European Tribune

Display:
To me it seems there are several reasons they build it. The most important, at least a couple of years ago, should be export reasons. Foreigners will be much more happy to buy EPR units if they see the French build them themselves.
But Areva isn't 'the French'. Unless you are telling me that a nuclear industry cannot be truly independent from a state intervention, which i doubt. There is no reason why it would bring more trust to potential Areva consumers when EDF orders reactors than when Finland does.

As for your second argument, I guess you mean that EDF needs the new EPR to either honor its long term contracts with other Europeans countries in the face of rising domestic demand, or to be able to sign new ones in the future. In both cases, these are not the arguments EDF put forward.

For the geographical location, the place where it would make more sense to build a plant is Bretagne, where the average distance from consumer to plant is 300km, as opposed to 80km in the rest of France. But that would mean picking a new site for the plant, basically starting a national debate: EDF would be unable to hide behind weak 'we promote french technology and knowhow' arguments.

So EDF builds plants in France with tacit government approval, exports the energy produced... at which point do we talk about energy policy again?

Rien n'est gratuit en ce bas monde. Tout s'expie, le bien comme le mal, se paie tot ou tard. Le bien c'est beaucoup plus cher, forcement. Celine

by UnEstranAvecVueSurMer (holopherne ahem gmail) on Mon Mar 5th, 2007 at 07:26:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Nuke plants are such big industrial projects that there will always be politics involved, especially as energy is not just any commodity.

Consider the Swedish JAS 39 Gripen multirole fighter. Would we have managed to sell a single plane if we hadn't:

1. Bought lots ourselves

and

2. Had our government tell everyone they met what a great plane it is and that they should buy it.

Nope, not a single plane. It's not a coincidence South Africa chose Gripen when they needed a new fighter, considering the strenous Swedish opposition to apartheid.

If EdF doesn't claim they build the plant to generate and sell power, what do they claim? Maybe they want experience to now if they are going to use the EPR as the future standard reactor, instead of for example AP1000?

I can't see why new sites are needed, after all, the Manche sites are good, close to the UK, and it's always cheaper and easier (local opposition etc) to expand a current plant then to build a completely new one.

And building plants and exporting the power seems like a great energy policy to me.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Tue Mar 6th, 2007 at 09:13:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series