为什么德国如此执着于放弃核电，而法国却没有？（2）
正文翻译
Why is Germany so adamant about abandoning nuclear power, while France is not?
为什么德国如此执着于放弃核电，而法国却没有？
Why is Germany so adamant about abandoning nuclear power, while France is not?
为什么德国如此执着于放弃核电，而法国却没有？
评论翻译
Alan Michael
, studied at University of Sheffield
Oh wow - an awful lot of people bashing/prasing the French/Germans depending on their own point of view. Without a single ounce of nuance.
To understand this we need to look at the history of nuclear power in the two countries.
Germany
Germany has been pretty anti-nuclear since the mid-1970s. Early concerns in the country were mostly associated with waste disposal. Local protests managed to prevent several major projects - most famously one at Whyl in 1975 when tens of thousands of people occupied the construction site.
Germany was relatively early to the nuclear generation game, however, with it’s first experimental reactor built in 1961 at Kahl - like many experimental reactors the cost of generation was high. At about $2,700 per kilowatt[1].
Despite these setbacks German nuclear power reached 150 Terawatt hours per year by 1988. At that time renewables production was negligible.
However 1986 was the year when the anti-nuclear movement in Germany really started to pick up pace. It was one of the countries effected by the Chernobyl disaster
South-East Germany was particularly effected:-
In the 70s and 80s Germany itself had three accidents resulting in radioactive contamination of local areas:-
1975 Griefswald - Meltdown
1986 Hamm-Uentrop - during repairs
1987 Hessen - stop valve failure
These accidents cost a combined $1 billion (adjusted for inflation) + significant funds in assisting with chernobyl’s 30+ year cleanup operation.
There were also plenty of near misses e.g. Griefswald had another near miss in 1989 when there was nearly a big meltdown.
These events had a marked effect on Germany’s anti-nuclear movement - the safety of nuclear was, rightly, being questioned.
The time it took for reactors to be built, and their cost was also coming into light. Griefswald 5, for example, took 13 years from start of construction to completion.
So public opinion in Germany was so against further nuclear expansion that Griefswald 5 would be the last reactor completed in Germany.
Nuclear in Germany would continue to produce between 150–170 Terawatt hours per year throughout the 90s. With so little government investment few manufacturers showed much of an interest. So, throughout the 90s, renewables would go from negligible production to about 7% in 2000 - with very little government investment.
2006 was a real game changer though. The sole major nuclear provider in germany - siemens - had a major bribery scandal that significantly effected their position. It meant that their lobbying efforts were significantly effected - and contributed to negative sentiments towards nuclear power.
Between 2000 and 2010 renewables had ballooned to more than 15% of germany’s energy market. Whilst nuclear had fallen from 30%+ to 23%.
Then Fukushima happened. Siemens - the only major nuclear power constructor in germany remember - decided it didn’t want to be in the nuclear game any more.
This meant that Germany had a choice:-
Find someone else to maintain it’s aging nuclear power reactors that were increasing in cost annually
Replace those reactors with new nuclear reactors.
Replace those reactors with a different energy source.
Really the decision was a bit of a no brainer.
With it’s aging reactors coming offline anyway - Germany was basically going to have to rebuild it’s nuclear energy sector from scratch if it was going to continue in the long term with this solution.
Renewables simply do not have the long term economic and safety risks that are carried by nuclear. Building a nuclear reactor can take years and billions of euros. Whereas building a solar plant or wind farm costs a few hundred million euros and costs much less to maintain. Adding capacity to these facilities is also, by far, a simpler process. Not to mention that the public have a far more positive opinion of these methods.
The process for disposal of waste from solar and wind is far less costly than for nuclear too.
So Germany made the decision to invest heavily in renewables. In 2020 renewables produced more than 50% of Germany’s energy supply - a larger share than nuclear ever achieved. All the while nuclear is still costing Germany tens of billions per year to maintain, even as it brings it’s reactors offline.
It’s also worth considering here that the two big nuclear disasters that have occurred have already cost well over $300 BILLION to clean up. So I think it’s fair to point out that even if there’s only a 0.1% risk of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima impacting Germany there is a fair argument to be made that the economic risk is too great.
So that’s Germany.
Let’s look at France.
The French relationship with nuclear power is very different and, honestly, far easier to explain.
So the first thing to remember about France is that France has far less coal or oil supply than Germany.
Germany is still the worlds 9th largest coal supplier. France produces no coal. By the 1980s French coal production was negligible.
Germany produces 200,000 barrels of oil per year. France produces 130,000 barrels of oil per year.
This means that while Germany has a domestic supply of fossil fuel - the French have very little. So during the rise of nuclear Germany had the capability of falling back on coal. France did not.
The 1973 oil crisis really emphasises France’s disadvantage in this area.
So France didn’t really have an option other than nuclear if it was going to produce enough electricity without relying on imports. This is why French nuclear production was double that of Germany’s in 1989 and continued to grow. By 2000 France was producing 450 Terawatt hours of nuclear driven electricity.
Chernobyl had far less of a measurable impact on radiation levels in France and by the time Fukushima came around nuclear was producing 90% of France’s electricty.
Whilst renewables are gathering pace in France it is a far more challenging process for France to switch from nuclear to renewables. The cost-benefit equation is therefore very different. It would cost them hundreds of billions to switch away from nuclear with any speed - so the financial risk of a fukushima level event is less than the cost of a rapid move away from nuclear.
In other words, just like how it’s a no brainer for germany to make a rapid adoption of renewables rather than outlaying hundreds of billions on new nuclear - it’s a no brainer for France to take a far slower approach to their adoption.
TL;DR: the two nations have had very different pros and cons associated with Nuclear.
One nation basically had no choice but to go with nuclear. The other nation was negatively impacted by nuclear and had other options it could go with.
It’s not a case that one nation is being stupid and the other nation is being smart. They’re both dealing with the legacies of very different situations.
