I further note that while European countries don't have much of a history of major power outages due to insufficient reserve capacity, they do have one due to grid failures in single lines that don't have much bypass - for example in the last few years, the big Italian blackout, and the Danish/southern Sweden blackout. A less centralised grid and peer-to-peer negotiation would possibly have made those crises much less serious.
A further argument about secrecy and trust, from my differing statist-socialistic point of view, is that while I'd trust the democratic-controlled State more than private companies or individuals to provide/regulate infrastructure, the underlying assumption of democratic control is void when issues and facilities are kept away from public discourse by (necessarily) declaring them official secrets. A state-owned industry hiding security design flaws as military secrets is no better than an Enron-style company making fake power transfers from gas-fired plants for market manipulation. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
On the theme of reliability - while it is often argued in nuclear's favour that other countries import from France, this can be turned around: the "EDF model" is no more closed than the "Anglo-Saxon model" when applied either to the USA or the UK. The French nukes represent an overcapacity most of the time, which can be get rid off via Spain and Italy, while at other times, like summer drought, the home consumption is still ensured, which would have been a shortage in a closed system. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
What la Hague scandals? And don't give me Greenpeace or Sortir du Nucléaire sources, they are hardly credible. They cannot get over the fact that nuclear is genuinely popular in France and their resort to the worst kinds of stunts and spin and scaremongering with little regard to truth. The latest story about an airliner striking the EPR is especially irresponsible, as it contributes to the general state of fear which we otherwise criticise here so forcefully. They are responsible for enabling Sarkosy and consorts when they play with fears like this, especially when it's false.
Chernobyl fallout. Yes, that was stupid, especially as the underlying issue (the fallout) was trivial in France
Military connection? What do you have in mind?
EPR? What do you have in mind ?
I don't understand you last sentence. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I am troubled by this wholesale dismissal of sources. this kind of reminds me of the young US Marine interviewed on his way to Iraq... "Aren't you troubled to be going over there to fight a war that was based on lies?" said the reporter. "After all, we now know there were no WMD, and the Iraqis had nothing to do with 9/11." The young grunt shrugged dismissively: "That's just what the liberals say. I don't pay any attention to their bullshit." (wtte).
if we decide that everything Greenpeace or SdN publishes is de facto untrustworthy, then we eliminate what is often the first or only reportage of investigative journalism and/or citizen complaint. whom should we regard as trustworthy? official government bulletins? surely -- despite the relative excellence of the French bureaucracy and technocracy -- alert citizens should always keep an ear open to dissenting and oppositional voices. even the French are not governed by angels :-) The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
The latest story about an airliner striking the EPR is especially irresponsible
You mean releasing the nuclear industry's own evaluation on an airliner striking a planned but unnecessary new nuclear plant is irresponsible? Not making that confidential? You have a strange concept of responsible.
the underlying issue (the fallout) was trivial in France
As the scandal is that there weren't even measurements, that's a tall claim. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
facilities are kept away from public discourse by (necessarily) declaring them official secrets
But I meant the national security considerations. While you would discount the bogeyman terrorist, the military will not only concern itself with terrorism, but a military attack, too. A centralised electricity generation system will already make a strategic asset, something the military will see necessary to secure (or attack). Furthermore, nuclear plants aren't just bigger targets than the average fossil fuel power plant: while the latter can be up and running half-repaired after the replacement of some pipes and welding-work (see Iraq or Yugoslavia), for a nuclear plant, the perfect replacement of a hundred essential parts would be needed in the best case, and it would stay a radioactive ruin in the worst case. So until we don't abolish armies and wars altogether, nuclear power plants will stay a national security issue.
Regarding 2, that's an answer about ownership and half of regulation, but what about organisation, and how would public regulation be organised? *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
