4 ms·

> No, France has extremely subsidized electricity for consumers, but the economy pays the real price. According to [1], not only are there significant taxes on

> No, France has extremely subsidized electricity for consumers, but the economy pays the real price. According to [1], not only are there significant taxes on electricity for households, but non-household prices are far lower, so I don't see where you got this information. > France regularly needs to import electricity to cover peak demand despite being one of the world’s top exporters of electricity. Again, this is how the grid works. European countries both import and export electricity to even out demand and production. This is more efficient than building out extra capacity that isn't needed most of the time. > It also meeds to regularly operate nuclear power plants at below 100% output because the market price often can’t support operations let alone capital costs. Like coal or gas plants, nuclear plants can be regulated to meet demand. This is a good thing, because demand varies seasonally. A low or even negative market price means production is too high relative to demand. Basic economics. This is actually a far bigger issue with wind energy, which cannot be regulated in the same way. You end up with negative prices more often, as shown in the article that I linked to you. > This means if other countries had adopted Nuclear then France would have needed even more subsidies. In a theoretical world with increasing Nuclear production globally, it’s costs just keep rising because demand is not a steady state. Yes, demand is not in a steady steady, but that's a far bigger issue with wind and solar energy, where unsteady demand meets unsteady output. That would require far more buffering than steady nuclear power. [1] https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Electricity_price_statistics https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...

Retric 7y ago
> Significant taxes on electricity. They tax all electricity while subsidizing Nuclear generation. Much like how the US has both farm subsidies and sales taxes on food. This is arguably due to non domestic production. EDF‘s finances are also wacky with huge debt both on and off the books, plus a very odd insurance situation. >Yes, demand is not in a steady steady, but that's a far bigger issue with wind and solar energy, where unsteady demand meets unsteady output. That would require far more buffering than steady nuclear power. Not so fast. Nuclear needs both daily storage and unused capacity seasonally, just like wind and solar. The issue with nuclear is it also costs vastly more per kWh and due to long build times you need over provision pushing that kWh figure up more. On top of that they still need maintain them so you need to over provision even more again increasing kWh costs. And you still need storage to hit 100%. The France model is to actually use a lot of non Nuclear power. The numbers look much better until you consider what customers are actually using vs just the raw production numbers for the country vs total demand. Something like (450 * .75 -61) / (450 - 61 + 21) so consumption is ~67% Nuclear which is not bad, but a long way from 100%. And this is also with regularly reducing output which again increases prices.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > They tax all electricity while subsidizing Nuclear generation. That's different from subsidizing electricity for consumers to make it more affordable. Like many industries, nuclear gets some amount of subsidies, but so do renewables. That doesn't mean subsidies are the reason why electricity is so much cheaper in France. In Germany, wind energy is heavily subsidized - and it is paid for with higher consumer prices. > Nuclear needs both daily storage and unused capacity seasonally, just like wind and solar. Yes, but orders of magnitude less. You keep nitpicking nuclear while completely ignoring the fact that wind and solar fails miserably on these metrics. > The issue with nuclear is it also costs vastly more per kWh and due to long build times you need over provision pushing that kWh figure up more. Of course nuclear isn't the cheapest form of electricity generation, neither is wind or solar. However, as of today it's the only one that can sustain a grid for almost any country without simultaneously relying on massive amounts of fossil fuels or extremely expensive buffering infrastructure. If that wasn't the case, everyone would be doing wind and solar everywhere. If wind and solar was so clearly superior, it wouldn't need any subsidies at all. The path to a green future would be clear. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
  - Retric 7y ago
    > That's different from subsidizing electricity for consumers No, the only question is the relative subsidies vs taxes, and the revenue from taxes are significantly less than the subsidies. These taxes go right back to the industry and the government adds more to the pot, resulting in a net subsidy. (US telecom’s got some similar taxes passed.) > orders of magnitude less Nuclear ends up needing more storage because wind and solar can be crafted to roughly follow load. Yes, peak usage does not exactly match solar, but it’s vastly better than nuclear which produces 1/2 it’s output at night when demand goes way down. Sure, you can buy more nuclear capacity, but buying more wind / solar capacity also reduces the need for storage. The other option is to vastly over build nuclear capacity which sit’s idle 99% of the year. That’s ridiculously expensive per kWh. > Of course nuclear isn't the cheapest form of electricity generation, neither is wind or solar New wind, solar, and hydro are the three cheapest electricity sources. Read up on some of those solar power purchase agreements, it’s hitting under 3c/kWh without subsidies. Solar is not a great fit near the poles, but you can cheaply transport it 1,000+ miles north.