, 曾就读于谢菲尔德大学
哦，哇--很多人根据自己的观点抨击/批判法国人/德国人。这些意见却没有一丝一毫的细微差别。
为了理解这一点，我们需要看看这两个国家的核电历史。
德国：
自20世纪70年代中期以来，德国一直相当反核。该国早期的担忧主要与废物处理有关。当地的抗议活动成功阻止了几个大型项目--最著名的是1975年在Whyl的项目，当时成千上万的人占领了施工现场。
然而，德国相对较早进入核能发电领域，它的第一个实验性反应堆于1961年在Kahl建成 - 像许多实验性反应堆一样，发电成本很高。大约每千瓦2700美元[1]。
尽管有这些挫折，德国的核电在1988年达到每年150太瓦时。当时，可再生能源的产量可以忽略不计。
然而，1986年是德国的反核运动真正开始加速的一年。它是受切尔诺贝利灾难影响的国家之一。
德国东南部受到的影响尤其大。
在70年代和80年代，德国本身也发生了三起事故，导致当地的放射性污染：
1975年 格里夫斯瓦尔德- 熔毁
1986年 哈姆-乌恩特洛普-维修
1987年 黑森州--截止阀故障
这些事故总共花费了10亿美元（根据通货膨胀调整）+大量资金用于协助切尔诺贝利30多年的清理工作。
还有很多险情，例如，1989年格里夫斯瓦尔德发生了另一次险情，当时几乎发生了大熔毁。
这些事件对德国的反核运动产生了明显的影响--核电的安全性受到了质疑，这是正确的。
反应堆建造的时间和成本也逐渐被曝光。例如，格里夫斯瓦尔德5号核电站从开始建设到完工花了13年。
因此，德国的公众舆论非常反对进一步的核扩张，格里夫斯瓦尔德5号将是在德国完成的最后一个反应堆。
在整个90年代，德国的核电继续每年生产150-170太瓦时。由于政府投资如此之少，很少有制造商表现出兴趣。因此，在整个90年代，可再生能源从可忽略不计的产量上升到2000年的约7%--而且政府投资很少。
然而，2006年是一个真正的游戏规则改变的时刻。德国唯一的主要核电供应商--西门子--发生了重大的贿赂丑闻，对其地位产生了重大影响。这意味着他们的游说工作受到了极大的影响--并促进了对核电的负面情绪。
在2000年至2010年期间，可再生能源在德国能源市场上的份额已膨胀到15%以上。而核电则从30%以上下降到23%。
然后，福岛事件发生了。西门子--德国唯一的主要核电建设者--决定不想再参与核电这场游戏了。
这意味着，德国有一个选择：-
找别人来维护它老化的核电反应堆，这些反应堆的成本每年都在增加。
用新的核反应堆取代这些反应堆。
用不同的能源来取代这些反应堆。
真的，要做出什么样的选择显而易见。
无论如何，随着老化的反应堆的下线--如果德国要继续长期使用这个解决方案，基本上必须从头开始重建它的核能部门。
可再生能源根本没有核电所具有的长期经济和安全风险。建造一个核反应堆可能需要数年和数十亿欧元。而建造一个太阳能发电厂或风力发电场只需要几亿欧元，而且维护成本要低得多。到目前为止，为这些设施增加容量也是一个更简单的过程。更不用说公众对这些方法有更积极的看法。
处理太阳能和风能产生的废物的过程也比核电的成本要低得多。
因此，德国决定大力投资于可再生能源。2020年，可再生能源占德国能源供应的50%以上--比核电所占的份额更大。在此同时，德国每年仍需花费数百亿美元来维护核电，即使它的反应堆已经下线。
这里还值得考虑的是，已经发生的两次大的核灾难花费了超过3000亿美元来进行清理。因此，我认为可以指出，即使像切尔诺贝利或福岛这样的灾难性事故即使只有0.1%的风险发生在德国，也有理由认为经济风险太大。
所以，这就是德国。
让我们来看看法国。
法国与核电的关系非常不同，而且说实话，更容易解释。
因此，关于法国，首先要记住的是，法国的煤炭或石油供应远远少于德国。
德国仍然是世界上第九大煤炭供应国。法国不生产煤炭。到20世纪80年代，法国的煤炭生产可以忽略不计。
德国每年生产200,000桶石油。法国每年生产130,000桶石油。
这意味着，虽然德国有国内的化石燃料供应--法国人却很少。因此，在核电崛起期间，德国有能力回落到煤炭上。法国却没有。
1973年的石油危机真切地突出了法国在这个领域的劣势。
因此，如果法国要在不依赖进口的情况下生产足够的电力，除了核电之外没有其他真正的选择。这就是为什么法国的核电产量在1989年是德国的两倍，并继续增长。到2000年，法国的核电产量为450兆瓦时。
切尔诺贝利事故对法国辐射水平的影响要小得多，到福岛事故发生时，法国90%的电力是由核能生产的。
虽然可再生能源在法国正在加速发展，但对法国来说，从核电转为可再生能源是一个更具挑战性的过程。因此，成本效益的方程式是非常不同的。他们将花费数千亿资金以任何速度脱离核电--因此发生福岛事件的财务风险低于快速脱离核电的成本。
换句话说，就像德国迅速采用可再生能源而不是花费数千亿购买新的核电一样，法国采取更缓慢的方法来采用可再生能源也是个可以不费脑子做出的选择。
总结：这两个国家在核电方面有非常不同的优点和缺点。
一个国家基本上没有选择，只能使用核电。另一个国家受到核电的负面影响，有其他选择。
这并不是说一个国家愚蠢，另一个国家聪明。他们都在处理非常不同情况下的遗留问题。
, studied at University of Sheffield
Oh wow - an awful lot of people bashing/prasing the French/Germans depending on their own point of view. Without a single ounce of nuance.
To understand this we need to look at the history of nuclear power in the two countries.
Germany
Germany has been pretty anti-nuclear since the mid-1970s. Early concerns in the country were mostly associated with waste disposal. Local protests managed to prevent several major projects - most famously one at Whyl in 1975 when tens of thousands of people occupied the construction site.
Germany was relatively early to the nuclear generation game, however, with it’s first experimental reactor built in 1961 at Kahl - like many experimental reactors the cost of generation was high. At about $2,700 per kilowatt[1].
Despite these setbacks German nuclear power reached 150 Terawatt hours per year by 1988. At that time renewables production was negligible.
However 1986 was the year when the anti-nuclear movement in Germany really started to pick up pace. It was one of the countries effected by the Chernobyl disaster
South-East Germany was particularly effected:-
In the 70s and 80s Germany itself had three accidents resulting in radioactive contamination of local areas:-
1975 Griefswald - Meltdown
1986 Hamm-Uentrop - during repairs
1987 Hessen - stop valve failure
These accidents cost a combined $1 billion (adjusted for inflation) + significant funds in assisting with chernobyl’s 30+ year cleanup operation.
There were also plenty of near misses e.g. Griefswald had another near miss in 1989 when there was nearly a big meltdown.
These events had a marked effect on Germany’s anti-nuclear movement - the safety of nuclear was, rightly, being questioned.
The time it took for reactors to be built, and their cost was also coming into light. Griefswald 5, for example, took 13 years from start of construction to completion.
So public opinion in Germany was so against further nuclear expansion that Griefswald 5 would be the last reactor completed in Germany.
Nuclear in Germany would continue to produce between 150–170 Terawatt hours per year throughout the 90s. With so little government investment few manufacturers showed much of an interest. So, throughout the 90s, renewables would go from negligible production to about 7% in 2000 - with very little government investment.
2006 was a real game changer though. The sole major nuclear provider in germany - siemens - had a major bribery scandal that significantly effected their position. It meant that their lobbying efforts were significantly effected - and contributed to negative sentiments towards nuclear power.
Between 2000 and 2010 renewables had ballooned to more than 15% of germany’s energy market. Whilst nuclear had fallen from 30%+ to 23%.
Then Fukushima happened. Siemens - the only major nuclear power constructor in germany remember - decided it didn’t want to be in the nuclear game any more.
This meant that Germany had a choice:-
Find someone else to maintain it’s aging nuclear power reactors that were increasing in cost annually
Replace those reactors with new nuclear reactors.
Replace those reactors with a different energy source.
Really the decision was a bit of a no brainer.
With it’s aging reactors coming offline anyway - Germany was basically going to have to rebuild it’s nuclear energy sector from scratch if it was going to continue in the long term with this solution.
Renewables simply do not have the long term economic and safety risks that are carried by nuclear. Building a nuclear reactor can take years and billions of euros. Whereas building a solar plant or wind farm costs a few hundred million euros and costs much less to maintain. Adding capacity to these facilities is also, by far, a simpler process. Not to mention that the public have a far more positive opinion of these methods.
The process for disposal of waste from solar and wind is far less costly than for nuclear too.
So Germany made the decision to invest heavily in renewables. In 2020 renewables produced more than 50% of Germany’s energy supply - a larger share than nuclear ever achieved. All the while nuclear is still costing Germany tens of billions per year to maintain, even as it brings it’s reactors offline.
It’s also worth considering here that the two big nuclear disasters that have occurred have already cost well over $300 BILLION to clean up. So I think it’s fair to point out that even if there’s only a 0.1% risk of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl or Fukushima impacting Germany there is a fair argument to be made that the economic risk is too great.
