4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- zeroname 8y ago
  > Mostly not. Doesn't matter. Your claim, as written, was wrong. > The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms. Again, I didn't say that it would. I said that anything that is economically sensible finances itself, pretty much by definition. I didn't say nuclear power is sensible and I didn't say that it finances itself. > What does it have do with France what the US does? If your explanation doesn't generalize to the US, then it is wrong. You might as well say France builds nuclear reactors because it is France. You only need a single reactor to build a nuclear arsenal, so having an interest in nuclear weapons is no explanation for why France (or any other country) would invest in building out lots of civil nuclear infrastructure. > They are not bankrupt while they get more government money. You are supporting my thesis. Go back and read it. It's about a private company, contrary to a state, being able to relieve itself of the bill. That's exactly what's happening here, whether Tepco is formally bankrupt or not. > There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ... Way to miss the point... > The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions. It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy. What's the point of switching electricity to renewables if not CO2 reduction? There's enough coal for hundreds of years. > Coal is next. Good Luck with that.

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.

zeroname 8y ago
> Mostly not. Doesn't matter. Your claim, as written, was wrong. > The reality shows the opposite. See the UK: nuclear power does not finance themselves by market mechanisms. Again, I didn't say that it would. I said that anything that is economically sensible finances itself, pretty much by definition. I didn't say nuclear power is sensible and I didn't say that it finances itself. > What does it have do with France what the US does? If your explanation doesn't generalize to the US, then it is wrong. You might as well say France builds nuclear reactors because it is France. You only need a single reactor to build a nuclear arsenal, so having an interest in nuclear weapons is no explanation for why France (or any other country) would invest in building out lots of civil nuclear infrastructure. > They are not bankrupt while they get more government money. You are supporting my thesis. Go back and read it. It's about a private company, contrary to a state, being able to relieve itself of the bill. That's exactly what's happening here, whether Tepco is formally bankrupt or not. > There is lots of money spend on research in Germany ... Way to miss the point... > The Energiewende is not about short-term CO2 reductions. It's a broad long-term project to switch the energy landscape to renewable energy. What's the point of switching electricity to renewables if not CO2 reduction? There's enough coal for hundreds of years. > Coal is next. Good Luck with that.