3 ms·

> 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 b

> 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.
  - lispm 8y ago
    > That's just not true, lots of private capital has financed reactors before. Mostly not. For example France's reactors were 100% state financed and state owned. Incl. the electricity distribution and the building company (Areva). In Germany the whole nuclear industry was state directed and the power plants were belonging to a few companies - with electricity companies being 'forced' by the government to invest in nuclear electricity production. The whole research around nuclear technology (fuel production, reactor technology, storage, ...) was state financed. The electricity companies were given huge distribution areas where they had a monopoly without any competition. Politicians were given well-paid jobs in the industry. > economically sensible (especially counting in disasters), but that if they were they would finance themselves The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms. The financing is set up by the government and there is no market. To build them is a political decision and the UK government sets the market accordingly. Well, it tries to. > So what? The U.S. has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet they barely do nuclear at all. What does it have do with France what the US does? > unless they're not in fact bankrupt They are not bankrupt while they get more government money. > Think of all the research you could fund with the money spent on that forced premature rollout of renewable energy in Germany. There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ... nut now much more on renewable energy. The research was already instrumental to bring PV prices down and make the technology applicable on a large scale. The impact of that was far beyond Germany. > Think of all the money that still needs to be spent to make it work. Well invested. >Think of what you actually achieved in terms of CO2 goals, so far. It's an absolute embarrassment. It's not. The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions. It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy - starting with electricity, starting with getting rid of nuclear power. Coal is next. It has a five decade horizon.

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.
- lispm 8y ago
  > That's just not true, lots of private capital has financed reactors before. Mostly not. For example France's reactors were 100% state financed and state owned. Incl. the electricity distribution and the building company (Areva). In Germany the whole nuclear industry was state directed and the power plants were belonging to a few companies - with electricity companies being 'forced' by the government to invest in nuclear electricity production. The whole research around nuclear technology (fuel production, reactor technology, storage, ...) was state financed. The electricity companies were given huge distribution areas where they had a monopoly without any competition. Politicians were given well-paid jobs in the industry. > economically sensible (especially counting in disasters), but that if they were they would finance themselves The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms. The financing is set up by the government and there is no market. To build them is a political decision and the UK government sets the market accordingly. Well, it tries to. > So what? The U.S. has the one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world, yet they barely do nuclear at all. What does it have do with France what the US does? > unless they're not in fact bankrupt They are not bankrupt while they get more government money. > Think of all the research you could fund with the money spent on that forced premature rollout of renewable energy in Germany. There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ... nut now much more on renewable energy. The research was already instrumental to bring PV prices down and make the technology applicable on a large scale. The impact of that was far beyond Germany. > Think of all the money that still needs to be spent to make it work. Well invested. >Think of what you actually achieved in terms of CO2 goals, so far. It's an absolute embarrassment. It's not. The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions. It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy - starting with electricity, starting with getting rid of nuclear power. Coal is next. It has a five decade horizon.