302
France’s nuclear fleet gives it one of the world’s lowest-carbon electricity grids
(ourworldindata.org)
this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2026
302 points (91.5% liked)
Technology
87575 readers
3743 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As I said, Nuclear Plants are slowing down their expansion of renewables. No idea why people downvote me.
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260212-france-slashes-renewable-energy-targets-favour-of-nuclear-power-new-energy-law
Well maybe because of your assertion that renewables and nuclear are a bad combination. Renewables are notoriously unstable sources of energy and you need grid stability or you will have power outages.
This has traditionally been achieved by coal, gas and oil plants. Nuclear power plants are a non GHG emitting way to replace this stability. Countries that have a larger share of renewables but much less nuclear than France still have to fire up their coal and gas powered plants on quiet winter nights after an overcast day. Which means more GHG emissions.
What I meant by “France is already doing just that” is that they are running their NPPs in load following mode, which means they have the ability to adjust their energy output capacity based on the share of renewable energy available.
So while I don’t know exactly why you are being downvoted (not by me in any case), it could be because you’re attacking an ally of the fight against GHG emissions. The goal is not simply to have as many solar panels or wind farms, but to reduce GHG emissions. And that’s what we have to keep in mind. So while, yes France moved to more nuclear there are more ways to look at the same news item: they are still going for 60% electrification of the nation by 2030, up from 30% right now and still going for massive expansion of renewables.
But the nuclear plants will always push the renewables away and keep the price up. It is a bad combination. You need something like gas (later hydrogen) which you can just turn on and off again. It's just physics. Nuclear Plants will always push the price up.
That’s not necessarily true. There is less need for them if NPPs are there, sure, but the price tag is always king. If renewables are simply much cheaper they will proliferate.
And we will always have to fill in the gaps for when renewables aren’t available. Betting it all on battery tech mostly coming from China is a dangerous game in this geopolitical era.
I don’t understand why people are so anti nuclear. It doesn’t have any emissions. The US, Canada and especially Australia have massive uranium reserves. It provides grid stability. Except for being expensive there is almost nothing going against it. And life cycle costs are likely coming down substantially in the near future with emerging technologies.
Renewables + Battery is the most cheapest way. If you don't want to import Batteries from China then you need to starz to build your own factories. Nuclear Reactors make you also depend on other countries.
I'm not directly Anti-Nuclar. I'm anti bad financial decissions. Spending so much money on Nuclear just to produce expensive electricity is just stupid. All the money needs to go to Renewables + Batteries, now.
Yes, but factories are expensive and cost a lot of time to build. So I’m not that sure about the financial picture of that either. Not to mention finding the space to put those factories + battery parks + more space for extra renewables to charge those batteries.
Nuclear also only makes Europe dependent on Canada or Australia, although Ukraine and Estonia have some too. The US has their own.
Not to mention batteries require a lot more resources. Whereas enriched uranium is only a few million tonnes per year, lithium- or sodium-ion battery technology requires resources that run in the trillions of tonnes. That’s because of the difference in energy density:
So to put this in perspective: to get the same energy that only 1 kilogram of reactor-grade uranium (at 3.5% U-235) provides, you would need sodium ion batteries with a total weight of 4.8 - 12.8 million kilograms.
Now of course batteries are reusable and nuclear fuel rods are only partly recyclable, but batteries don’t generate any energy by themselves. They need to be recharged with extra solar or wind power, on top of the ones directly feeding into the grid that you also have to build in even more factories, place onsite and individually connect to both the grid and the battery parks, etc.
This is a more rough estimate: but here they did the math:
And even then you still haven’t solved what to do on all those quiet winter nights after an overcast day.
Betting it all on one horse it what’s stupid. Especially one that needs a mind boggling amount of resources. Yes we need to make batteries, but we also need to diversify and reduce dependency by expanding our nuclear power capacity.
Man you have to use Gas-fired power plant for the time being for the quiet winter nights, which is not a long time. Later you switch them to hydrogen. Problem is already solved. It's still cheaper than nuclear plants.
In germany alone they recently discovered 43 millions tons of lithium. It's not really a "rare" resource.
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/us/43-million-tons-of-lithium-discovered-in-germany-could-transform-european-ev-battery-supply-chain/articleshow/124208076.cms
Even Texas understands that renewables + battery storage is the way to go. Besides Trump being president
https://www.cleanview.co/power-projects/planned/battery-storage-projects/texas
Renwables are scalable, if you need more energy you just quickly build more. Can't say that about nuclear plants. Building renewables is so much faster than Nuclear Plants and cheaper.
