By Kennedy Maize — January 15, 2025
“Construction of the advanced ‘European Pressurized Reactor’ (EPR) at Flamanville began in 2007. It was projected to come into service in 2012 at a cost of $3.4 billion. The final cost, according to (Électricité de France) is about $13.7 billion.”
Last month (December 21), the 1,600-MW Flamanville nuclear power plant near Normandy (below) began delivering electricity to the French and European grid. It became the first new unit in France’s once-aggressive nuclear power program since 1996. The new reactor becomes the 57th in the French fleet.
EDF (Électricité de France) the French state-owned electric utility, was once seen as at the forefront of nuclear power, ahead in many ways of even the U.S., which has had its own troubles moving beyond its initial nuclear boom times. No more.
Construction of the advanced “European Pressurized Reactor” or EPR at Flamanville began in 2007. It was projected to come into service in 2012 at a cost of €3.3 billion (or about $3.4 billion). The final cost, according to EDF, is about €13.3 billion ($13.7 billion).
EDF’s Generation 111+ EPR, originally designed by French nuclear developer Areva, has meant a world of trouble for France and some of the other nations that have bought the machines. The first two reactors went to China, where Taishan 1 and Taishan 2 went into service in 2018 and 2019 respectively. While the Chinese are opaque about their nuclear program, the two EPR reactors suffered severe construction delays, taking almost twice the 46 months Areva projected. Taishan 1 was shut down between July 2021 and August 2022 for repairs.
EDF’s EPR experience in Europe, where information is more available and reputable, has been worse. Finland contracted for an EPR its existing nuclear site on Olkiluoto Island. Construction began in 2005 with operation planned for 2009, Olkiluoto 3 went into service in 2023 after multiple problems. The final cost came in at over €11 billion ($11.5 billion), much of that absorbed by Areva.
In Britain, EDF’s British subsidiary is building the two-unit, 3,200-MW Hinkley Point C EPR project. Hinkley Point has suffered similar woes to the other EPR projects. A year ago, EDF announced that the price tag for the two units would hit £41.6-£47.9 billion ($52.3 billion-$60.2 billion), with the first unit coming online in 2029-2031. That remains speculative.
Despite these problems, France is doubling down on nuclear, with a new, scaled-down 1,200-MW EPR design, know as EPR2. In 2022, President Emmanuel Macron announced an aggressive “renaissance” of French nuclear ambitions, starting with construction of six EPR2 units at its Penly site in northern France and another six to follow elsewhere. In July 2023, EDF filed an application with French nuclear regulators for approval of two EPR2 units at Penly.
Macron’s nuclear optimism has generated skepticism (and his government is on shaky grounds, not apparently related to his nuclear enthusiasm).
Veteran French wind energy financier and commentator Jérôme Guillet, who publishes an eponymous Substack newsletter Jérôme à Paris, has doubts about the future of the nukes. He wrote before Dec. 21 that
this is the last gasp of nuclear – maybe some people hope to see Flamanville being finally connected to the grid in France, and multiple PR stunts by Microsoft, Amazon et al. (which are just announcements of developments, i.e. highly conditional commitments to purchase electricity) as the start of a renaissance for the sector, but it’s more like a last gasp – in fact 2024 is most likely the year where wind+solar overtook nuclear in the USA, as well as coal.
Flamanville, he writes, “is likely one of the last nuclear plants to be built in Europe. Hinckley Point may be completed at some point in the future in the UK, but even in France the next ones are in doubt, with decisions on future investments postponed. “By the time any new nuclear plant in the West gets built, the transformation of our power systems towards renewables dominance will be over.”
Jerome is also dismissive of the specter of furious growth in electric demand, which is fueling much of the nuclear boosterism. “Despite all the breathless announcements about AI and data centers,” he observes, “overall demand is mostly stable in the US (increasing by 2% in 2024 after decreasing by the same in 2023), and shrinking fast in Europe.” He concludes:
Some are blaming European deindustrialization (and collective suicide caused by crazy green policies and/or naivety about Russia, (even if these are two contradictory and inconsistent arguments) but the trend predates the war in Ukraine. The reality is that we are continuously improving industrial processes while moving towards services, and a service economy is less energy intensive than a more primitive one. Even in emerging markets energy intensity is going down fast.
————
This was originally posted at The Quad Report, the blog site of electricity expert Kennedy Maize.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Whatever nuclears problems, and the EDF design in particular are, there is not the slightest chance that wind and solar can replace any other type of generation to power any nation.
Got to agree with that.
Many of EDF exploitation problems with flame and nuke thermal plants are caused by variations of “renewables”!