So that’s Germany.
Let’s look at France.
The French relationship with nuclear power is very different and, honestly, far easier to explain.
So the first thing to remember about France is that France has far less coal or oil supply than Germany.
Germany is still the worlds 9th largest coal supplier. France produces no coal. By the 1980s French coal production was negligible.
Germany produces 200,000 barrels of oil per year. France produces 130,000 barrels of oil per year.
This means that while Germany has a domestic supply of fossil fuel - the French have very little. So during the rise of nuclear Germany had the capability of falling back on coal. France did not.
The 1973 oil crisis really emphasises France’s disadvantage in this area.
So France didn’t really have an option other than nuclear if it was going to produce enough electricity without relying on imports. This is why French nuclear production was double that of Germany’s in 1989 and continued to grow. By 2000 France was producing 450 Terawatt hours of nuclear driven electricity.
Chernobyl had far less of a measurable impact on radiation levels in France and by the time Fukushima came around nuclear was producing 90% of France’s electricty.
Whilst renewables are gathering pace in France it is a far more challenging process for France to switch from nuclear to renewables. The cost-benefit equation is therefore very different. It would cost them hundreds of billions to switch away from nuclear with any speed - so the financial risk of a fukushima level event is less than the cost of a rapid move away from nuclear.
In other words, just like how it’s a no brainer for germany to make a rapid adoption of renewables rather than outlaying hundreds of billions on new nuclear - it’s a no brainer for France to take a far slower approach to their adoption.
TL;DR: the two nations have had very different pros and cons associated with Nuclear.
One nation basically had no choice but to go with nuclear. The other nation was negatively impacted by nuclear and had other options it could go with.
It’s not a case that one nation is being stupid and the other nation is being smart. They’re both dealing with the legacies of very different situations.
, 曾就读于谢菲尔德大学
哦，哇--很多人根据自己的观点抨击/批判法国人/德国人。这些意见却没有一丝一毫的细微差别。
为了理解这一点，我们需要看看这两个国家的核电历史。
德国：
自20世纪70年代中期以来，德国一直相当反核。该国早期的担忧主要与废物处理有关。当地的抗议活动成功阻止了几个大型项目--最著名的是1975年在Whyl的项目，当时成千上万的人占领了施工现场。
然而，德国相对较早进入核能发电领域，它的第一个实验性反应堆于1961年在Kahl建成 - 像许多实验性反应堆一样，发电成本很高。大约每千瓦2700美元[1]。
尽管有这些挫折，德国的核电在1988年达到每年150太瓦时。当时，可再生能源的产量可以忽略不计。
然而，1986年是德国的反核运动真正开始加速的一年。它是受切尔诺贝利灾难影响的国家之一。
德国东南部受到的影响尤其大。
在70年代和80年代，德国本身也发生了三起事故，导致当地的放射性污染：
1975年 格里夫斯瓦尔德- 熔毁
1986年 哈姆-乌恩特洛普-维修
1987年 黑森州--截止阀故障
这些事故总共花费了10亿美元（根据通货膨胀调整）+大量资金用于协助切尔诺贝利30多年的清理工作。
还有很多险情，例如，1989年格里夫斯瓦尔德发生了另一次险情，当时几乎发生了大熔毁。
这些事件对德国的反核运动产生了明显的影响--核电的安全性受到了质疑，这是正确的。
反应堆建造的时间和成本也逐渐被曝光。例如，格里夫斯瓦尔德5号核电站从开始建设到完工花了13年。
因此，德国的公众舆论非常反对进一步的核扩张，格里夫斯瓦尔德5号将是在德国完成的最后一个反应堆。
在整个90年代，德国的核电继续每年生产150-170太瓦时。由于政府投资如此之少，很少有制造商表现出兴趣。因此，在整个90年代，可再生能源从可忽略不计的产量上升到2000年的约7%--而且政府投资很少。
然而，2006年是一个真正的游戏规则改变的时刻。德国唯一的主要核电供应商--西门子--发生了重大的贿赂丑闻，对其地位产生了重大影响。这意味着他们的游说工作受到了极大的影响--并促进了对核电的负面情绪。
在2000年至2010年期间，可再生能源在德国能源市场上的份额已膨胀到15%以上。而核电则从30%以上下降到23%。
然后，福岛事件发生了。西门子--德国唯一的主要核电建设者--决定不想再参与核电这场游戏了。
这意味着，德国有一个选择：-
找别人来维护它老化的核电反应堆，这些反应堆的成本每年都在增加。
用新的核反应堆取代这些反应堆。
用不同的能源来取代这些反应堆。
真的，要做出什么样的选择显而易见。
无论如何，随着老化的反应堆的下线--如果德国要继续长期使用这个解决方案，基本上必须从头开始重建它的核能部门。
可再生能源根本没有核电所具有的长期经济和安全风险。建造一个核反应堆可能需要数年和数十亿欧元。而建造一个太阳能发电厂或风力发电场只需要几亿欧元，而且维护成本要低得多。到目前为止，为这些设施增加容量也是一个更简单的过程。更不用说公众对这些方法有更积极的看法。
处理太阳能和风能产生的废物的过程也比核电的成本要低得多。
因此，德国决定大力投资于可再生能源。2020年，可再生能源占德国能源供应的50%以上--比核电所占的份额更大。在此同时，德国每年仍需花费数百亿美元来维护核电，即使它的反应堆已经下线。
这里还值得考虑的是，已经发生的两次大的核灾难花费了超过3000亿美元来进行清理。因此，我认为可以指出，即使像切尔诺贝利或福岛这样的灾难性事故即使只有0.1%的风险发生在德国，也有理由认为经济风险太大。
所以，这就是德国。
让我们来看看法国。
法国与核电的关系非常不同，而且说实话，更容易解释。
因此，关于法国，首先要记住的是，法国的煤炭或石油供应远远少于德国。
德国仍然是世界上第九大煤炭供应国。法国不生产煤炭。到20世纪80年代，法国的煤炭生产可以忽略不计。
德国每年生产200,000桶石油。法国每年生产130,000桶石油。
这意味着，虽然德国有国内的化石燃料供应--法国人却很少。因此，在核电崛起期间，德国有能力回落到煤炭上。法国却没有。
1973年的石油危机真切地突出了法国在这个领域的劣势。
因此，如果法国要在不依赖进口的情况下生产足够的电力，除了核电之外没有其他真正的选择。这就是为什么法国的核电产量在1989年是德国的两倍，并继续增长。到2000年，法国的核电产量为450兆瓦时。
切尔诺贝利事故对法国辐射水平的影响要小得多，到福岛事故发生时，法国90%的电力是由核能生产的。
虽然可再生能源在法国正在加速发展，但对法国来说，从核电转为可再生能源是一个更具挑战性的过程。因此，成本效益的方程式是非常不同的。他们将花费数千亿资金以任何速度脱离核电--因此发生福岛事件的财务风险低于快速脱离核电的成本。
换句话说，就像德国迅速采用可再生能源而不是花费数千亿购买新的核电一样，法国采取更缓慢的方法来采用可再生能源也是个可以不费脑子做出的选择。
总结：这两个国家在核电方面有非常不同的优点和缺点。
一个国家基本上没有选择，只能使用核电。另一个国家受到核电的负面影响，有其他选择。
这并不是说一个国家愚蠢，另一个国家聪明。他们都在处理非常不同情况下的遗留问题。
Pieter Volgers
Very good overview.
Also, France has easier access to uranium, as it can be found in their own soil.
非常好的概述。
另外，法国更容易获得铀，因为在他们自己的土地上可以找到铀。
Very good overview.
