Since when is a group of stationary power plants called a “fleet”?
Almost any group of things is sometimes called a fleet.
But yeah, “nuclear fleet” almost always means something else.
Nuclear-energy haters in shambles.
I think you misspelled Russian bots (look into how much their economy is tied to energy sales)
Well it also gives it a completely non-functional electrical grid because half of their nuclear power plants are shut down because of the hot weather.
Completely false, at peak heat interruptions power generation is shuttered by 15%
Not half. “About 15%” of nuclear power plants were shut down due to water sources that were too warm for environmentally safe discharge.
But that’s still a significant percentage.
Yeah I was memeing a bit. Their power grid is also completely fine because it’s part of the European grid that is supplied by all sorts of electricity sources that can compensate for those nuclear plants.
Yeah I was memeing a bit
spreading disinformation, Lügenpresse
it’s just another part of the eternal war between the french and jellyfish.
https://www.sciencealert.com/swarming-jellyfish-just-shut-down-a-nuclear-reactor-for-the-second-time
Maybe that’s because their power stations don’t work in the heat and Germany is providing them with electricity generated by renewables, I dunno.
Forgotten is the decade Germany was buying nuclear energy from France because it couldn’t generate enough of its own and renewables couldn’t carry even a tiny bit of the load.
I wonder whether the CO₂ emissions generated during mining and processing, as well as during the delivery and removal of the fuel rods, and of course the construction of the power stations, are included in these figures.
Well, I was a bit surprised by the carbon footprint of nuclear after I went and did some research on this. The emissions from nuclear fuel mining and preparation are about 34g CO2e/kWh.[1](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652613007981) So less than what the article estimates for Frances grid, but not by much. I wonder if they only estimate the fuel or if the building costs are not significant over the plants lifetime.
Don’t forget the disposal of the nuclear waste.
The statement made in the title is not the point being made by the chart.
How about a chart showing the level of carbon emissions per MW generated in France compared to those in other countries in Europe and the OCDE instead of one showing the fraction of nuclear generation in a country’s total?!
Because I’m pretty sure there are countries in Europe with little or even NO nuclear generation at all which come better on a CO2 emissions chart than France and the CO2 average emissions in most of Europe are far closer to France’s than the big gap in “amount of nuclear generation as a fraction of total” that’s shown in that chart.
And this is before we even talk about pollutants in general rather than CO2 and nothing else: the French nuclear power plants are mostly the kind that produces highly radioactive waste which remains dnagerous for over 10,000 years and ends up buried.
In fact thinking about this is making me realize that France’s bet on nuclear is making it be slower than the rest in the transition to renewables which all in all are a less polluting power generation technology than nuclear (even if nuclear waste is a tiny fraction of pollution per MW than even gas power plants).
You’re looking for emission intensity. The emissions per unit of work, that can be KWh of electricity or GDP of a nation.
Apparently France has one of the lowest gr CO2 / kWh in the world. The Nordic countries seem to do better because of their massive hydro infrastructure (which also has major implications on water-based ecosystems, but that’s another discussion).
Countries with more solar and wind are faring much worse, because wind and solar are so unpredictable. So what do they do on quiet winter nights after an overcast day? Fire up the coal and gas powered plants…
France has less wind and solar than for example Germany, but the same can be said for the Nordic countries, who hardly have any. In fact France has a very ambitious plan to electrify the nation. That includes renewables, but also new NPPs.
Nuclear waste is also really no pollution. We can store it safely and it’s only dangerous to the immediate surroundings, something which can be nullified by proper shielding.
Not much CO2, just mountains of dangerous waste for future generations to take care of. Besides the mountain of debt of course.
Would you like to source that? ALL of the High Level nuclear Waste from the planet can be fit into a 21m cube
https://decarbonization.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-all-the-nuclear-waste-in-the-world/
Medium level waste and low level waste can be deposited in normal surface landfills. LLW is normaly considered non radioactive in 50 years MLW 200. Fun fact there are entire cities that are more naturally radioactive than what we consider MLW. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709356/
I’d like to make an edit here later on and specify the reason that we do not put it into a 21 m cube is because it would go super critical.
This is rather disengenous given I have seen actual waste storage and it takes up way more space. All of it is not shoved in a perfect cube. It tends to be containers withing container withing containers that all are in a facitlity.