The “problème de CSC (corrosion sous contrainte) des RIS (circuit d’injection de sécurité)” was actually caused by temperature variations but they tried to hide that!
Who tells that ‘wind and solar can replace any other type of generation’ ? They contribute to the sum.
The numbers contain 0 % of the electricity produced by private and industrial sites.
Sources
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromerzeugung_in_Deutschland
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/de/presse-und-medien/presseinformationen/2025/oeffentliche-stromerzeugung-2024-deutscher-strommix-so-sauber-wie-nie.html
If electricity demand stays stable, the EV revolution will have failed.
You are assuming the revolution is meant to allow us all our present freedom of movement, without the CO₂.
“You are assuming” I did not read MCourtney’s statement to involve freedom of movement. I thought he was making the point: IF there will be EVs THEN there most be increased electricity demand.
Wrong way round. The BEV revolution will fail – inter alia – because supply and grid capacity won’t grow/can’t grow by rate and scale sufficient to meet demand.
In fact as is evident, supply is reducing.
Veteran French wind energy financier
I rest my case M’Lord.
Le Pétomane
+100
Next we’ll be hearing what Dale Vince thinks about nuclear.
Why can’t we hear what is thought about Dale Vince, the socialism-for-millionaires grifter?
France is in a right old ‘two and eight’ (state)
The UK has so many problems with the Town and Country planning system – guaranteed to take many years to get through – and no infrastructure project has ever come in on time and under budget. That’s the British disease. Late, expensive and often unfit for purpose.
“A viable business’: Rolls-Royce banking on success of small modular reactors
https://www.pressreader.com/australia/the-guardian-australia/20250116/281535116644300
There’s always a government problem, however…
[Stephen Lovegrove] expressed his frustration at another year’s delay in a UK government competition that has pushed Rolls-Royce’s earliest date for a new reactor to 2032 or 2033
No rush, then.
Don’t worry.
The head of National Grid, John Pettigrew, has already estimated that to meet Government energy targets by 2030 we need to build 5 times as many pylons and underground cables than we have built in the last 30 years.
Then the Government announces a grandiose scheme for ” AI Growth Zones” and sets up an AI Energy Council co chaired by mad Ed Minibrain to secure electricity for the scheme.
What could possibly go wrong ?
“No way”, I thought. “That’s just Dave being satirical.”
But no, it is for real: https://www.current-news.co.uk/energy-secretary-to-co-chair-artificial-intelligence-energy-council/
Guess…
Rolls-Royce banking on subsidies for small modular reactors.
That’s better. Small modular reactors have been around since the 1960s – in naval vessels. If they were a viable contributor to power a national grid, they would have been in use long since.
Nuclear reactors are designed for continuous, near capacity output. They cannot drop in and out of supply frequently to back up intermittent wind and solar.
Wind and solar have only ever been supplemental power suppliers.
And there are inescapable reasons for that.
If only the reasons for building and deploying them were inescapable as well!
There is no reason in wind and solar, only emotions like envy, hate and greed!
Nuclear fission power has been available for a long time without becoming the leader – due to power plant disaster and weapons proliferation danger.
Solar power has been available for a long time without becoming the leader – due to intermittence.
Wind power has been available for a long time without becoming the leader – due to intermittence.
Hydro power has been available for a long time without becoming the leader – due to availability of new sites.
I look at all the options, and if CO2 is not a problem then the main question about hydrocarbons is “how much can we dig up?” If CO2 is a problem then the main question about hydrocarbons is “how much should we dig up?”
There aint that much left to dig up.
Which is why we need nuclear.
Ther has on;ly been one power plant disaster. Cgernobyl. And it killed less people than the coal industry dies every 6 months
Weapons proliferation is bollocks as an excuse.
Nuclear has been held back because it works too well.
How many plants are in Iran? Last time I checked, zero, and they have electric production issues.
There is zero proliferation opportunity for most nuke design.
As in, a country trying that would waste resource and lose a lot of time before making a bomb.
Also, no one ever tried it.
That was kinda my point.
The severe limitations Western countries put on nuclear plants means there are fewer of them in both “safe” places and “unsafe” places. Who knows what Iran’s nuclear status would be if outside parties were promoting instead of limiting.
“Two and eight” is a Cockney rhyming slang term that refers to a state of worry or upset. For example, “My missus got herself into a right two and eight over it!”.”
“a service economy is less energy intensive than a more primitive one”
Primitive?
Star trek ‘villages’… Spock got it wrong?
‘The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one’
‘Round about the time ol’ Spock was spewing this collectivist nonsense, my economics textbook (Samuelson) was insisting that it was only a matter of time before the USSR’s GDP surpassed ours (US). No wonder we’re in a jam.