Also, France has easier access to uranium, as it can be found in their own soil.
非常好的概述。
另外，法国更容易获得铀，因为在他们自己的土地上可以找到铀。
Alan Michael
Indeed, and thank you for highlighting this.
I didn’t want to go into too much detail regarding Uranium mining as I felt it would add too much unnecessary complexity but it is worth remember that not only is France one of the largest Uranium producers out there meanwhile in Germany the majority of their mines were in former Soviet Bloc East Germany and they didn’t exactly meet modern safety standards. Most of those sites are still being cleaned up.
的确，谢谢你强调这一点。
我不想过多地讨论铀矿开采的细节，因为我觉得这会增加太多不必要的复杂性，但值得记住的是，法国不仅是最大的铀生产国之一，同时在德国，他们的大部分铀矿场是在前苏联集团的东德，它们并不完全符合现代安全标准。这些矿区中的大部分仍在清理中。
Indeed, and thank you for highlighting this.
I didn’t want to go into too much detail regarding Uranium mining as I felt it would add too much unnecessary complexity but it is worth remember that not only is France one of the largest Uranium producers out there meanwhile in Germany the majority of their mines were in former Soviet Bloc East Germany and they didn’t exactly meet modern safety standards. Most of those sites are still being cleaned up.
的确，谢谢你强调这一点。
我不想过多地讨论铀矿开采的细节，因为我觉得这会增加太多不必要的复杂性，但值得记住的是，法国不仅是最大的铀生产国之一，同时在德国，他们的大部分铀矿场是在前苏联集团的东德，它们并不完全符合现代安全标准。这些矿区中的大部分仍在清理中。
Daniel Grossmann
I believe there is also the fact that France is a nuclear military power, with nuclear weapon and nuclear powered vessels. Not having an active nuclear civil industry would impact the capacity to keep the nuclear military force.
我相信还有一个事实是，法国是一个核军事大国，拥有核武器和核动力船只。没有活跃的核民用工业会影响保持核军事力量的能力。
I believe there is also the fact that France is a nuclear military power, with nuclear weapon and nuclear powered vessels. Not having an active nuclear civil industry would impact the capacity to keep the nuclear military force.
我相信还有一个事实是，法国是一个核军事大国，拥有核武器和核动力船只。没有活跃的核民用工业会影响保持核军事力量的能力。
Alan Michael
agreed. This is also a factor (although not as significant) especially considering their Force de dissuasion doctrine whereby, unlike the UK’s nuclear arsenal which uses US developed weapons (trident), they use their own M51 type missile.
同意。这也是一个因素（虽然不那么重要），特别是考虑到他们的“威慑力量”理论，与英国的核武库使用美国开发的武器（三叉戟）不同，他们使用自己的M51型导弹。
agreed. This is also a factor (although not as significant) especially considering their Force de dissuasion doctrine whereby, unlike the UK’s nuclear arsenal which uses US developed weapons (trident), they use their own M51 type missile.
同意。这也是一个因素（虽然不那么重要），特别是考虑到他们的“威慑力量”理论，与英国的核武库使用美国开发的武器（三叉戟）不同，他们使用自己的M51型导弹。
Fajrian Yunus
Not only nuclear military power, but also the political decision to maintain its status as a global military power. No way in hell you can do this without having nuclear-powered vessels and nuclear weapons (or at least, the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons when they want). As Australia - France - AUKUS recent problem with nuclear submarine demonstrates, merely having a nuclear-powered submarine without having an indigenous nuclear industry is already difficult. Of course, you can’t call yourself a global military power if you don’t even have a nuclear powered submarine to threaten anyone who mess with you. The UK, another global military power, will still build nuclear power plants. On the other hand, Germany made a political decision to be military minnow. Of course, it helps that anti-nuclear politicians in Germany are usually also anti-military.
不仅是核军事力量，而且还有保持其全球军事大国地位的政治决定。如果不拥有核动力舰艇和核武器（或者至少在他们想制造核武器的时候有能力制造），是不可能做到这一点的。正如澳大利亚-法国- AUKUS最近的核潜艇问题所表明的那样，仅仅拥有核动力潜艇而不拥有本土核工业已经很困难。当然，如果你甚至没有核动力潜艇来威胁任何惹到你的人，你就不能称自己是全球军事大国。英国，另一个全球军事大国，仍然会建造核电站。另一方面，德国做出了成为军事小国的政治决定。当然，德国的反核政治家通常也是反军事的也有助于这一点。
Not only nuclear military power, but also the political decision to maintain its status as a global military power. No way in hell you can do this without having nuclear-powered vessels and nuclear weapons (or at least, the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons when they want). As Australia - France - AUKUS recent problem with nuclear submarine demonstrates, merely having a nuclear-powered submarine without having an indigenous nuclear industry is already difficult. Of course, you can’t call yourself a global military power if you don’t even have a nuclear powered submarine to threaten anyone who mess with you. The UK, another global military power, will still build nuclear power plants. On the other hand, Germany made a political decision to be military minnow. Of course, it helps that anti-nuclear politicians in Germany are usually also anti-military.
不仅是核军事力量，而且还有保持其全球军事大国地位的政治决定。如果不拥有核动力舰艇和核武器（或者至少在他们想制造核武器的时候有能力制造），是不可能做到这一点的。正如澳大利亚-法国- AUKUS最近的核潜艇问题所表明的那样，仅仅拥有核动力潜艇而不拥有本土核工业已经很困难。当然，如果你甚至没有核动力潜艇来威胁任何惹到你的人，你就不能称自己是全球军事大国。英国，另一个全球军事大国，仍然会建造核电站。另一方面，德国做出了成为军事小国的政治决定。当然，德国的反核政治家通常也是反军事的也有助于这一点。
Alan Michael
The UK’s trident missiles are produced in California.
A country the size of France or Germany would only really need one or two plants to produce the amount of weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium for nuclear weapons.
So really the nuclear weapons argument for how many nuclear reactors a country has is a fairly minor factor in terms of deciding how much nuclear power a nation is going to produce.
Indeed nuclear power production in the UK is comparable to Germany in terms of generation percentage. 14% vs 13.3% - 2021.
Again, this is mostly due to the UK having far greater access to coal and oil than France during the period where nuclear power first came onto the scene. So the cost-benefit calculation is very different.
Whilst the UK is building new nuclear - more reactors are coming offline than are being built. By the time Hinkley Point C comes online 3–4 more reactors will come offline - although the newer reactors will have a higher capacity.
The UK is not, however, in the same situation as Germany. The UK has four major nuclear power builders operating in the country, compared to Germany’s zero. So it is somewhat easier for the UK to continue it’s Nuclear Power capability.
Nuclear being a part of the mix was instrumental to the UK coming off of coal and until the UK has phased out gas the country is unlikely to reduce nuclear capacity further. But once gas is phased out I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK downsized nuclear production further.
英国的三叉戟导弹是在加利福尼亚生产的。
像法国或德国这样规模的国家，其实只需要一两个工厂就能生产出核武器所需的武器级铀或钚的数量。
因此，关于一个国家拥有多少核反应堆的核武器争论，在决定一个国家将生产多少核电方面是一个相当小的因素。
事实上，英国的核电生产在发电比例方面与德国相当。14% vs 13.3% - 2021年。
同样，这主要是由于在核电首次出现的时期，英国拥有比法国更多的煤炭和石油资源。因此，成本效益的计算公式是非常不同的。
当英国正在建设新的核电时，更多的反应堆将被关闭，而不是正在建设。到欣克利角C项目投产时，将有3-4个反应堆下线 - 尽管较新的反应堆将有更高的容量。
然而，英国的情况与德国不同。英国有四个主要的核电建造商在国内运营，而德国是零。因此，英国在某种程度上更容易继续发展其核电能力。
核能作为混合动力的一部分，对英国摆脱煤炭起到了重要作用，在英国逐步淘汰天然气之前，英国不太可能进一步减少核电能力。但是，一旦天然气被淘汰，如果英国进一步缩减核电生产，我也不会感到惊讶。
The UK’s trident missiles are produced in California.