Battery prices get cheaper and cheaper every year.
https://about.bnef.com/insights/clean-transport/lithium-ion-battery-pack-prices-fall-to-108-per-kilowatt-hour-despite-rising-metal-prices-bloombergnef/
Solar Panels get cheaper and more efficient every year.
If you invest now into a nuclear plant and it takes 10+ years to build. In that time renewables have evolved much more. If the Nuclear Plant is ready to produce energy, there will be already way more efficient renewable options. But you can't just replace your nuclear plant now.
Ya'll can be fanboying/girling to Nuclear Waterboiler Plants all you want. But it's very clear where the future is heading.
I really don’t think you have any clue what you’re talking about. Do you even know where hydrogen comes from? It’s made from fossil fuels. And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
There is still at least a decade’s worth of research to be done and then you haven’t even built or produced anything. After that we need to build production facilities for hydrogen, as well as for massive structures for pressurized storage of hydrogen. We need to alter existing plants so they can burn hydrogen. You think any of that is going to be cheap? And it may not even work as well as people think.
So yes, gas powered plants will be running for a long ass time in that scenario.
I used sodium-ion batteries as an example, since that is more widely available, but I can do the math with lithium-ion.
https://thebatterytips.com/battery-specifications/how-much-lithium-in-a-lithium-ion-battery
So we do the math again: for the equivalent of energy in one kilogram of reactor grade uranium, you need
(3,456,000 MJ * 1kg U) / (~0,7 MJ/kg * 0.07) = 345,600 kg of pure lithiumSo remember, that’s equivalent to one kg of uranium. Now one NPP can hold up to 100 tonnes of uranium fuel rods. So:
345,600 kg * 100,000 = 3,456e10 or ~34 billion kg…of lithium for one nuclear power plant. So if we add your mine in Germany to the equation:
~34 billion / 43 million = 800 times…the amount of lithium found in that mine to get the equivalent of energy that’s in a single nuclear power plant!
43 million may sound like a lot to a layperson, but it’s really not.
And then we still haven’t touched the
…which are often harder to come by than lithium.
What if you need more energy on quiet winter nights after overcast days?
Production capacity is the issue. If we really want to go for worldwide storage, we can’t build anywhere near enough and they will get way more expensive really soon. Just remember what happened to memory prices recently…
Yeah no. Photovoltaic cells are nearing their peak efficiency. Meanwhile there is plenty of research going on about MSR’s and SMR’s that will increase nuclear efficiency and drive down the costs.
I actually did the math. Looks like you’re just “fan boying / girling” about non-existent storage tech, just winging it without putting any thought to it. Luckily for us, people at the top are doing their research a bit better than you did. France knows what’s up.
Nobody talked about blue hydrogen. I said to later switch to Green Hydrogen when it's possible. These Gas powered plants will run only couple of days, and with more batteries the less gas plants will be needed.
You make random wild assumptions about Battery prices going up again and that Photovoltaic will be reaching soon peak efficiency. You have no base for these assumptions. Batteries get better and cheaper every year. There will be more manufactures, so more competition.
This is from last year:
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Milestone-in-Muenster-First-European-battery-cell-from-research-factory-11115809.html
It would be really stupid to invest all that money into a nuclear plant, which will take 10+ years to build, just to produce expensive electricity.
That money should be invested into renewables + battery, for cheaper and more efficient electricity.
Please read what it actually says or we’re gonna be here a long ass time.
Green hydrogen is only a percentage of 1% of hydrogen being produced worldwide. 99% of it comes from fossil fuels. What is your plan, are you going to magically fart out all that hydrogen?
Gas will also not run a couple of days lol. Solar will hardly provide anything in the winter. Solar only runs at 25% of it’s max capacity, wind at 35%, because solar and wind are so unpredictable and unreliable.
Don’t kid yourself: your gas plants will be on throughout most of the winter. For decades to come in your scenario.
Ever heard of supply and demand? It’s quite a basic principle.
They’re already at 25% and efficiency breakthroughs are slowing
You make random wild assumptions about battery producers… you have no base for these assumptions.
The article you linked is about a research factory. You realise research factories don’t produce anything for commercial use, right?
You keep talking about “stupid” but your solution is gas plants and magic hydrogen production out of your ass, mines with millions kg of lithium when the equivalent of only one NPP requires billions of kgs.
And then you still haven’t charged any batteries.
And then you still haven’t solved where you’re going to get your power from on all those quiet winter nights after an overcast day. Batteries will have long died by then.
Magical thinking and winging it isn’t going to cut it. I feel like I’m talking to a brick wall here. I tried to explain how this works but it seems like you’re not reading any of it.
I'm talking about the future. So why are w talking about how much green hydrogen is produced today. We are talking about 50+ years in the future. The infrastrucuture is being build today.