Collectivist nonsense?
Democracy (including our Constitutional Republic) and Capitalism are successful based on the needs of the many.
“Wants” not “needs”. The animals of the forest and birds and bees and sycamore trees meet their needs without “democracy” (a mythical beast) or capitalism.
Wants require and economy, needs don’t.
I like that — nature doesn’t have democracy. I’m totally stealing that.
Of course it does. Its a matter of claws and teeth
But who gets to decide what a need is vs. a want?
Those that want it more.
Sophistry.
Our Constitutional Republic is based on assuring each individual citizen has the same rights and opportunities as every other citizen. It is most assuredly not based “on the needs of the many” as you put it. The “needs of the many” are met by any of a number of economic systems. In the US, Canada, Australia, most of Europe and several other countries it’s regulated capitalism; regulated to assure that one citizen such as Bill Gates doesn’t and can’t own everything and the rights and opportunities of each citizen are preserved. Elsewhere dictatorships or oligarchies of various forms including Communism (as it exists, not as Marx envisioned) try to provide such needs but work poorly, and in some instances such as Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, hardly work at all. You can gain an understanding of the basis for our Republic by reading The Federalist Papers.
China’s Communism has worked very well for them.
Notwithstanding what many of us were spoon fed in our public schools, there are big differences between Locke’s ideals of inalienable individual rights, protected by limited governments, and Rousseau’s vision of rights emanating from the ‘general will’ embodied by an all-powerful State.
Our Constitutional Republic and capitalism has its roots in the former. Conversely, every manifestation of State violence, as well as ‘Spock’s collective nonsense’, has it’s roots in the latter.
Thanks. I wanted to write the same.
It is important to understand where ideas came from because most “new” ideas can be found in history at about the time people started recording their ideas. Spock’s script writer may have understood who he was impersonating.
To Spock’s “axiom”, I submit another: The fate of the one is shared by all.
Deem one life expendable, deem all lives expendable, including your own. You may be safe among “the many” today, but one day you will not be.
A voluntarily sacrifice to help others is heroic. To coerce someone else to make that sacrifice is villainous.
Just FYI:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mochovce_Nuclear_Power_Plant
On the 26th of August 2022, the Slovak Nuclear Regulatory Authority (ÚJD) gives the final authorisation for the commissioning of Unit 3.[11] The operator (Slovenské elektráne) commenced fuel loading operations on 9 September 2022. [12] The first reactor criticality was reached on 22 October 2022.[13] The third reactor was operational as of October 2023.[14]
Unit has 440MW output.
Price was 6.3 billion Euro.
I think this is latest working nuclear plant in Europe.
Although construction time 1987-2023 looks scary, it was put to ice for very long time.
There are currently 5 nuclear reactors in service, producing 2308MW, what is 60% of country electricity consumption. Another 22% made by hydro with producing capacity of 4300MW.
What else does one expect … from a wind energy advocate ? The problem is not the technology,
where important improvements have been developed regarding efficiency, safety and cost.
The main issues are politics with an extremely high regulatory environment mainly contrived to
artificially inflate the costs of building (and decommissioning) nuclear facilities. The other aspect is the decades long fear mongering that has taken place against nuclear power, which also led to the birth of environmentalist green parties, with their mantra: “In case of an accident, the place will be contaminated and unlivable for hundreds of thousands of years”. Facts: after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings, both cities were reconstructed within a decade. Tchnernobyl: more people died from the panic evacuation of hospitals, than from radiation. Fukushima: only a few deaths happened due to the facility. Most deaths were due to the tsunami.
What an idiot. But he’s a “wind financer,” as pointed out below, so I repeat.
Wind and solar are capable of “replacing” NOTHING, and a “transition” to a “service economy” is nothing more than code for “all the shit we need is made in China now.”
Where, of course, MORE “EMISSIONS” will be involved in producing it (and transporting it to the ultimate “consumers”).
Oh, and of course all that China manufacturing WILL INCLUDE the useless crap he “finances.”
60 years ago things were made in Japan.
Then China became the big supplier.
Things they are a changin’
Vietnam, Bangladesh, etc. are found are more labels.
Taiwan had run for while there too.
That is probably not that bad, wind costs around $2M USD per mega watt installed. So for 1600MW you are looking at $3.2 Billion USD. It is unclear whether the wind cost is nameplate MW or actual MW it’s just a number the industry throws around. So it could be a lot worse. It’s one of those cases you would need to see proper costings on a wind farm of that scale but whatever technology you choose it aint cheap.