A country the size of France or Germany would only really need one or two plants to produce the amount of weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium for nuclear weapons.
So really the nuclear weapons argument for how many nuclear reactors a country has is a fairly minor factor in terms of deciding how much nuclear power a nation is going to produce.
Indeed nuclear power production in the UK is comparable to Germany in terms of generation percentage. 14% vs 13.3% - 2021.
Again, this is mostly due to the UK having far greater access to coal and oil than France during the period where nuclear power first came onto the scene. So the cost-benefit calculation is very different.
Whilst the UK is building new nuclear - more reactors are coming offline than are being built. By the time Hinkley Point C comes online 3–4 more reactors will come offline - although the newer reactors will have a higher capacity.
The UK is not, however, in the same situation as Germany. The UK has four major nuclear power builders operating in the country, compared to Germany’s zero. So it is somewhat easier for the UK to continue it’s Nuclear Power capability.
Nuclear being a part of the mix was instrumental to the UK coming off of coal and until the UK has phased out gas the country is unlikely to reduce nuclear capacity further. But once gas is phased out I wouldn’t be surprised if the UK downsized nuclear production further.
英国的三叉戟导弹是在加利福尼亚生产的。
像法国或德国这样规模的国家，其实只需要一两个工厂就能生产出核武器所需的武器级铀或钚的数量。
因此，关于一个国家拥有多少核反应堆的核武器争论，在决定一个国家将生产多少核电方面是一个相当小的因素。
事实上，英国的核电生产在发电比例方面与德国相当。14% vs 13.3% - 2021年。
同样，这主要是由于在核电首次出现的时期，英国拥有比法国更多的煤炭和石油资源。因此，成本效益的计算公式是非常不同的。
当英国正在建设新的核电时，更多的反应堆将被关闭，而不是正在建设。到欣克利角C项目投产时，将有3-4个反应堆下线 - 尽管较新的反应堆将有更高的容量。
然而，英国的情况与德国不同。英国有四个主要的核电建造商在国内运营，而德国是零。因此，英国在某种程度上更容易继续发展其核电能力。
核能作为混合动力的一部分，对英国摆脱煤炭起到了重要作用，在英国逐步淘汰天然气之前，英国不太可能进一步减少核电能力。但是，一旦天然气被淘汰，如果英国进一步缩减核电生产，我也不会感到惊讶。
Richard Phillips
, lives in London
“In France we have no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice. And for the French people, it was very positive to develop national energy with nuclear energy.”
That is the main issue, Germany lots of coal and gas, France did not.
But there are other factors; Germany is more anti-nuclear than France because of history, and how democracy works differently in the two countries.
In Germany, the green movement has been a powerful political force for decades. This is because of proportional representation, where most governments are coalitions of more than one party. The greens routinely get seats in parliment and are sometimes part of the government itself. One reason the left in general and the greens in particular pushed against nukes is because of close defacto relationship between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. During the cold war, the industries were often joined at the hip - nuclear power producing plutonium for bombs as a by product.
Germany likes consensus based politics because of that unfortunate earlier bit of history that was, shall we say, not an exemplar of consensus based governance.
France on the other hand, is more ‘majoritarian’ and it’s governments tend to be able to sway big projects even if they have squeaked to power in close elections. The green movement has had no real presence in the French parliment. There is also a national tradition of the ‘grande project’ - French governments simply push through passed all obxtions if they really want to do something; French people accept and even admire that kind of robust leadership; the ghost of Napoleon gives the republic spine - or anti-democratic impulses depending on your point of view!
The early French civil nuclear power industry was in part a product of the cold war aim to develop an independent nuclear weapon system (a goal that was inconcievable in Germany) but morphed into a plan for a massive civil nuclear program because France wanted its own source of energy without relying on other countries.
But this was particularly important to France because they did not have enough gas, coal or oil of their own. After the humiliation of WWII the French people were receptive to a plan for national self reliance in energy.
The French plan has worked out rather well and put them firmly on the moral high ground with respect to carbon emissions and the climate change agenda.
Germany on the other hand makes more noise about climate change whilst abandoning their greenest source of energey and killing thousands of people a year (including outside their borders) with the radiation emited by their coal fired power stations.
, 住在伦敦
"在法国，我们没有石油、没有天然气、没有煤，没有选择。而对于法国人民来说，用核能发展国家能源是非常积极的一件事。"
这就是主要问题，德国很多煤和天然气，法国没有。
但还有其他因素；由于历史原因，德国比法国更反核，而且两国的民主运作方式也不同。
在德国，绿色运动几十年来一直是一支强大的政治力量。这是因为比例代表制的存在，大多数政府是由一个以上的政党组成的联盟。绿党经常在议会中获得席位，有时还成为政府的一部分。总的来说，左派，特别是绿党反对核电的一个原因是核电和核武器之间的事实上密切的关系。在冷战期间，这两个行业往往是连在一起的--核电作为副产品为核弹生产钚。
德国喜欢基于共识的政治，因为早期那段不幸的历史，我们可以说那段不是基于共识的治理的典范。
另一方面，法国更倾向于"多数派"，它的政府倾向于能够开启大项目，即使他们在互相非常接近的选举中勉强上台。绿色运动在法国议会中没有真正的存在。法国还有一个搞"大项目"的国家传统--法国政府如果真的想做什么，就会简单地无视所有的反对意见；法国人民接受甚至钦佩这种强有力的领导；拿破仑的幽灵是给了共和国脊梁骨--还是反民主的冲动，这取决于你的看法。
法国早期的民用核电工业部分是冷战时期发展独立核武器系统的产物（这个目标在德国是不可想象的），但演变成了大规模民用核电计划，因为法国希望有自己的能源来源，而不是依赖其他国家。
但这对法国特别重要，因为他们自己没有足够的天然气、煤或石油。在经历了二战的耻辱之后，法国人民接受了一项国家能源自给自足的计划。
法国的计划效果相当好，使他们在碳排放和气候变化议程方面牢牢占据了道德高地。
另一方面，德国在放弃其最绿色的能源来源的同时，对气候变化发出了更多的噪音，并且每年有数千人因其燃煤发电站的辐射而死亡（包括在其边界之外）。
, lives in London
“In France we have no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice. And for the French people, it was very positive to develop national energy with nuclear energy.”
That is the main issue, Germany lots of coal and gas, France did not.
But there are other factors; Germany is more anti-nuclear than France because of history, and how democracy works differently in the two countries.
In Germany, the green movement has been a powerful political force for decades. This is because of proportional representation, where most governments are coalitions of more than one party. The greens routinely get seats in parliment and are sometimes part of the government itself. One reason the left in general and the greens in particular pushed against nukes is because of close defacto relationship between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. During the cold war, the industries were often joined at the hip - nuclear power producing plutonium for bombs as a by product.
Germany likes consensus based politics because of that unfortunate earlier bit of history that was, shall we say, not an exemplar of consensus based governance.
France on the other hand, is more ‘majoritarian’ and it’s governments tend to be able to sway big projects even if they have squeaked to power in close elections. The green movement has had no real presence in the French parliment. There is also a national tradition of the ‘grande project’ - French governments simply push through passed all obxtions if they really want to do something; French people accept and even admire that kind of robust leadership; the ghost of Napoleon gives the republic spine - or anti-democratic impulses depending on your point of view!