Retric 7y ago

> Significant taxes on electricity. They tax all electricity while subsidizing Nuclear generation. Much like how the US has both farm subsidies and sales taxes on food. This is arguably due to non domestic production. EDF‘s finances are also wacky with huge debt both on and off the books, plus a very odd insurance situation. >Yes, demand is not in a steady steady, but that's a far bigger issue with wind and solar energy, where unsteady demand meets unsteady output. That would require far more buffering than steady nuclear power. Not so fast. Nuclear needs both daily storage and unused capacity seasonally, just like wind and solar. The issue with nuclear is it also costs vastly more per kWh and due to long build times you need over provision pushing that kWh figure up more. On top of that they still need maintain them so you need to over provision even more again increasing kWh costs. And you still need storage to hit 100%. The France model is to actually use a lot of non Nuclear power. The numbers look much better until you consider what customers are actually using vs just the raw production numbers for the country vs total demand. Something like (450 * .75 -61) / (450 - 61 + 21) so consumption is ~67% Nuclear which is not bad, but a long way from 100%. And this is also with regularly reducing output which again increases prices.

gridlockd 7y ago
> They tax all electricity while subsidizing Nuclear generation. That's different from subsidizing electricity for consumers to make it more affordable. Like many industries, nuclear gets some amount of subsidies, but so do renewables. That doesn't mean subsidies are the reason why electricity is so much cheaper in France. In Germany, wind energy is heavily subsidized - and it is paid for with higher consumer prices. > Nuclear needs both daily storage and unused capacity seasonally, just like wind and solar. Yes, but orders of magnitude less. You keep nitpicking nuclear while completely ignoring the fact that wind and solar fails miserably on these metrics. > The issue with nuclear is it also costs vastly more per kWh and due to long build times you need over provision pushing that kWh figure up more. Of course nuclear isn't the cheapest form of electricity generation, neither is wind or solar. However, as of today it's the only one that can sustain a grid for almost any country without simultaneously relying on massive amounts of fossil fuels or extremely expensive buffering infrastructure. If that wasn't the case, everyone would be doing wind and solar everywhere. If wind and solar was so clearly superior, it wouldn't need any subsidies at all. The path to a green future would be clear. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.
- Retric 7y ago
  > That's different from subsidizing electricity for consumers No, the only question is the relative subsidies vs taxes, and the revenue from taxes are significantly less than the subsidies. These taxes go right back to the industry and the government adds more to the pot, resulting in a net subsidy. (US telecom’s got some similar taxes passed.) > orders of magnitude less Nuclear ends up needing more storage because wind and solar can be crafted to roughly follow load. Yes, peak usage does not exactly match solar, but it’s vastly better than nuclear which produces 1/2 it’s output at night when demand goes way down. Sure, you can buy more nuclear capacity, but buying more wind / solar capacity also reduces the need for storage. The other option is to vastly over build nuclear capacity which sit’s idle 99% of the year. That’s ridiculously expensive per kWh. > Of course nuclear isn't the cheapest form of electricity generation, neither is wind or solar New wind, solar, and hydro are the three cheapest electricity sources. Read up on some of those solar power purchase agreements, it’s hitting under 3c/kWh without subsidies. Solar is not a great fit near the poles, but you can cheaply transport it 1,000+ miles north.