Got me wondering so I looked up cost of a wind farm completed in 2024
https://www.csenergy.com.au/news/cs-energy-acquires-lotus-creek-wind-farm
$1.2 Billion for 285MW nameplate
So that is $7.2 Billion for 1600 MW nameplate
Assuming 60% output normal for a wind farm that is $12 Bil for 1600 MW actual
Kids these days don’t have enough experience with flying kites.
Question: does “per mega watt installed” have the full cost accounting, full life cycle costs, full infrastructure costs, including a proper and comprehensive reliability assessment factored in?
Of course not. Nor the grid connections, maintenance, storage, capacity factor, or backup
Phew. Thought perhaps my failing eyesight missed something. Thanks.
Precisely! I’ve yet to see a properly constructed LCC analysis.
Then there’s the fact that these wind farms have an expected life of perhaps 20 years, whereas a modern nuclear plant can last 50 years, so you can take your $12bn, multiply it by 2.5 for a cool $30bn over a 50-year span.
And all that’s before you factor in the costs for backup when the wind isn’t blowing, plus the vast infrastructure costs needed to move the electricity from where it’s generated, to where it’s needed.
Near me — Wild Horse wind facility — went on-line in 2006. It seems as operational today as it was 19 years ago. It is well maintenanced and that may not be true in some places.
I’ve seen the 20-year estimate many times and wonder if it didn’t originate with the early generators. These were smaller and the technology less developed. Altamont Pass Wind in CA was early, large, and troublesome.
And also Idle Eric, the vast machinery needed to assure the proper voltage and frequency of the power provided, lest the machinery using it fails.
Then factor in you will likely have to replace the wind farm in 20 years whereas if you built a coal or nuclear plant you possibly have up to 60 years before you need a replacement.
Your 60% is way high by a factor of 2. You have to multiply nameplate by 3 because windmills on produce about 1/3rd of their nameplate as output. Then you have to add in the cost of storage or natural gas back-up. The real cost will be 2 or 3 times the number you propose.
Wind farm average capacity factor is in the 30% range. I doubt any wind farms, anywhere, have 60%.
No. That’s the theoretical efficiency, nit te capacity factor.
“Assuming 60% output normal for a wind farm”
Ummmm.. NO !!
Wind farms max out at about 30-40% capacity, and combined can be as low as 15%
Here is data from Germany for 2015/16 for example…, showing an overall capacity factor of about 20%
I was just using optimistic “wind activist” numbers the reality is always far worse things like maintenance they always leave out.
The point is even with all the problems they had building the reactors the final cost is really not that bad unlike what the writer of the article infers. Had the reactors come in at budgeted cost they would have been an absolute bargain.
To achieve a comparative analysis, one needs to do life cycle cost analysis based on the longest resource life cycle. So, there’s likely 3 life cycles of wind vs 1 of nuclear … and, the cost of standby (natural and (planned and restorative) maintenance) needs to be configured in. A simple production cost doesn’t reflect the true economic cost.
According to Betz’s Law, no wind turbine of any mechanism can capture more than 16/27 (59.3%) of the kinetic energy in wind.
Story tip: Follow the automobile industry example
“Heat pumps may never be cheaper than gas boilers, Ed Miliband has said.
The Energy Secretary made the comments as Labour snuck a boiler tax through Parliament with minimal scrutiny on Wednesday, despite warnings the move will push up prices.
Under the scheme, which will come into force in April, boiler manufacturers will be fined if they fail to sell enough heat pumps”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/01/15/labour-boiler-tax-heat-pump-price/
Sucking up to Chynah
It’s a highly unusual move to override security concerns to approve what will be the biggest Chinese embassy in Europe, covering over 20,000 square metres—dwarfing the current embassy by a factor of 24.
https://order-order.com/2025/01/16/labour-override-security-concerns-to-force-through-chinese-mega-embassy/
re: “Under the scheme, which will come into force in April, boiler manufacturers will be fined if they fail to sell enough heat pumps””
Advice: ‘Pad the numbers‘.
The fine for that is sure to be cheaper, and it will take the ‘authorities’ a few years to catch on AT WHICH TIME the whole tax thing may be moot anyway …
PS. I am not an accountant, nor a lawyer; this is not legal advice nor is it necessarily sound business policy, but it may damn well save your company financially given silly circumstances in ‘climate law’ and the nitwits in charge of it.
I wonder if they’ve defined what a “heat pump” is closely enough.
What if I install a tiny little heat pump, that perhaps blows warmish air directly into one room, does that then allow me to have a full sized boiler to do the rest of the house and hot water as well?