The early French civil nuclear power industry was in part a product of the cold war aim to develop an independent nuclear weapon system (a goal that was inconcievable in Germany) but morphed into a plan for a massive civil nuclear program because France wanted its own source of energy without relying on other countries.
But this was particularly important to France because they did not have enough gas, coal or oil of their own. After the humiliation of WWII the French people were receptive to a plan for national self reliance in energy.
The French plan has worked out rather well and put them firmly on the moral high ground with respect to carbon emissions and the climate change agenda.
Germany on the other hand makes more noise about climate change whilst abandoning their greenest source of energey and killing thousands of people a year (including outside their borders) with the radiation emited by their coal fired power stations.
, 住在伦敦
"在法国，我们没有石油、没有天然气、没有煤，没有选择。而对于法国人民来说，用核能发展国家能源是非常积极的一件事。"
这就是主要问题，德国很多煤和天然气，法国没有。
但还有其他因素；由于历史原因，德国比法国更反核，而且两国的民主运作方式也不同。
在德国，绿色运动几十年来一直是一支强大的政治力量。这是因为比例代表制的存在，大多数政府是由一个以上的政党组成的联盟。绿党经常在议会中获得席位，有时还成为政府的一部分。总的来说，左派，特别是绿党反对核电的一个原因是核电和核武器之间的事实上密切的关系。在冷战期间，这两个行业往往是连在一起的--核电作为副产品为核弹生产钚。
德国喜欢基于共识的政治，因为早期那段不幸的历史，我们可以说那段不是基于共识的治理的典范。
另一方面，法国更倾向于"多数派"，它的政府倾向于能够开启大项目，即使他们在互相非常接近的选举中勉强上台。绿色运动在法国议会中没有真正的存在。法国还有一个搞"大项目"的国家传统--法国政府如果真的想做什么，就会简单地无视所有的反对意见；法国人民接受甚至钦佩这种强有力的领导；拿破仑的幽灵是给了共和国脊梁骨--还是反民主的冲动，这取决于你的看法。
法国早期的民用核电工业部分是冷战时期发展独立核武器系统的产物（这个目标在德国是不可想象的），但演变成了大规模民用核电计划，因为法国希望有自己的能源来源，而不是依赖其他国家。
但这对法国特别重要，因为他们自己没有足够的天然气、煤或石油。在经历了二战的耻辱之后，法国人民接受了一项国家能源自给自足的计划。
法国的计划效果相当好，使他们在碳排放和气候变化议程方面牢牢占据了道德高地。
另一方面，德国在放弃其最绿色的能源来源的同时，对气候变化发出了更多的噪音，并且每年有数千人因其燃煤发电站的辐射而死亡（包括在其边界之外）。
George Géal-Killy
In Germany, the green movement has been a powerful political force for decades.
Same in France that's why whatever eco friendly isn't the prerogative of the Green Party anymore but those policies are supported by the mainstream politicians from the far left to the right wing party. Only the far right doesn't focus on ecology.
The COP 21 happened in Paris, not Berlin. We can also look at real actions instead of public statements.
The greens routinely get seats in parliment and are sometimes part of the government itself.
Same in France.
The green movement has had no real presence in the French parliment.
Because the green cause is supported by the major parties already. Those actually ruling the country. Voting for the Green Party thus makes sense only for local small elections. Very soon there won't even be a need for a green party. Green policies already became mainstream and are becoming basic policies.
All the rest is totally irrelevant to the issue. What the French care about is effective solutions. And for now nuclear energy is an effective solution. More than coal. What they impose to their government is to maintain their standard of living. Here environnement (pollution and the diseases lixed to it) but more importantly their purchasing power. And the fact is that the French are among those paying their electricity the cheapest while the Germans are among those paying the most. In those times of inflation and electricity bills going to the roof, that's not in France where the purchasing power will be badly impacted and that's all that matter to the French. Germany has engaged in a bad spiral of sacrificing the population. Will backfire inevitably.
The French plan has worked out rather well and put them firmly on the moral high ground with respect to carbon emissions and the climate change agenda.
Well, Germany despite its daft idea to go back to coal is also investing massively in renewable energies and it will eventually pay off. But still, despite all the big talks isn't pushing as hard as France and just like France is far behind other European countries, notably those leading the way North. Although both countries have a massive industry to keep going. But at least both countries are seriously on board. In the case of France that wasn't the case just 25 years ago. Don't know how Covid will disturb all that though.
“在德国，绿色运动几十年来一直是一种强大的政治力量。”
在法国也是如此，这就是为什么什么生态友好之类的议程不再是绿党的特权，这些政策得到了从极左到右翼政党的主流政治家的支持。只有极右派不关注生态。
第21届气候变化会议发生在巴黎，而不是柏林。我们也可以看看真正的行动，而不是公开声明。
“绿党经常在议会中获得席位，有时还成为政府本身的一部分。”
在法国也是如此。
“绿色运动在法国议会中没有真正的存在。”
因为绿色事业已经得到了主要政党的支持。那些实际统治国家的政党。因此，投票给绿党只有在地方小选举中才有意义。很快，甚至都不需要绿党了。绿色政策已经成为主流，正在成为基本政策。
答案的其他部分都是与问题完全无关的。法国人关心的是有效的解决方案。而目前来说，核能是一个有效的解决方案。比煤炭更有效。他们强加给政府的要求是维持他们的生活水平。这一点包括环境（污染和与之相关的疾病），但更重要的是他们的购买力。而事实是，法国人是支付电费最便宜的人之一，而德国人是支付电费最多的人之一。在那些通货膨胀和电费飙升的时代，购买力将受到严重影响，但不包括法国，这对法国人来说是最重要的。德国陷入了牺牲人口的恶性循环。将不可避免地适得其反。
“法国的计划效果相当好，使他们在碳排放和气候变化议程方面牢牢占据了道德高地。”
好吧，尽管德国重新使用煤炭的想法很愚蠢，但它也在大力投资可再生能源，最终会得到回报。尽管德国所有的大型会谈并没有像法国那样努力推动气候协议，但是这也正如法国远远落后于其他欧洲国家，特别是那些引领气候变化潮流的北方国家。虽然这两个国家都有一个庞大的产业需要继续发展。但至少这两个国家都在认真对待。就法国而言，在25年前还不是这样的。虽然不知道Covid会如何干扰这一切。
In Germany, the green movement has been a powerful political force for decades.
Same in France that's why whatever eco friendly isn't the prerogative of the Green Party anymore but those policies are supported by the mainstream politicians from the far left to the right wing party. Only the far right doesn't focus on ecology.
The COP 21 happened in Paris, not Berlin. We can also look at real actions instead of public statements.
The greens routinely get seats in parliment and are sometimes part of the government itself.
Same in France.
The green movement has had no real presence in the French parliment.
Because the green cause is supported by the major parties already. Those actually ruling the country. Voting for the Green Party thus makes sense only for local small elections. Very soon there won't even be a need for a green party. Green policies already became mainstream and are becoming basic policies.
All the rest is totally irrelevant to the issue. What the French care about is effective solutions. And for now nuclear energy is an effective solution. More than coal. What they impose to their government is to maintain their standard of living. Here environnement (pollution and the diseases lixed to it) but more importantly their purchasing power. And the fact is that the French are among those paying their electricity the cheapest while the Germans are among those paying the most. In those times of inflation and electricity bills going to the roof, that's not in France where the purchasing power will be badly impacted and that's all that matter to the French. Germany has engaged in a bad spiral of sacrificing the population. Will backfire inevitably.
