3 ms·

> That's common sense. If something is both economically useful and necessary, it finances itself. You don't need subsidies at all, at most you need loans. Tha

by lispm 8y ago

> That's common sense. If something is both economically useful and necessary, it finances itself. You don't need subsidies at all, at most you need loans. That's an illusion, especially in the energy sector. It has been for decades. > France has the cheapest electricity in all of Europe. Because the costs are hidden and paid by the tax payer. The energy industry is mostly state owned and the price is political. That makes it not possible to charge the consumer with the real costs (like finding billions for the aging and expensive nuclear reactor fleet or for replacing them with newer reactors) - any president trying to do so would and does face mass protests. Additionally, the industry would be dead in a second if the government wouldn't finance the costs and hide it from the consumer. One can see how this works in the UK with EDF's reactor: "If Hinkley really comes on stream by 2025 as planned, it will sell electricity at a guaranteed price that is double the current market level, with the excess cost passed to every UK consumer" https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/an-energy-crisis-is-looming-but-ministers-are-distracted-by-brexit/ https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/01/an-energy-crisis-is-loom... That's the future of France... > The rest of the (developing) world isn't going to follow suit with that kind of pretentious nonsense. Actually quite a lot of countries are.

zeroname 8y ago
> That's an illusion, especially in the energy sector. It has been for decades. It's not an illusion, it's the basis of the economy. If something is known to be both useful and necessary, there is a profit to be made and capital will be allocated to it. That's the financial side. Of course for the energy sector there are lots of ideological, environmental and political concerns that need to be dealt with for things to actually happen. > Because the costs are hidden and paid by the tax payer. The energy industry is mostly state owned and the price is political. That makes it not possible to charge the consumer with the real costs (like finding billions for the aging and expensive nuclear reactor fleet or for replacing them with newer reactors) - any president trying to do so would and does face mass protests. Hard to ascertain. If it was really that unprofitable to produce nuclear energy compared to the (clean) alternatives, France could just build the alternatives. After all, the state foots the bill either way, unlike a private company that can just go bankrupt and not clean up their mess. > One can see how this works in the UK with EDF's reactor: > "If Hinkley really comes on stream by 2025 as planned, it will sell electricity at a guaranteed price that is double the current market level, with the excess cost passed to every UK consumer" Yes, but the "current market level" is lower because of fossils, not because of renewables, which also need heavy subsidy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we're just arguing about market price, then clearly coal is the winner. > Actually quite a lot of countries are. None of the countries that really matter (have a significant share in CO2 emmissions) are.
- lispm 8y ago
  > It's not an illusion, it's the basis of the economy. Maybe in a simple model of capitalism. > Of course for the energy sector there are lots of ideological, environmental and political concerns that need to be dealt with for things to actually happen. Example: no one invests in a nuclear power plant - unless the state insures the thing, finances (incl. all the costs that come from technological and construction problems) the thing all through from inception to research to design to construction to bringing it online AND (!!!!!) creates the economic conditions for profits to be made (like dictating prices, reducing competition, financing all costly technological and construction risks, providing cheap infrastructure, ...). -> Example: currently the UK. The energy sector it's very different from selling beans to consumers. > France could just build the alternatives But it hasn't. France has built nuclear for many reasons - for example France is a country with nuclear weapons and thus has an interest in nuclear technology. There is also an ideological trend to large state-driven/owned technologies. Now France is looking to expand its share of renewables - while at the same time trying to find hundreds of billions for their reactor fleet. > After all, the state foots the bill either way, unlike a private company that can just go bankrupt and not clean up their mess. That's not how it works in the energy landscape. Check out TEPCO. The Japanese state does not let it die. > None of the countries that really matter (have a significant share in CO2 emmissions) are. You are shifting the goal post all the time. If enough countries do it (for example in the EU), then it matters.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    > Maybe in a simple model of capitalism. You may call it capitalism, but even the birds and the bees "understand" the concept of investing now for future gains. > Example: no one invests in a nuclear power plant - unless the state insures the thing, finances (incl. all the costs that come from technological and construction problems) the thing all through... That's just not true, lots of private capital has financed reactors before. Note that I never claimed that nuclear reactors are economically sensible (especially counting in disasters), but that if they were they would finance themselves. Indeed, there's a lot of hard-to-calculate risk in a nuclear reactor, which is bad from an investment standpoint. > But it hasn't. France has built nuclear for many reasons - for example France is a country with nuclear weapons and thus has an interest in nuclear technology. So what? The U.S. has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet they barely do nuclear at all. > There is also an ideological trend to large state-driven/owned technologies. So why don't they build giant state owned wind turbines? > That's not how it works in the energy landscape. Check out TEPCO. The Japanese state does not let it die. Whatever they do, the company isn't going to (be able to) pay the bill, unless they're not in fact bankrupt. > You are shifting the goal post all the time. If enough countries do it (for example in the EU), then it matters. Not really. Which countries are you talking about? The EU makes up maybe 10% of CO2 emissions and a big part of that isn't related to electricity. Think of all the research you could fund with the money spent on that forced premature rollout of renewable energy in Germany. Think of all the money that still needs to be spent to make it work. Think of what you actually achieved in terms of CO2 goals, so far. It's an absolute embarrassment.