‘The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime’
Sir Edward Grey 3 August 1914
Just a note, the picture at the top of the article of a nuclear plant with at least 4 cooling towers is not Flamanville. It sits on the Normandy coast of the English Channel and does not have cooling towers. It’s cooling water source is obviously the Channel. It does appear the picture in the body of the article is accurate.
so production is primitive. with that type of mindset, how can you lose?
re: “By the time any new nuclear plant in the West gets built, the transformation of our power systems towards renewables dominance will be over.”
Neither will be the preferred choice … but no one respectable will discuss, well, I’ll leave it at that.
re: “By the time any new nuclear plant in the West gets built, the transformation of our power systems towards renewables dominance will be over.”
Indeed. Renewables will be but a distant memory.
Remember no one needs an expert opinion to assert what is demonstrably true. They need them to prop up a false narrative.
“a service economy is less energy intensive than a more primitive one”
Primitive?
WTF!
The size of these numbers is eye opening. This is a reminder that common sense says to build gas fired capacity until nuclear can be fully dissected. “Dissected” meaning capacity, design, construction methods, environmental and safety regulations justified.
given that Europe is deindustrializing I am noit suprised that they don’t expect electricity use to grow much … but renewables can’t ever power their current needs … look for horses and horse drawn carts to make a comeback … especially in the countryside …
Why do we continue to commit suicide by not using nuclear power.?
Decades of scaremongering by environmentalists, unchallenged by a pliant media, and largely accepted by the masses when cheap and abundant gas generation was available.
It’s only now, when we’re starting to see what the true cost of renewables is, that people are starting to wake up.
Because TPTB make more money out of renewables and dont give a fuck about us.
We were partnered with AREVA at Newport News Shipbuilding to build EPR components at the shipyard. Deal fell apart after Fukushima. Given the subsequent performance of the product, a nice escape for what was then Northrop Grumman.
Nuclear is only viable with public subsidy one way or another either by the taxpayer funding the construction bill – à la France – or the consumer doing so via their electricity bills.
UK Hinkley Point C has a Government guaranteed inflation linked consumer price of £128 per MWh for its 35 years expected life. (Originally estimated at £24 per MWh in 2015.)
Nuclear enthusiasts are just as bad as the unreliables enthusiasts, only considering direct consumption costs and entirely ignoring capital costs to be amortised over a limited period, return on investment (aka profit) and repair and maintenance costs. Fact: you cannot run a Green business on red numbers.
Transition from fossil fuel economy to fairy-land is only viable if both physics and economics are ignored.
Even the most moronic government in Europe KNOWS that nuclear and fossil fuels are the path to the 22nd century. Their rhetoric may be different, but they know.
“a service economy is less energy intensive than a more primitive one”
A service economy creates no wealth, it merely shuffles around the wealth created by someone else. Only three activities actually create wealth; mining, agriculture (which is essentially mining minerals by other means), and manufacturing. You know, primitive stuff.
Forestry is really important heavy industry. Toilet paper is one the greatest invention of man. All the primary heavy industries (e.g., smelters and steel mills) are creators of great wealth.
Apparently, Jerome Guillet is engaging in wishful thinking. There are new nuclear plants being planned in the UK, France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Romania, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, and probably others. Besides the major players in the nuclear industry, there are a dozen or so companies with SMR and micro reactor designs that will be built and validated over the next 5-7 years. SMRs will not only be safer and easier and cheaper to build, but I expect that the approval processes for such reactors will be dramatically streamlined.
Rather, I think offshore wind will die a slow painful death.
Nuclear plants too expensive?
In France, the turnkey cost of the 1,600 MW Flamanville plant was $13.7 billion, or $8,563/installed MW
Plants built by Russia, China and South Korea are about $5,000/installed MW
Expensive nuclear plant building is strictly a “rules-based” Western thing.
.
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
.
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 2400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2400 MW are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back and reprocess spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Russia is the only country with nuclear powered ice breakers.
The biggest ones steadily go through 7 METERS of ice.
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
.
Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear does not need counteracting plants. They can be designed as load-following, as some are in France
I really think that the one to watch is the new modular pebble bed reactor in China.
Now providing grid commercial electricity.
Mass-produced modular is perfect for China, and I expect we will see a strong build-up of this design, especially as they built the fuel processing plant to handle a lot more than needed for the trial reactor.
Russia is the only country with nuclear powered ice breakers.
The biggest ones steadily go through 7 METERS of ice.
iirc, It can actually heat the hull and melt its way through the ice if necessary…
“Veteran French wind energy financier and commentator Jérôme Guillet, who publishes an eponymous Substack newsletter Jérôme à Paris, has doubts about the future of the nukes. He wrote before Dec. 21 that
What he means is this is the last gasp of renewables.