The French plan has worked out rather well and put them firmly on the moral high ground with respect to carbon emissions and the climate change agenda.
Well, Germany despite its daft idea to go back to coal is also investing massively in renewable energies and it will eventually pay off. But still, despite all the big talks isn't pushing as hard as France and just like France is far behind other European countries, notably those leading the way North. Although both countries have a massive industry to keep going. But at least both countries are seriously on board. In the case of France that wasn't the case just 25 years ago. Don't know how Covid will disturb all that though.
“在德国，绿色运动几十年来一直是一种强大的政治力量。”
在法国也是如此，这就是为什么什么生态友好之类的议程不再是绿党的特权，这些政策得到了从极左到右翼政党的主流政治家的支持。只有极右派不关注生态。
第21届气候变化会议发生在巴黎，而不是柏林。我们也可以看看真正的行动，而不是公开声明。
“绿党经常在议会中获得席位，有时还成为政府本身的一部分。”
在法国也是如此。
“绿色运动在法国议会中没有真正的存在。”
因为绿色事业已经得到了主要政党的支持。那些实际统治国家的政党。因此，投票给绿党只有在地方小选举中才有意义。很快，甚至都不需要绿党了。绿色政策已经成为主流，正在成为基本政策。
答案的其他部分都是与问题完全无关的。法国人关心的是有效的解决方案。而目前来说，核能是一个有效的解决方案。比煤炭更有效。他们强加给政府的要求是维持他们的生活水平。这一点包括环境（污染和与之相关的疾病），但更重要的是他们的购买力。而事实是，法国人是支付电费最便宜的人之一，而德国人是支付电费最多的人之一。在那些通货膨胀和电费飙升的时代，购买力将受到严重影响，但不包括法国，这对法国人来说是最重要的。德国陷入了牺牲人口的恶性循环。将不可避免地适得其反。
“法国的计划效果相当好，使他们在碳排放和气候变化议程方面牢牢占据了道德高地。”
好吧，尽管德国重新使用煤炭的想法很愚蠢，但它也在大力投资可再生能源，最终会得到回报。尽管德国所有的大型会谈并没有像法国那样努力推动气候协议，但是这也正如法国远远落后于其他欧洲国家，特别是那些引领气候变化潮流的北方国家。虽然这两个国家都有一个庞大的产业需要继续发展。但至少这两个国家都在认真对待。就法国而言，在25年前还不是这样的。虽然不知道Covid会如何干扰这一切。
Yoan J. Leleu
, studied at University of Pau and Pays de l'Adour
I can answer for France, and that's quite simple. Independance. Synergies. Money.
If: you need nuclear weapons. And : you don't have petrol or gas, but have a lot of uranium both at home and in your “area of influence". Then going full nuclear is
not only the available solution,
but also the best and (in the long run) cheapest one,
and also participates in related projects (nuclear subs, nuclear carrier, nuclear missiles, nuclear cars, nuclear toothbrushes… remember, this strategic choice started in the 60’s)
Today, there's no more uranium in metropolitan France, but various and stable supplies worldwhile make up for it. Plus, recycling : between 15% and 25% of France nuclear combustible comes from recycled combustible. Can you do this with coal or gas ?
Germany made the bold choice of an electric mix without nuclear. I highly respect that choice, and hope it will work someday. But for the time being, reality teaches us that you can't operate an electric mix without either nuclear, either gas/coal to stabilize it. Look what is happening right now in Europe : no wind in the North sea. Gas price skyrocketing. Is it ecological ? Are we supposed to wait for elusive solutions like perfect batteries or hydrogen, and burn coal like chainsmokers in the meantime ?
All in all, even including nuclear waste AND Chernobyl + Fukushima, nuclear energy is the most efficient, safe, and clean energy we have. Yes, clean. Less deaths too. How many rare earth (very polluting) required to produce more innovating solar or wind energies ? How much pollution and deaths because of coal, oil, gas, which you NEED to supplement wind and solar ? Not even including climate change consequences and costs, here ! In a word : all the externalities have to be considered.
Another thing :
“France will put billions in decomissionning nuclear plants”. I'll make the laconic answer : “if”. We can perfectly maintain, upgrade, and run those plants, in the same way you can use and maintain a bridge for centuries. A nuclear plant is nothing else than a big Theseus ship. Just because the Russians tried to build a ship with TNT once (Chernobyl type of reactors) doesn't mean we make ships like this elsewhere.
And on the other hand, how many hundreds of billions are we already starting to pay because of climate change ?
With my modest knowledge, I can see only two ways to maintain complex economies in the future compatible with the laws of thermodynamics and electricity coming from Carnot cycle engines. Orbital solar, or nuclear. Probably both. And both are just rudimentary or indirect ways to capture… nuclear power.
Any kind of supplement will help. Sure. And I really hope I'm wrong (again, I'm just an honest citizen, not an expert. If this is your case too, go learn on those topics from people with credentials :D my answer is more of an opinion than a thesis)
But there's a reason we gradually dropped wind, biomass, and manual ways to produce energy, since the industrial revolution. Then tried to shift to all nuclear in the XXth century, before lobbies and fears stopped it.
There it is :
And again, I respect the German choice and values their optimism. It's bold and refreshing, Europe needs it. But I wonder when exactly will they stop to scratch the biggest coal mine in Europe to fuel their optimistic plan. And why not rely on nuclear until the long awaited renewable energies miracle happens, instead of coal ?
Thank you for reading. “Et que le meilleur gagne", as we say in French. Better to try several strategies instead of a single, monolithic one !
我可以为法国回答这个问题，很简单：独立性、协同作用、钱。
如果：你需要核武器。而且：你没有汽油或天然气，但在国内和你的"势力范围"内都有大量的铀矿。那么，全面使用核武器就是：
·不仅是可用的解决方案。
·而且也是最好的和（从长远来看）最便宜的解决方案。
·并可以发展相关项目（核潜艇、核航母、核导弹、核汽车、核牙刷......记住，这种战略选择始于60年代）。
今天，法国本土已经没有铀了，但世界上各种稳定的供应弥补了这一点。另外，回收：法国15%至25%的核燃料来自于回收的可燃物。你能用煤或天然气做到这一点吗？
德国做出了大胆的选择，采用没有核电的电力组合。我高度尊重这一选择，并希望它有一天会成功。但就目前而言，现实告诉我们，如果没有核电，或者没有天然气/煤来稳定它，你就无法运行一个电力组合。看看现在欧洲正在发生什么：北海没有风。天然气价格飞涨。这是生态问题吗？难道我们应该等待那些影子都没有的解决方案，如完美的电池或氢气出现，并在此期间像抽烟的人那样烧煤？
总而言之，即使包括核废料和切尔诺贝利+福岛，核能也是我们拥有的最有效、最安全、最清洁的能源。是的，清洁。死亡人数也少。需要多少稀土（非常污染）来生产更多创新的太阳能或风能？有多少污染和死亡是因为煤炭、石油、天然气，而需要它们来补充风能和太阳能？甚至不包括气候变化的后果和成本，即时的! 一句话：所有的外部因素都必须被考虑。
还有一件事：
"法国将投入数十亿资金用于核电站的退役"。我的回答很简单："如果"。我们可以完美地维护、升级和运行这些工厂，就像你可以使用和维护一座桥梁几个世纪一样。一个核电站只不过是一艘大的特修斯船。仅仅因为俄罗斯人曾经试图用TNT建造一艘船（切尔诺贝利类型的反应堆），并不意味着我们在其他地方制造的都是这样的船。
另一方面，由于气候变化，我们已经开始支付了多少千亿的费用？
以我有限的知识，我只能看到两种方法来维持未来复杂的经济，与来自卡诺循环发动机的热力学和电力定律相兼容。轨道太阳能，或核。大概两者兼而有之。两者都只是获取……核能的基本或间接方式。
任何形式的补充都会有帮助。当然，而且我真的希望我是错的（再次重申，我只是一个诚实的公民，不是专家。如果这也是你的情况，那就去向有资历的人学习这些课题吧: D 我的答案更像是一种观点，而不是一篇论文)
但是，自工业革命以来，我们逐渐放弃了风能、生物质能和人工生产能源的方式，这是有原因的。然后在二十世纪试图全面转向核电，但被游说和恐惧所阻止。
再说一遍，我尊重德国的选择，重视他们的乐观主义。它大胆而令人耳目一新，欧洲需要它。但我想知道他们究竟什么时候会停下来开采欧洲最大的煤矿来推动他们的乐观计划。在期待已久的可再生能源奇迹出现之前，为什么不依赖核能，而不是煤炭呢？
谢谢您的阅读。正如我们在法语中所说的 "等最好的到来"。最好是尝试几种策略，而不是单一的、铁板一块的策略。
, studied at University of Pau and Pays de l'Adour
I can answer for France, and that's quite simple. Independance. Synergies. Money.