Do you think there is no wind during winter?
You can check here how much renewables we (germany) currently make during winter and this is without having build batterie storage.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&c=DE&week=01
Yes in germany there are battery research factorys being build, which is important if you wanna produce them yourself? There also factorys to build batteries.
I feel like you don't understand that nuclear plants make finacially zero sense. It is very stupid to invest into nuclear plants. It's a waste of money and a waste of time.
I feel like I'm talking to a brick because you don't understand that part.
Renewables and batteries are a growing market and we should invest there.
You do some random math materials, show me some research that says we can't build enough batteries for the energy transition. I don't need some AI math.
I think we will not agree to each other.
Wait, so first NPP’s are too slow to build at 7-10 years and now suddenly we are talking about 50+ years into the future?
We need a plan for now and the next decade just as much as 50+ years. Droughts and heat waves are giving all of Europe a beating this summer and it’s only going to get worse, while energy demand goes up.
Yes. There will be so many days and especially nights with little to no wind come winter. Did you see the capacity factor of 35% ? Do you get what it means? If you don’t, feel free to ask. Again, please read what is written or we will be here a very long. This is really getting a bit frustrating now.
Who needs finance if there is literally no other option? You’re not talking to the brick. You are it.
Batteries don’t come out of thin air. PV cells don’t either.
You don’t even understand the basic math about energy density that I laid out for you like you’re in kindergarten and you want to tell me I don’t understand stuff? Remember that? Where you needed 800 of your German mines to match one single NPP? Please puzzle that together and think about where you’re going to get all that lithium, cobalt and other stuff from, process, transport and place 5 million kilograms of battery for every single kilogram of uranium.
I feel like Germans (I’m assuming) can’t handle the fact that they made the wrong decision to dump nuclear and are now doubling down on why it was the best decision ever.
So, again, no magic hydrogen farts this time and no 50 year sci fi time jumps. What’s your plan to keep us powered on quiet winter nights after an overcast day in the decade to come?
Yes because NPP take too long to build, what do you don't understand about that? How many nuclear reactors can we build now and will be finished fully in 50 years? How much will it cost? How expensive will be the electricity?
Yes there will be a few weeks/days during winter which will need gas plants. Do you understand that this is not anlong time during the year? Maybe 2 weeks in a year? Maybe 4 weeks? And it will be need less and less. This is really frustrating because you think we would need to fire gas 6 Months long.
NPP also don't appear out of thin air. At least PV and batterys are build very fast.
Just tell me where you read that we will have problems with lithium cobalt and all the stuff. Please. Nobody is worrying about it as much as you do.
Yes germany. Yes it would have been better to keep the old NPP running longer until we are done with coal.
BUT starting to build NOW some reactors would be the most dumbest thing we could do. It would be such a waste of money. Better to invest the money into renewable tech.
If you have some NPP running, keep them. But don't build new ones.
Maybe the problem is not me not understanding, but you not making any sense.
Like a whole lot lol.
Also a lot, but you haven’t shown any alternative that actually works. Nor are they cheap either.
About as expensive as it is in France right now.
https://euenergy.live/articles/average-electricity-bill-europe
Nuclear power is much cheaper than Germany’s gas-backed renewables mix. You really don’t have a clue do you? You’re just making assumptions as they suit you best.
Ok, do the napkin math with me again, because you can’t seem to do it…
As you know, solar power will be greatly reduced in the winter. At a capacity factor of 25%, let’s say 15% of that is generated in summer, 4% in spring and fall each and 2% in winter (and the rest is no power at all, like night or overcast days). Wind has a capacity factor of 35%, let’s assume it’s similar throughout the year.
So then in the most optimistic scenario you have power for ~37% of winter, if sun shines when there is no wind and can take over (unrealistic but I’m helping you).
So at leaves us ~63% of winter. At 90 days of winter gas plants will be running for:
90 * 0,63 = 56,7 full daysIn just winter….
And then we haven’t even covered spring or fall….
PV cells still don’t cover winter. It’s a false equivalence.
Did you read the part where I showed you we needed 800 entire German mines worth of lithium to get the energy equivalent of one NPP? The resources being in the ground isn’t so much the issue, the getting it out is. What’s your plan for that, magic again?
Also:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42461-024-01070-7
The best time was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.
Renewables still don’t get you through winter, no matter how much you try. Your plan entails running gas plants for a significant portion of the year for decades to come while we hope for some tech that we don’t have, don’t have the resources for, can’t mine the resources for or can’t produce.
Could you please, for the love of god stop arguing in bad faith and actually try to do some of the math behind your claims?