts), because, sure, you can and should cover rooftops with it, but then you still need a lot more space to meet energy demand and you don't really want to use wild or arable land for it
@@yjlom There is the Homer Simpson Paradoxon - the most dangerous technology is operated by the least responsible people. Also, how to pass information onwards 100.000+ years? Paper? Floppy disk? Engraved stone?
@@LilaKuhJunge Where is that coming from? The Simpsons is a comedic cartoon. This is not how power plants are handled in real life, especially in France.
@@johnkingsize By todays standards, working in a nuclear power plant is one of the least attractive job propositions. So this is why you don't get the best. You get the leftovers who are incapable of getting better jobs.
Do you have actual evidence of this, besides cartoons? While it is true that the field has known a lowered popularity thanks to the anti-nuclear propaganda of ideologists, this meant that there were less candidates to sort into the formations, not that the ones exiting them weren't adequately trained.
The unability of the French political class to make tough, unpopular decisions is the reason the country is in this situation. The German « Greens » have no issue using coal for electricity generation, yet the French are weak enough to let their neighbours dictate their decisions. As always: weak men bring hard times.
don't get this BS video, France EPR2 (most efficient reactor avaible) 4 have been builded, 2 in europe with delays, 2 in china quickly, historic world record by a reactor of energy produced /year, 8 planned, 4 in UK (2 under build) 6 in France, France builded 58 reactors in space of 25 years, now the caveats are behind them, EDF will open a reactor every 2 years starting 2030!
Nuclear energy is simply never going to catch up to the cost-effectiveness of renewables, the technology is just too far behind now. The gap is even growing every year.
This isn't so simple. Renewable energies come with lots of restrictions that scale up badly. Both wind turbines and solar pannels require much more land surface than nuclear power plants and require that land to be where the wind and sunlight are. And given the high costs and losses of energy storage, most of that renewable energy has to be used immediately. This prevents from installing more production based on sun and wind than is needed so that the excess is used when the sunlight or wind is absent and therefore explicitly imposes a certain portion of other sources into the mix to still have enough energy during these down times. But the most important problem right now with wind and solar that hasn't been solved so far is to build these infrastructures in a way that is secured in the long run and safe to the environment. Wind turbines and solar pannels both rely on non-renewable resources, among which rare earths are the scarcest. Their mining and processing is difficult and expensive to do in a way that doesn't spoil the environment too much. Additionally, most of the currently known reserves of these are in China, which makes absolutely nothing to mine and process them in an environmentally sound way. Additionally, China deciding to stop exporting these to some country would put a stop to its ability to build wind turbines and solar pannels, unless by going through third parties, thus increasing costs by a lot. If these materials were mined and processed with more care to the environment, prices would also go way up, thus making wind and solar energy much more expensive to develop. The nature of the pollution produced by this industry also makes it far more difficult to contain than nuclear fission's. The amount of waste is incredibly larger and, since it is chemically polluting rather than radioactive, it never stops being a hazard instead of diminishing in harm with time faster the more it is hazardous. All alternatives must be developped so that we can pursue these different options to the best of their capabilities and out capacity to use them. However, it is difficult to underestimate the advantages that nuclear fission has over the other sources. Nuclear fission has, by far, the largest energy production compared to both the amount of fuel used or the amount of land it occupies. It is also a way more flexible energy source than any other since, like the ones using fossil fuels, you can build the plants about anywhere and their output can be controlled precisely. Nuclear fission also doesn't carry the health risks that coal plants have, nor the ones associated with producing the raw materials to make turbines, pannels or batteries. If anything, nuclear plants are more akin to hydroelectric plants. There are environmentally safe but require the building of heavy and advanced infrastructures, as well as constant care, to make sure that their operating doesn't lead to catastrophes. But unlike nuclear plants, dams can only be built on very specific spots and require turning large areas into water bassins.
about masterworks....buy making it so easy to buy art your effectively creating a new stock. Yes its art but itll start behaving like a stock. Congrats weve come full circle
Today, 85% of installed nuclear power capacity in the world is owned or contracted by Russia and China. By 2030, China will have the largest nuclear fleet in the world and also it will have developed an industrial size MSR. In my opinion, France will find it difficult to compete, but it should as a minimum focus on fourth gen nuclear reactors and either partner with Russia or China and replace its aging reactors. The US is faced with the same problems. Solar and wind won't cut it for huge baseload demands. Fourth gen nuclear reactors are becoming reality and third gen reactors are today's production technology. In the meantime, gas is the best one can do as a interim energy source. Make pragmatic bread with Russia and resume Russian gas and oil. To destroy one's country's industrial sector and deny its people with heat and electricity is a failure of its government.
I don’t think it really makes much sense to cooperate with Russia or China as they are not geopolitically friendly. France can make it’s own way back to nuclear. Gen 4 reactors…not truly necessary for now. Gen 3 will work just fine we just need to get the supply chain up and running gain.
To me, going all nuclear seems like a very bad idea. An energy mix between nuclear, gas and renewables (solar, wind) would probably far more safe and also less expensive. But I guess, France has this long tradition of the state meddling with everything, even though the results are mediocre at best.