If: you need nuclear weapons. And : you don't have petrol or gas, but have a lot of uranium both at home and in your “area of influence". Then going full nuclear is
not only the available solution,
but also the best and (in the long run) cheapest one,
and also participates in related projects (nuclear subs, nuclear carrier, nuclear missiles, nuclear cars, nuclear toothbrushes… remember, this strategic choice started in the 60’s)
Today, there's no more uranium in metropolitan France, but various and stable supplies worldwhile make up for it. Plus, recycling : between 15% and 25% of France nuclear combustible comes from recycled combustible. Can you do this with coal or gas ?
Germany made the bold choice of an electric mix without nuclear. I highly respect that choice, and hope it will work someday. But for the time being, reality teaches us that you can't operate an electric mix without either nuclear, either gas/coal to stabilize it. Look what is happening right now in Europe : no wind in the North sea. Gas price skyrocketing. Is it ecological ? Are we supposed to wait for elusive solutions like perfect batteries or hydrogen, and burn coal like chainsmokers in the meantime ?
All in all, even including nuclear waste AND Chernobyl + Fukushima, nuclear energy is the most efficient, safe, and clean energy we have. Yes, clean. Less deaths too. How many rare earth (very polluting) required to produce more innovating solar or wind energies ? How much pollution and deaths because of coal, oil, gas, which you NEED to supplement wind and solar ? Not even including climate change consequences and costs, here ! In a word : all the externalities have to be considered.
Another thing :
“France will put billions in decomissionning nuclear plants”. I'll make the laconic answer : “if”. We can perfectly maintain, upgrade, and run those plants, in the same way you can use and maintain a bridge for centuries. A nuclear plant is nothing else than a big Theseus ship. Just because the Russians tried to build a ship with TNT once (Chernobyl type of reactors) doesn't mean we make ships like this elsewhere.
And on the other hand, how many hundreds of billions are we already starting to pay because of climate change ?
With my modest knowledge, I can see only two ways to maintain complex economies in the future compatible with the laws of thermodynamics and electricity coming from Carnot cycle engines. Orbital solar, or nuclear. Probably both. And both are just rudimentary or indirect ways to capture… nuclear power.
Any kind of supplement will help. Sure. And I really hope I'm wrong (again, I'm just an honest citizen, not an expert. If this is your case too, go learn on those topics from people with credentials :D my answer is more of an opinion than a thesis)
But there's a reason we gradually dropped wind, biomass, and manual ways to produce energy, since the industrial revolution. Then tried to shift to all nuclear in the XXth century, before lobbies and fears stopped it.
There it is :
And again, I respect the German choice and values their optimism. It's bold and refreshing, Europe needs it. But I wonder when exactly will they stop to scratch the biggest coal mine in Europe to fuel their optimistic plan. And why not rely on nuclear until the long awaited renewable energies miracle happens, instead of coal ?
Thank you for reading. “Et que le meilleur gagne", as we say in French. Better to try several strategies instead of a single, monolithic one !
我可以为法国回答这个问题，很简单：独立性、协同作用、钱。
如果：你需要核武器。而且：你没有汽油或天然气，但在国内和你的"势力范围"内都有大量的铀矿。那么，全面使用核武器就是：
·不仅是可用的解决方案。
·而且也是最好的和（从长远来看）最便宜的解决方案。
·并可以发展相关项目（核潜艇、核航母、核导弹、核汽车、核牙刷......记住，这种战略选择始于60年代）。
今天，法国本土已经没有铀了，但世界上各种稳定的供应弥补了这一点。另外，回收：法国15%至25%的核燃料来自于回收的可燃物。你能用煤或天然气做到这一点吗？
德国做出了大胆的选择，采用没有核电的电力组合。我高度尊重这一选择，并希望它有一天会成功。但就目前而言，现实告诉我们，如果没有核电，或者没有天然气/煤来稳定它，你就无法运行一个电力组合。看看现在欧洲正在发生什么：北海没有风。天然气价格飞涨。这是生态问题吗？难道我们应该等待那些影子都没有的解决方案，如完美的电池或氢气出现，并在此期间像抽烟的人那样烧煤？
总而言之，即使包括核废料和切尔诺贝利+福岛，核能也是我们拥有的最有效、最安全、最清洁的能源。是的，清洁。死亡人数也少。需要多少稀土（非常污染）来生产更多创新的太阳能或风能？有多少污染和死亡是因为煤炭、石油、天然气，而需要它们来补充风能和太阳能？甚至不包括气候变化的后果和成本，即时的! 一句话：所有的外部因素都必须被考虑。
还有一件事：
"法国将投入数十亿资金用于核电站的退役"。我的回答很简单："如果"。我们可以完美地维护、升级和运行这些工厂，就像你可以使用和维护一座桥梁几个世纪一样。一个核电站只不过是一艘大的特修斯船。仅仅因为俄罗斯人曾经试图用TNT建造一艘船（切尔诺贝利类型的反应堆），并不意味着我们在其他地方制造的都是这样的船。
另一方面，由于气候变化，我们已经开始支付了多少千亿的费用？
以我有限的知识，我只能看到两种方法来维持未来复杂的经济，与来自卡诺循环发动机的热力学和电力定律相兼容。轨道太阳能，或核。大概两者兼而有之。两者都只是获取……核能的基本或间接方式。
任何形式的补充都会有帮助。当然，而且我真的希望我是错的（再次重申，我只是一个诚实的公民，不是专家。如果这也是你的情况，那就去向有资历的人学习这些课题吧: D 我的答案更像是一种观点，而不是一篇论文)
但是，自工业革命以来，我们逐渐放弃了风能、生物质能和人工生产能源的方式，这是有原因的。然后在二十世纪试图全面转向核电，但被游说和恐惧所阻止。
再说一遍，我尊重德国的选择，重视他们的乐观主义。它大胆而令人耳目一新，欧洲需要它。但我想知道他们究竟什么时候会停下来开采欧洲最大的煤矿来推动他们的乐观计划。在期待已久的可再生能源奇迹出现之前，为什么不依赖核能，而不是煤炭呢？
谢谢您的阅读。正如我们在法语中所说的 "等最好的到来"。最好是尝试几种策略，而不是单一的、铁板一块的策略。
很赞 0
收藏