by lispm 8y ago

zeroname 8y ago

> That's an illusion, especially in the energy sector. It has been for decades. It's not an illusion, it's the basis of the economy. If something is known to be both useful and necessary, there is a profit to be made and capital will be allocated to it. That's the financial side. Of course for the energy sector there are lots of ideological, environmental and political concerns that need to be dealt with for things to actually happen. > Because the costs are hidden and paid by the tax payer. The energy industry is mostly state owned and the price is political. That makes it not possible to charge the consumer with the real costs (like finding billions for the aging and expensive nuclear reactor fleet or for replacing them with newer reactors) - any president trying to do so would and does face mass protests. Hard to ascertain. If it was really that unprofitable to produce nuclear energy compared to the (clean) alternatives, France could just build the alternatives. After all, the state foots the bill either way, unlike a private company that can just go bankrupt and not clean up their mess. > One can see how this works in the UK with EDF's reactor: > "If Hinkley really comes on stream by 2025 as planned, it will sell electricity at a guaranteed price that is double the current market level, with the excess cost passed to every UK consumer" Yes, but the "current market level" is lower because of fossils, not because of renewables, which also need heavy subsidy. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If we're just arguing about market price, then clearly coal is the winner. > Actually quite a lot of countries are. None of the countries that really matter (have a significant share in CO2 emmissions) are.

lispm 8y ago
> It's not an illusion, it's the basis of the economy. Maybe in a simple model of capitalism. > Of course for the energy sector there are lots of ideological, environmental and political concerns that need to be dealt with for things to actually happen. Example: no one invests in a nuclear power plant - unless the state insures the thing, finances (incl. all the costs that come from technological and construction problems) the thing all through from inception to research to design to construction to bringing it online AND (!!!!!) creates the economic conditions for profits to be made (like dictating prices, reducing competition, financing all costly technological and construction risks, providing cheap infrastructure, ...). -> Example: currently the UK. The energy sector it's very different from selling beans to consumers. > France could just build the alternatives But it hasn't. France has built nuclear for many reasons - for example France is a country with nuclear weapons and thus has an interest in nuclear technology. There is also an ideological trend to large state-driven/owned technologies. Now France is looking to expand its share of renewables - while at the same time trying to find hundreds of billions for their reactor fleet. > After all, the state foots the bill either way, unlike a private company that can just go bankrupt and not clean up their mess. That's not how it works in the energy landscape. Check out TEPCO. The Japanese state does not let it die. > None of the countries that really matter (have a significant share in CO2 emmissions) are. You are shifting the goal post all the time. If enough countries do it (for example in the EU), then it matters.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > Maybe in a simple model of capitalism. You may call it capitalism, but even the birds and the bees "understand" the concept of investing now for future gains. > Example: no one invests in a nuclear power plant - unless the state insures the thing, finances (incl. all the costs that come from technological and construction problems) the thing all through... That's just not true, lots of private capital has financed reactors before. Note that I never claimed that nuclear reactors are economically sensible (especially counting in disasters), but that if they were they would finance themselves. Indeed, there's a lot of hard-to-calculate risk in a nuclear reactor, which is bad from an investment standpoint. > But it hasn't. France has built nuclear for many reasons - for example France is a country with nuclear weapons and thus has an interest in nuclear technology. So what? The U.S. has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet they barely do nuclear at all. > There is also an ideological trend to large state-driven/owned technologies. So why don't they build giant state owned wind turbines? > That's not how it works in the energy landscape. Check out TEPCO. The Japanese state does not let it die. Whatever they do, the company isn't going to (be able to) pay the bill, unless they're not in fact bankrupt. > You are shifting the goal post all the time. If enough countries do it (for example in the EU), then it matters. Not really. Which countries are you talking about? The EU makes up maybe 10% of CO2 emissions and a big part of that isn't related to electricity. Think of all the research you could fund with the money spent on that forced premature rollout of renewable energy in Germany. Think of all the money that still needs to be spent to make it work. Think of what you actually achieved in terms of CO2 goals, so far. It's an absolute embarrassment.